While the aam junta is awaiting a congressional decision regarding the bailout of Wall Street crooks (The begger, Mr. Paulson is estimated to have assets worth $700 million; maybe he should donate all of it and ask 999 other friends of his to do the same- he just needs to ask Mr. Bush for the list of his cronies including Cheyney and others who have made indecent amounts of money in Iraq), the two presidential candidates got their boxing gloves on to "debate" in public. While the tone was primarily cordial, it was clear to see the vision of either men. Both were happily playing "Taffy Man", stretching and contorting comments made by each other to suit their purposes.

In my opinion, McCain is clinging too much to a 20th century model of "American imperialism" while Obama is willing to embrace an "integrative", networking model of the US in the 21st century. I guess that pretty much sums up the basic difference in treatment of most issues.

Coincidentally, I was in an 8th grade class discussing patriotism yesterday in the context of the American Revolution. It was interesting to see the views of American 8th graders match with much of what McCain spoke of on honor and duty to one's country. When I shared the idea of dual citizenship, they could not comprehend that such an idea could exist!

Obama, having lived in a poorer Indonesia, has a very different world view. This basic difference cannot be changed. Being a Prisoner of War in Vietnam is a very different life experience of being in a "foreign" land accepting their local cultures and foods as your own.

The American public's vote will decide just how mature they are with regards to democracy. If the majority thinks in imperialistic terms (which is very highly possible), then McCain wins. If they have just a tad bit of humility and know that they are just one country in some 190+ nations on this third rock from the sun, then just maybe, Obama might win.

Knowing my neighbors and the overall "patriotic" rhetoric of the aam junta, much of the imperialistic arrogance lingers on in the age groups over 30. Sarah Palin is a prime example of that "hockey mom syndrome". If Obama succeeds in recruiting more of the 18 plus age group, then, with his "liberal" supporters from the older age group, he may just swing the vote in his favor.

We certainly live in interesting times when an entire nation's ability to make decisions, hopefully intelligent ones at that, gets to be played out as a Reality Show on television. That must have been the only reason for McCain's acquiescence to do the debate after refusing the previous day, "owing to the economy"!

India's Docmitasha, who is not a fan of Gov. Palin, says :

I laughed so hard in the second one! I love Tina Fey. Too good.
…Palin is enough of a parody. Please, lets not let this joke continue. Like Tina Fey says, she’d like to stop playing her November 5th.

Majaz at The Black Mirror, who is blogging from Pakistan, is no stranger to SNL or Tina Fey:

Like millions, I've been a fan of SNL for a very long time. But this is something that makes me just accept it out loud.

Tina Fey is my hero.

Jessica from Australia praised Fey's impersonation and added words of her own:

Can you really parody something that's already a joke? Well, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler tried their darndest to parody the Katie Couric interview of Sarah Palin on last night's SNL, and they didn't need to stray particularly far from the original source material to create some cringeworthy laughs.

From Canada, John left his readers a comment after watching the sketch:

There are rumours coming through the internet tubes that McCain may try to replace Palin. If he choses Tina Fey, I don’t think anyone would notice.

Maria from Granada, reacted to the clip and left friendly advice for Tina Fey:

I have a huge girlcrush on Tina Fey, so I usually can’t be objective about her, it’s all gold to me. But when I watch her playing Palin, I’m endlessly preoccupied with the question: Is Tina wearing extra hair?

Tina, next time mess up your bangs like Sarah does for big interviews. Also, work on your deer-in-headlights face. Then you’ll be “perfection”.

Ham-the-geek updated his earlier post on the first sketch, commenting that the new one wasn't as funny as he thought of the first one:

I just found out that Tina Fey reprised her role as Sarah Palin in another intro skit just last night. I don't think it was as funny as the first one but judge for yourselves.

Hello Sluggo's blogger, in addition to giving his approval to Fey's performance, turned his attention to something else entirely as it shows in his post:

I was watching Tina Fey’s spot-on Sarah Palin impression from last night’s Saturday Night Live when it occured to me, “Is everyone else as curious about the scar on Tina Fey’s face as I am?” So I simply entered her name as a Google search and let the query suggestion feature answer the question for me.

Beyond the scar issue, there was one thing that really stuck out—66,800 searches for tina fey wikipedia

If you have more time, then this bloggingheads on a liberal v libertarian foreign policy is a must-watch. Both Heather Hurlburt and Chris Preble are very smart people with interesting and nuanced opinions on foreign policy. Seriously, its a great discussion and you won’t regret it.

The debate starts at 2 am but if anyone is interested i may try and setup a liveblog from either midnight or 1 if anyone is interested. No point doing this if no one is around but if you do want to drop by for a chat (hopefully at least 3 people) then let me know in the comments.

