Rocky

While you are obviously free to decide what to do about anything I post, I remain free to ask questions. Frankly, the asking of the questions (specifically as done last night) in and of itself provides food for thought for any reader wishing to consider. Your failure to reply responsively goes directly to my (implied) point that it's all in your irrational imagination anyway... that is, unless you explain otherwise what might actually be genuine tyranny of which you refer.

Please describe: the impact this newly imposed "tyranny" has had on you personally. your understanding of the ramifications, in as much detail as you can, of allowing AIG to "go Chapter 11," on the American economy and life in general. your decision processes that allow you to decide in favor of said ramifications, instead of in favor of the dreaded (by you, apparently) "tyranny" that you believe is the alternative.

In Arizona the agency is the Division of Developmental Disabilities. It's a division of the state's social services agency, the Arizona Department of Economic Security. Somehow, "developmentally disabled" seems more respectful of the individual(s) than "mentally retarded." It's probably a matter of cultural evolution. In other words, how the meanings of the words and expressions have changed over the years in our society.

While your point is well taken, I think it is important to also consider that the cultural evolution of the meaning of the word has made it a significant epithet when used in the manner and context similar to how the President used the term "Special Olympics." I'm not going to say it was acceptable for him to make that particular verbal faux pas, but I appreciate that he has the self-awareness to realize his mistake/error and apologize without having to wait for a media firestorm. That is... self-awareness AND personal sense of confidence that allows him to own up to his mistakes without having to be shamed into it.

You are correct. The Ph.D. took some liberties... Likely because he doesn't like the President.

You seem to have made some unjustified inferences. I simply posted a link and some of the text from that link. Everything else you inferred from that is in the category of error that you alone are responsible for.

Actually, RR, your "ribald" comments were about the fact that YOU misunderstood the context of the responses to your initial post to be a politicization of your innocent and innocuous post. (the ONLY fact is that you misunderstood the responses)

No question that flip was intentional. Mom was understandably upset.

That was NOT off topic, really. No, we cannot change human nature. HOWEVER... you have eloquently articulated the essence of and for the need for oversight and regulation of critical industries.

Courts Unlikely to Strike Down AIG Tax Law, Legal Experts said March 20 (Bloomberg) -- Courts probably will uphold Congress's effort to tax employee bonuses at American International Group Inc. and other companies receiving federal bailout funds, several legal experts said. The House yesterday voted 328-93 in favor of a 90 percent tax on bonuses, including the $165 million insurer AIG paid last week after receiving $173 billion in bailout funds. The Senate plans to vote next week. The measure raises a number of legal questions, and New Hampshire Republican Senator Judd Gregg yesterday said the legislation was unconstitutional. Still, any legal challenge will meet a significant obstacle: the historic reluctance of the Supreme Court to second-guess Congress on tax issues. "Given the state of the law, it will be unlikely that the Supreme Court will strike down this legislation," said Edward McCaffery, a University of Southern California tax-law professor who says he questions the wisdom of the proposal. Gregg said the legislation would violate the constitutional ban on bills of attainder, or laws that single out individuals for punishment. "It's basically targeted on a small group of people," he said. The House took several steps to shield the measure from that argument, said Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School.(continued)

Legal Definition of Ex Post Facto Clause EX POST FACTO CLAUSE - A misnomer in that actually two Constitutional clauses are involved. The U.S. Constitution's Article 1 Section 9, C.3 states: 'No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed,' and Section 10 says: 'No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law. . . .' The 'words and the intent' of the Ex Post Facto Clause encompass '[e]very law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.' Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (1 Dall.) 386, 390 (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.). An ex post facto law is a law passed after the occurrence of an event or action which retrospectively changes the legal consequences of the event or action.

FBI Ramps Up Probes of Financial, Mortgage Fraud WASHINGTON -- The number of probes by the Federal Bureau of Investigation into corporate fraud and mortgage fraud is growing by the month. FBI Deputy Director John Pistole told a House panel Friday that the bureau has more than 2,000 open investigations into mortgage fraud as well as 566 corporate-fraud investigations. Mr. Pistole said 43 of those corporate-fraud investigations involve "matters directly related to the current financial crisis." Those numbers are all larger than those Mr. Pistole offered to a Senate committee last month. Comparing Mr. Pistole's testimony Friday with the data he gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee in February, it appears the FBI has opened 36 new corporate-fraud investigations and 200 new mortgage-fraud investigations in recent weeks. Mr. Pistole said the FBI continues to experience "an exponential rise" in the number of fraud investigations it is conducting, "a trend we expect to continue." He said the FBI's investigations on corporate fraud and financial-institution failures are focused on accounting fraud, insider trading and financial-statement manipulation. Mr. Pistole told the Senate Judiciary Committee last month that the FBI's investigations into the current financial crisis involve companies "that everybody knows about." Mr. Pistole said Friday that the growing number of fraud probes was straining the FBI's resources for investigating white-collar crime. (from the Wall Street Jounal)

The (initial) question (subject of this thread) had to do with whether a bill making its way through Congress right now (passed the House yesterday) to tax said bonuses at the rate of 90 percent was the best answer. THAT bill would essentially be symbolic only for the reasons I cited. President Obama indicated during his interview on Leno's show that his administration was going to pursue any and all avenues to recapture those bonuses. While nobody here at GSC has been able to cite anything specific about the conduct of AIG or about specific provisions in existing law that the federal government could invoke to legally effect said recapture, it's entirely possible that the laws you (RR) were thinking of might apply to the AIG situation.... BUT would be something exclusive of the question posed by washn'wear to start this thread.

Transparency is something the Obama administration is aiming for. That's why the Prez is generally not afraid to take responsibility for what his administration does. However, as you noted, this is a complicated situation. CONGRESS messed up. Apparently, Sen Dodd (D-CT) was responsible for removing the amendment that would have voided those bonus contracts. There are several news reports this morning that Dodd's "political capital" is taking a big hit for that dumb move. Further, it appears that Obama Treasury Secretary Geitner was aware of the bonus issue and neither properly briefed the Prez nor took issue with the removal of that amendment. Hence, Obama taking responsibility for the situation and looking for ways to now void the bonuses. Obviously, a bill to tax the bonuses at 90 percent, even if it passes and the Prez signs it, will likely only be symbolic. Because there are at least two reasons such a bill will not pass constitutional muster and would easily be struck down in court (if challenged). It's an Ex Post Facto bill. Not constitutional. Congress cannot enact laws to address a prior situation. It's also a Bill of Attainder. Also not constitutional. Congress cannot enact laws aimed at specific individuals.

There are multiple potential issues and perhaps multiple solutions to this. First, if you have your profile set so that only your friends can read it, then those people don't know that what they post shows up on your page. I don't know if that matters to you. