We’re not lovers you and I
I can’t think of reasons why
I should want you like that
I’m stranded by my passion
The whole idea fits us
like a suit gone out of fashion
As I said goodbye and drove away
things I’d like to hear you say
Rolled across my mind like clouds
in an unexpected flurry
I stumbled on a minefield
where desire was still buried
I don’t want to fall in love – with the idea of
I don’t want to fall in love – with love
Sentimental circumstance disguised
as fate with wild romance
Fools me into thinking you’re the water
for my thirst
Not knowing what you’re feeling for me
only makes it worse
I don’t want to fall in love with the idea of
I don’t want to fall in love with love.
Sam Phillips live:
I’m so glad we managed to knock Hillary Clinton out of the primaries so that we wouldn’t have to worry about DLC “third way” policies and Clintonian triangulation! Whew!
Sheesh. You’d think that reporter would have asked ONE astrologer before spreading that completely misleading story all over the place.
Look: There’s an astronomer’s zodiac, and there’s an astrologer’s zodiac. They’re not the same thing. Every few years, some asshole astronomer sends out a press release trying to cause a big flap: “Look, there’s a 13th sign! That’ll show those stupid astrologers, because we are SCIENTISTS!!”
Even though, you know, they don’t know a damned thing about how astrologers actually work.
So go on about your lives. You’re still whatever sign you always were.
Felix Salmon makes an excellent point. Now are the officials of the Obama administration ready to call the bluff of the GOP extremists, who insist on Social Security cuts in exchange for raising the ceiling?
Or is their desire to cut America’s most popular social program too strong to pass it up?
Greg Ip makes a very important point today, which I haven’t seen made anywhere else: even if the US debt ceiling isn’t lifted, that doesn’t mean the government will default.
In any given month, the government’s income dwarfs its debt-service obligations, which means that the government could simply pay all interest on Treasury bonds out of its cashflow. Greg hasn’t run the numbers on principal maturities, but I’m pretty sure that they too could be covered out of cash receipts—and when that happened, of course, the total debt outstanding would go down, and we wouldn’t be bumping up against the ceiling any more.
The point here is that the government has enormous expenditures every month, and debt service constitutes an important yet small part of them. If the debt ceiling weren’t raised, it stands to reason that just about any other form of government spending would get cut before Tim Geithner dreamed of defaulting on risk-free bonds.
Some of those spending cuts could be implemented almost invisibly. For instance, Social Security runs a surplus for the time being; it invests that money in special non-marketable Treasury securities, which count as Treasury debt. If the Social Security trust fund accepted instead just some kind of promise of a top-up at a later date, that could save billions of dollars right there.
Beyond that, large defense contractors aren’t going to stop working for the government just because they’re late in being paid; neither are doctors, hospitals or most of the rest of the healthcare industry.
But maybe the smartest thing for Geithner to do would simply be to stop paying the salaries of members of Congress and their staffs. It probably wouldn’t take long, in that event, for Congress to vote Obama the debt-ceiling raise he needs.
The bigger picture here is that the US government, like any other company or individual, has enormous freedom when it comes to which creditors it chooses to pay when. Just like GM had every right to privilege some creditors over others, even when those creditors were legally pari passu, the US government can do exactly the same thing. And there’s no way that this administration, or any other that I can think of, would choose to cut debt service given that they have every choice in the matter.
First of all, this isn’t my idea. It’s my oldest son’s, and he told me about it a few years ago when he was trying to figure out a way he could make money. (Did I mention the kid is a genius? If you use this idea, you owe him.)
He said it made more sense to sidestep the entire gun control controversy and instead pass state laws that require anyone who owns a gun to carry insurance. If they have risk factors (like teenagers in the house), their rates go up. If one of their kids sneaks a gun out of the house and gets caught, or uses it to commit a crime, the insurance gets canceled for some meaningful period of time — say, 10 years.
And if someone steals your gun and you don’t report it in a 24-hour window of you finding out, your insurance is suspended.