It’s a discussion about politics in Japan, where people have seen the election of four Prime Ministers in the past two years, but the article calls “remarkably well-governed” because the professionalism of the so-called professional class, the bureaucrats who actually run the country.

Satyemva Jayate's analysis:

Might such a thing ever happen in India? I doubt it…

What would people say about the United States? Have the regulators, these so-called professional bureaucrats who work above the political fray handled the economy better than the political class?

We will soon find out. In the news, Congressional leaders claim they have finished work on the Wall Street Bailout Bill, an estimated $700 billion outlay intended to put an end to two weeks of turbulence in the United State’s financial and credit sectors. The House of Representatives, where a potential rebellion of conservative Republicans may stall the proposal’s passage, is due to vote Monday, Sept. 29. The Senate is scheduled to vote on the plan shortly thereafter.

In a country where political acronyms have become an artform, the 106-page bill creates another: TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, interpreted by the Washington Post as:

“empower[ing] the [Treasury] secretary to buy “toxic” assets from financial institutions with taxpayer money. By removing such assets from the balance sheets of crippled companies, the bill's architects hope to reduce pressures on the credit market, thereby making it easier for Americans to get mortgages and other types of loans.”

The Post story quotes Republican Senator Judd Gregg that once the plan jump starts the American economy, U.S. taxpayers will make money from the measure.

Ian Welsh from Fire Dog Lake in Australia has a great explainer on the components of the bill. Short take: 90 percent of the suck you were expecting.

A skeleton version of the long take:

- The $700 billion will be staggered, giving U.S. Treasury Secretary $350 upfront, another $350 released in January.

- No change in bankruptcy laws: “Yes, banks will be helped not to go bankrupt, but if you go bankrupt judges won't be able to allow you to keep your house.”
- “Treasury to help people avoid foreclosures if it owns their mortgages.”
- “Treasury has the authority to issue insurance.”
- “If it doesn't pay back in 5 years, Treasury to levy fees on the financial industry to get the money back.”

Here’s his explainer:

…[W]hile this plan is an improvement on the original Paulson plan, which is saying, well, almost nothing. It's still a plan that, at the end of the day, won't work. That doesn't mean we won't see some short term benefits. Throw 700 billion bucks at the economy and the financial sector and it will do something. That's still a ton of money. But it won't fix the problem permanently, it will only patch it for a time and even during that time, things will continue to get worse. (For example, expect this to cause oil inflation.)
It's a bad plan that won't fix the economy or the financial sector. So we'll be revisiting this issue in 6 to 9 months or so when it becomes clear that the problem hasn't been solved, and that not solving it is costing a hell of a lot of money which could have been used to actually fix things.

With Congressional leaders — and presidential candidates — in both parties at least mildly supporting the bill, the odds are in favor of the bailout passing. Let's be snarky for a second and imagine what happens if it doesn’t pass. Here’s an interesting explainer intended to counter the do-nothing rhetoric (let the cake-eaters eat cake?) coming from certain corners. But Katz, a commenter on the Australian blog Larvatus Prodeo is having none of that argument. Warning: upcoming War on Terror analogy.

Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have proven the efficacy of suicide bombing.

“Give us what we want or we’ll take all of you with us.”

Memo to suicide bombers everywhere: you need bigger bombs.

So, where, exactly, is this bailout money going to come from? Darryl Mason writing in Your New Reality in Australia claims the buyers of American debt will be the very institutions who already own the country: The governments of Japan and China.

The message is clear. BushCo. will secure China's holdings of American debt, by staking the financial future, and health and education, of American children as collateral. Or China will drop the hammer. In case BushCo. didn't get the message, queen takes knight :

…The Federal Reserve and the Treasury do not really need to ride to the rescue of its debt-savaged financial institutions if only they really believed in their own shattered mantras of “Free Market Forever” and “Let The Market Decide.” China, the Saudis, the Russians are all eager to snap up some huge chunks of America at bargain basement prices. In a truly globalised, free market world, all these financial institutions should be up for sale to the highest bidder (with a few restrictions).

But they won't be doing that. So instead its a betrayal by BushCo. of almost everything principle claimed to stand for, and preached, and it's America Fleeced.

From Kuwait, Kill That Damn Patient, has a second option: buy up toxic debt through legalizing marijuana. Before you spill your bong water, wait. It makes medical sense — the author works in hospital — and legal marijuana will certainly help patients by creating mass markets for less expensive, natural pain relief. The economic benefits are obvious:

…[Y]ou see weed is (for the time being and for a long time coming) considered an illegal substance which may be harmful and because it’s an illegal substance law enforcers have to find the people who trade in it and erm …. arrest them.

