Go read Drifty. I’m still laughing!
Edie Brickell and the New Bohemians:
I was driving with my best friend and mentioned how much I loved this song when I was a kid. She said, “Do you think it had anything to do with your taste in men?”
“You mean, seeking out distant and emotionally unavailable men? Not a thing! Bitch,” I said.
Just watch. You’ll love it, I promise:
Of using the nuclear option. And this time, he’s really considering the vague possibility of someday maybe doing something about filibuster reform!
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is increasingly focused on the month of July as the time to exercise the so-called “nuclear option” and revisit filibuster reform, and he has privately told top advisers that he’s all but certain to take action if the Senate GOP blocks three upcoming key nominations, a senior Senate Democratic aide familiar with his thinking tells me.
Sen. Warren doesn’t seem real happy about this:
A week after a bipartisan group of lawmakers on the House Financial Services Committee overwhelmingly approved a rollback of certain financial reforms contained in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, one of the Senate’s biggest consumer advocates is pushing back.
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) came out swinging against the repeal of new rules meant to regulate derivatives, the complex financial instruments that were at “the center of the storm” that caused the financial crisis. The rulesshouldn’t be weakened or repealed just because big banks want to see them eliminated, Warren argued Thursday, The Hill reports:
“The big banks won some battles and lost some battles during the financial regulatory debate in 2009 and 2010, but their tune never changed and their lobbying never let up,” she said. “It is dangerous for Congress to amend the derivatives provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act without at the same time taking accompanying steps to strengthen reform and maintain the law’s equilibrium.”
One rule the package of legislation advanced by the House committee would eliminate is a “push out” provision that would limit derivatives trading at banks that receive federal backing. Similar to the Volcker Rule, another provision Wall Street largely opposes, it is aimed at making taxpayer-backed banks safer to avoid crises similar to the one that thrust the United States into a recession and led to a bailout of major banks in 2008.
Obviously a problem when you have an assembly line pushing people into the criminal “justice” (and of course I use the term ironically) system and they all need jobs:
PHILADELPHIA (CBS) — The City of Philadelphia shut down a career fair for ex-offenders today after an unexpected crowd of thousands showed up, résumés in hand.
There were lots of disppointed job seekers and potential employers this morning.
The city was expecting about 1,000 people to show up, but about three times that number were standing in a line that wrapped around the Municipal Services Building, across from City Hall.
And when someone jumped the line, order collapsed.
There was no yelling, no shoving — just 3,000 people all trying to get into the job fair at once.
Everett Gillison, the deputy mayor for public safety, says the space designated for the event could not handle the crowd, so they closed it down shortly after it began.
Ah, poor Michael. His ability to blow smoke out his ass is nowhere near as amusing as it used to be, and people who used to tolerate him are no longer as patient as they used to be:
The best part of this sort of language about government spending — or, more accurately, about the government issuing bonds — is that it makes being working- and middle-class sound so much fun. Did you know it’s been a party, these last few decades? And Paul Krugman, irresponsibly, wants everyone to continue partying. What is wrong with that? It’s here that Kinsley reveals himself to be a member of the Scarborough school, the sorts of longtime Important Beltway Men who are simply pretty sure that austerity is superior to all alternatives because the government’s been making it too easy and comfortable for the rabble over the last generation or so. And as we all know after a party you have to starve yourself to death to atone.
I don’t think suffering is good, but I do believe that we have to pay a price for past sins, and the longer we put it off, the higher the price will be.
I dunno, maybe an editor should’ve looked at that? It basically says “I don’t believe suffering is good but I do believe we deserve to suffer.” The editor should’ve also added a note explaining that Michael Kinsley turned into Joe Scarborough on his way back to his home planet.
The “we need our medicine” line always — literally always — actually means you need your medicine.
It is hugely embarrassing on a number of levels that this is the last line of Kinsley’s column: “They at least are talking about the spinach, while the Krugmanites are only talking about dessert.” First of all, spinach is actually pretty good if it’s prepared well. Maybe instead of “spinach” the metaphor for austerity should be “poison.” “We need to eat our poison to make up for how much cake we had before” is the austerian argument, more accurately put.
Continue Reading →