There's no doubt that Senator Al Franken has arrived. Consider his direct accusations aimed at the current version of the United States Supreme Court. In a thumbnail, Franken charges that the Court has worked hard to crank out pro-business rulings that curtail critically important and long-standing individual rights.
Obama's economic plan is receiving heavy criticism from distinguished economists, including Joseph Stiglitz, James Galbraith, Paul Krugman and many critics from Europe . Many of the critics believe that Tim Geithner and Henry Paulson are far too beholden to Wall Street and the financial sector. The fear is that the toxic debt (much of it based on fraudulent mortgage-backed securities enabled by Wall Street fraud) is being lifted from the banks and dumped onto the U.S. taxpayers because the Obama plan is making the FDIC ultimately responsible. I'm not an economist, but based on these criticisms, this fear seems well-founded. I don't see any reason for Geithner or Paulson to be going to bat for the taxpayers. Most of their friends live on Wall Street. At this same link, you'll see the Nation's view that we need an outsider to clean up this mess. Writer Katina vanden Heuvel even recommend Eliot Spitzer as one of the few people aggressive enough to take on Wall Street before it was a trendy idea. Frankly, I like that idea, based on her stroll down memory lane (pre-Ashley Dupre):
Spitzer took on Wall Street's metastasizing corruption before the meltdown. He defended consumers' and taxpayers' rights. He speaks with passion and clarity about what went wrong and what needs to be done to restore integrity to our system. He is chastened by personal scandal, yet untouched by complicity in Wall Street's public scandals which have obliterated peoples' savings and devastated our country.
What does Spitzer have to say about the economic crisis? That the crisis was not caused by the lack of necessary laws. Rather, the crisis was caused by the lack of good judgment and lack of tenacity to defend the public interest. These things, says Spitzer, cannot be legislated:When asked what Bush accomplished during his eight years in office, many people point out that he was responsible for putting together a comprehensive AIDS program for Africa. In an article called, "An Unlikely Champion," found in the January 15, 2009 edition of Nature (available only to subscribers online), the authors discuss the good and the not so good about the Bush AIDS program. That program was called the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief ("PEPFAR"). First of all, the good. PEPFAR put more than 2 million HIV-positive people on anti-retroviral treatments since the beginning of the program (in 2003). By 2008, PEPFAR prevented infection of 240,000 babies born to HIV-infected mothers. It also provided healthcare for 9.7 million people. On the other hand, PEPFAR "has also been highly controversial because of stipulations on how its funds should be spent."
What happens when you forget to mention something important to your spouse? When you are running late or distracted, for any number of reasons? Bills get paid late because you forgot to ask him to mail them, Johnny misses soccer practice because you forgot to tell Dad he needed to…
My earlier post regarding Bart Ehrman was not meant to provoke in an outrageous way, although I suspected that it might distress some people. That post drew much more traffic than we are used to at the site, approximately 25,000 unique visitors in three days. It also pulled in more than 200 comments. I was intrigued by the nature of the comments, especially those comments written by people who ostensibly disapproved of Ehrman’s work or his conclusions. In fact, I did a small informal analysis based upon the comments posted by last night (I believe there were about 150 comments posted at that time).
I need to state at the outset that there were more than a few Believers among the commenters who appreciated and even applauded Ehrman’s work. Some of these Believers specifically stated that even if Ehrman was correct, they could still believe in God and Jesus, they could still be good Christians and they found that Ehrman’s work had enriched their understanding of the Bible. My criticism of the distressed commenters is not directed toward these people.
Approximately 35 of the comments were written by people who appeared to be distressed or dismayed by Ehrman’s work. Notably, only three of those commenters acknowledged the basic points made by Ehrman.
What were Ehrman’s basic points? That earlier manuscripts did not contain some information that was contained in some of the later manuscripts that were ultimately adopted part of “the Bible.” Therefore, the new material found in later writings …