Hiring people to do this costs money …. about $34,433,700,162 (this figure is the amount of money spent on the war on drugs, not weed specifically) a fair portion (about 7.7 billion annually) of which could have been put to better use.

Legalizing weed would also bring in an estimated 6.2 billion in tax revenue (raking in a grand total of 13.9 billion); it would also mean that organised crime would loose a fair chunk of their cash-flow (and for that matter so would big tobacco).

At the border with Afghanistan actually. There is an under-current of simmering tension between the United States and Pakistan, and this firing incident between the forces may be a grave portent for what may happen in the future as well.

What actually happened ? It depends on whom you believe, but there were 2 US helicopters near the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan (over it and in Pakistan, if you believe the Pakistani side). Pakistani troops shot at the helicopters (shot at them with flares in order to tell them that they were over the border, as per Asif Zardari, the President of Pakistan). These helicopters were actually covering a troop of US and Afghanistani forces that were patrolling the border, and these troops then fired at the Pakistani side in retaliation, who then fired back. It was supposedly over in 5 minutes, but you can be sure that the repercussions of this incident will not be over in 5 minutes:

Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari lashed out at the United States after their troops traded gunfire sparked by claims Pakistan forces shot at two US helicopters for alleged violation of airspace on the border with Afghanistan. "Just as we will not let Pakistani's territory to be used by terrorists for attacks against our people and our neighbors, we cannot allow our territory and our sovereignty to be violated by our friends," he said without citing the United States or the border flareup. "Unilateral actions of great powers should not inflame the passion of allies," he further said, cautioning that any cross border raids could be counterproductive.

But a State Department spokesman earlier said Washington wanted an explanation from Pakistan, commenting that "the Taliban are not flying helicopters." "We have been in touch with the Pakistanis about this and we certainly want to have an explanation," the spokesman said.

A US official told AFP recently that Washington was frustrated with "delays and sometimes non-answers" from Islamabad regarding "actionable intelligence" on militant movements in the tribal areas in Pakistan along the border with Afghanistan, where Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants were believed to be hiding.

It started late last year when reports started coming in of problems in the category of non-collateral high-risk loans known as sub-prime. And these loans were in turn converted by financial magic into a range of investment instruments (explaining at more this level of detail will make this a highly technical discussion!) that were traded by a variety of financial institutions including banks and investment firms. When these sub-prime loans started collapsing, the sheer extent of these loans the subsequent losses caused huge losses for those holding these instruments.

Once people sensed that these investment firms were in danger, further credit to them was slow in coming, people started withdrawing their investments, and then the credit rating agencies started declaring them as various shades of high-risk, junk status. Once this happened, for all practical purposes, these institutions were finished, with the actual spiral of destruction collapsing very fast. And, now with the Administration and Federal Bank of the USA very worried, they have taken steps to prevent some of the more huge ones:

Federal regulators converted Wall Street's remaining stand-alone investment banks - Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley - into bank holding companies Sunday night. The move allows Goldman and Morgan to scoop up retail banks and to streamline their borrowing from the Federal Reserve. But it also puts Goldman and Morgan under the Fed's supervision, increasing the agency's regulatory oversight and possibly forcing them to raise additional capital. As banks, Morgan and Goldman will be forced to take less risk, which will mean fewer profits.

And it brings to a close the era of the Wall Street investment bank, a storied institution that traded stocks and bonds, advised mergers and showered lavish bonuses on its executives. In the past eight days, the federal government announced a $700 billion plan to rescue the financial sector by buying up troubled mortgage assets and an $85 billion emergency loan to insurance titan American International Group. Also, Lehman filed for bankruptcy and Bank of America took over Merrill Lynch.

So, even though both these huge huge firms were not in immediate financial danger, they were sensing that they were in grave danger of running afoul of sentiment. In a scenario where investment banks were automatically assumed to be in danger, neither of these firms would have wanted to be the next company picked up for speculation; once in the target of negative public sentiment, even a profitable investment bank could quickly reach the edge of collapse.

This action goes against the normal distance that the US Government would like to maintain from the private market, but politicians of all shades have realized the extreme danger to the economy, and are willing to run with this. Making these investment firms as companies that will act like normal banks will give far more stability.

I think that Murray is one of those rare thinkers who put forward these opinions because he was genuinely searching for the truth. For instance Obama argues against welfare reform which Murray also propagated, but which according to a lot of serious people has played a big role in getting black people in the inner cities out of poverty. The fact it hasn’t been accompanied with health care reform is another matter.