If you have a rifle and it’s only used for hunting, low rates. If you have a Glock and you carry it in an open-carry town or state, your rates will be very high — because odds are so much higher that innocent bystanders may get caught in a shootout.
Homeowners could be required to carry gun insurance as long as they’re still paying on a mortgage, because a gun accident or misuse could result in a large legal judgment against the house.
Oh yeah, and you have to buy coverage for each gun you own.
I think it has real possibilities. What do you think?
(h/t Jason Kalafat.)
Via Raw Story, this unappetizing news that the Patriot Act is likely to be renewed for yet another year:
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) has introduced a little-noticed bill that intends to once again renew controversial provisions of the Bush administration’s USA Patriot Act that are due to expire this year.
When the act was first signed into law, Congress put in some “sunset” provisions to quiet the concerns of civil libertarians, but they were ignored by successive extensions. Unfortunately, those concerns proved to be well founded, and a 2008 Justice Department report confirmed that the FBI regularly abused their ability to obtain personal records of Americans without a warrant.
The only real sign of strong opposition to the act was in 2005, when a Democratic threat to filibuster its first renewal was overcome by Senate Republicans.
Since the bill introduced by Rogers on Jan. 5 was virtually identical to the extension passed last year, its passage was seen as likely.
“Given the very limited number of days Congress has in session before the current deadline, and the fact that the bill’s Republican sponsor is only seeking another year, I think it’s safe to read this as signaling an agreement across the aisle to put the issue off yet again,” the conservative-leaning Cato Institute’s Julian Sanchez wrote.
“In the absence of a major scandal, though, it’s hard to see why we should expect the incentives facing legislators to be vastly different a year from now,” he added. “I’d love to be proven wrong, but I suspect this is how reining in the growth of the surveillance state becomes an item perpetually on next year’s agenda.”
As senator, Obama promised to support reforming the Patriot Act, but voted in favor of extending it in 2005 and 2008. Similarly, he signed last year’s extension into law with little fanfare. FBI and Department of Justice officials had consistently argued that restricting their blanket authority to conduct warrantless searches would harm national security.
Candidate Obama said in 2007 that if he were elected president there would be “no more National Security Letters [NSL's] to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime” because “that is not who we are, and it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists.”
Much like Obama’s vow to close the Guantanamo Bay military prison, the use of NSL’s has also continued. Most recently, Obama’s Department of Justice sent an NSL to micro-blogging site Twitter, seeking information on all 635,561 users who followed secrets outlet WikiLeaks — a list that included Raw Story.
Obama’s campaign website insisted that he has consistently said he would support a Patriot Act extension that strengthens civil liberties.
Action on his campaign pledge had yet to emerge by the start of 2011, and no significant reforms were reflected in the newly Rep. Rogers’ extension.
Former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), perhaps the Senate’s strongest opponent of the Patriot Act, was defeated by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) in the 2010 mid-term elections.
It’s still rare enough that we want to point it out:
What’s this? News from an airport that doesn’t make you want to vomit blood in outrage? Finally. A man stuck in airport security gridlock could say goodbye to his dead grandson when his flight’s pilot refused to depart without him.
The man, whose grandson had been murdered only days earlier, arrived two hours early for his domestic flight. Thanks to the complete indifference of the security staff he encountered, he was given no assistance as he struggled to make it through security in time for takeoff. Finally, having arrived at his gate in his bare feet, 12 minutes late, he was greeted with the following: “Are you Mark? We held the plane for you and we’re so sorry about the loss of your grandson.”
The pilot, informed of the family’s loss, had delayed the flight by 12 minutes to allow the man to board. When the man’s family thanked the pilot, he, in a line that I’m sure will be delivered in the film version by Jon Hamm, replied only: “They can’t go anywhere without me and I wasn’t going anywhere without you. Now relax. We’ll get you there. And again, I’m so sorry.”
It’s not often you get to call an airline classy—or really anything other than completely awful, but way to be the exception, Southwest.