Also in Murray’s favour is the fact that he was one of the few right-wing thinkers/pundits who saw the brilliance# in Obama’s post Rev. Wright speech on Race.

My review of John McWhorter’s book, ‘Losing the Race’ is also relevant. Anyways, the speech is after the jump.

NPR
October 28, 1994
SHOW: All Things Considered (NPR 4:30 pm ET)

Charles Murray’s Political Expediency Denounced
BYLINE: BARACK OBAMA
SECTION: News; Domestic
LENGTH: 635 words

HIGHLIGHT: Commentator Barack Obama finds that Charles Murray, author of the controversial “The Bell Curve,” demonstrates not scientific expertise but spurious political motivation in his conclusions about race and IQ.

BARACK OBAMA, Commentator: Charles Murray is inviting American down a dangerous path.

NOAH ADAMS, Host: Civil rights lawyer, Barack Obama.

Mr. OBAMA: The idea that inferior genes account for the problems of the poor in general, and blacks in particular, isn’t new, of course. Racial supremacists have been using IQ tests to support their theories since the turn of the century. The arguments against such dubious science aren’t new either. Scientists have repeatedly told us that genes don’t vary much from one race to another, and psychologists have pointed out the role that language and other cultural barriers can play in depressing minority test scores, and no one disputes that children whose mothers smoke crack when they’re pregnant are going to have developmental problems.

Now, it shouldn’t take a genius to figure out that with early intervention such problems can be prevented. But Mr. Murray isn’t interested in prevention. He’s interested in pushing a very particular policy agenda, specifically, the elimination of affirmative action and welfare programs aimed at the poor. With one finger out to the political wind, Mr. Murray has apparently decided that white America is ready for a return to good old-fashioned racism so long as it’s artfully packaged and can admit for exceptions like Colin Powell. It’s easy to see the basis for Mr. Murray’s calculations. After watching their income stagnate or decline over the past decade, the majority of Americans are in an ugly mood and deeply resent any advantages, realor perceived, that minorities may enjoy.

I happen to think Mr. Murray’s wrong, not just in his estimation of black people, but in his estimation of the broader American public. But I do think Mr. Murray’s right about the growing distance between the races. The violence and despair of the inner city are real. So’s the problem of street crime. The longer we allow these problems to fester, the easier it becomes for white America to see all blacks as menacing and for black America to see all whites as racist. To close that gap, we’re going to have to do more than denounce Mr. Murray’s book. We’re going to have to take concrete and deliberate action. For blacks, that means taking greater responsibility for the state of our own communities. Too many of us use white racism as an excuse for self-defeating behavior. Too many of our young people think education is a white thing and that the values of hard work and discipline andself-respect are somehow outdated.

That being said, it’s time for all of us, and now I’m talking about the larger American community, to acknowledge that we’ve never even come close to providing equal opportunity to the majority of black children. Real opportunity would mean quality prenatal care for all women and well-funded and innovative public schools for all children. Real opportunity would mean a job at a living wage for everyone who was willing to work, jobs that can return some structure and dignity to people’s lives and give inner-city children something more than a basketball rim to shoot for. In the short run, such ladders of opportunity are going to cost more, not less, than either welfare or affirmative action. But, in the long run, our investment should payoff handsomely. That we fail to make this investment is just plain stupid. It’s not the result of an intellectual deficit. It’s theresult of a moral deficit.

ADAMS: Barack Obama is a civil rights lawyer and writer. He lives in Chicago.

But the Times/CBS News poll suggested that Ms. Palin’s selection has, to date, helped Mr. McCain only among Republican base voters; there was no evidence of significantly increased support for him among women in general. White women were evenly divided between Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama; before the conventions, Mr. McCain led Mr. Obama among white women, 44 percent to 37 percent.

By contrast, at this point in the 2004 campaign, President Bush was leading Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic challenger, by 56 percent to 37 percent among white women.

The poll also notes that: “The percentage of Americans who disapprove of the way Mr. Bush is conducting his job, 68 percent, was as high as it has been for any sitting president in the history of New York Times polling.” - hah! But apparently, opposing Bush’s policies is anti-American prejudice.

What up, RNC!
(cheers)
You white motherfuckers!
(laughter)
This conference so white, Helen Mirren tried to snort it!

(laughter)
Y’all the whitest white people in the history of white people. Even Barbara Bush sitting here right now going: ‘These are some white motherfuckers.’
(laughter)
You’re so white, your vice presidential nominee got the word ‘pale’ in her name!
(laughter, applause)

Look at this place. I can’t believe this shit! Y’all couldn’t find one single brother?
(shouting)
There is? Where?
(shouting)
Yo, what up, brother! Looks like you the only chocolate chip in the cookie.
(laughter)
You look like a fly in a glass of milk, yo. Swim! Swim for your life!
(laughter)

Alaska in the house!
(Cheers)
Where the baby daddy at? Where he at?
(crowd noise)
You knocked her up, man? That’s cool. That’s cool.
(silence)
You know that word ‘abstinence’—you know that mean ‘no fucking,’ right?
(laughter)
I guess they didn’t make that clear at the seminar.

(laughter)
‘So I just use this abstinence, that mean we can fuck all we want, right?’ No!
(laughter)
But you know I feel you, man. I do. Because the fact is, you live in motherfucking Alaska! What else is there to do but fuck?
(laughter)
Just fuck! That’s all there is to do! Just fuck!
(laughter)

That’s all Alaska is. Just a bunch of crazy white people fucking!
(sustained laughter and applause)
And you know he got to marry that girl, too. Because … her momma done shot a moose.

(laughter)
She shot a motherfucking moose! Put its head up on the wall and everything. That’s cold, man. That’s like Al Qaeda shit. Post that shit on the Internet as a warning to other moose.
(laughter)

’Cause when a girl’s momma shoot a moose, that’s, like, a red flag for me. I take that shit into consideration. I do! It’s like, ‘Yeah, you fine. No doubt. You real fine. And you got a great personality. And you drunk. But … ain’t your momma the one done shot a moose? I’ll be seeing you later on.’ I practice abstinence with moose-shooting-momma-having bitches.
(laughter)

But it’s time to bring out the white man you’ve all been waiting for. This man is so white, he makes y’all look Mexican.
(laughter)
He spent five long years locked up in a POW camp, and returned a national hero.
(applause)
And fucked every white woman in America.
(sustained applause)
’Cause five years—that makes you horny. And women, they looove to fuck war heroes. Basically, if you were white and female in 1973, you were fucked by John McCain.

(“USA! USA! USA!”)
And then he married a fine rich white girl whose daddy owned a beer company.
(laughter, applause)

And he wants to be president? Sheeet, you already got money, beer and pussy! What the fuck you want with the presidency? Quit while you’re ahead! You’re 72 years old—just drink, fuck, and play golf, you dumb white motherfucker!
(raucous laughter, applause)

Ladies and gentlemen, the next President of the United States of America, John McCain!

4) Close as the polls seem to show, some pollsters are now acknowledging they might not have taken into account the huge shift of voter identification from Republican to Democrat, which they themselves say might have made results appear closer than they are.

5) Close as the polls seem, pollsters don’t call cell phones. And those who most-use cell phones only are young people, who overwhelmingly are supporters of Obama over McCain.
…
6) We don’t elect by national vote. Among various state polls, Sen. Obama is ahead by around 30 Electoral votes. Though both he and Sen. McCain are short of the majority needed, Barack Obama has a polling lead in Electoral votes of over 15 percent.

7) Contrary to the Washington Post writing that we’re in the “final stretch” of the campaign, we’re actually at the very beginning. Both nominees were only settled a mere week ago. There are still four, major debates. In 1976, Jimmy Carter had a 33-point lead after the Democratic convention; he ended up winning by two points.

I think his most important point is that the people who are running Barack Obama’s campaign are smart people. There’s no denying that. The biggest danger for Obama now is that he reacts rashly to McCain and Palin goading him, and makes a gaffe that shifts public opinion against him strongly.

That isn’t to say the Republican team aren’t trying their best. They’ve started putting out ads now that blatantly lie (such the accusation that Obama has sent 30 people to Alaska to dig dirt on Palin), and they’ve been doing their best to make the election about rubbish like ‘lipstickgate’.

But it does raise one point though. The American media is so thoroughly cowed by the right-wing smear machine that when they raise a silly controversy, then the media covers it because everyone else is. But when there are serious questions to be asked about Palin’s own lies (she keeps saying she cut costs in Alaska, when the opposite is true) they are nowhere to be found.

The Republicans have become mightily good at playing elections on their own terms. They smeared Hillary Clinton with sexist remarks when she was running, and then started playing the victim card even when there’s been no sexism from the Obama campaign against Palin. How? How do they manage to drive the agenda?

Obviously, the media helps. Then there’s the complete lack of any principles - one minute they’re questioning Clinton’s capabilities, next thing you know Sarah Palin is the most competent person on foreign policy because her state borders Russia. Great logic there. Could this be the problem with lefties? Far too many principles to care so ruthlessly about winning an election that you’d put out bare-faced lies?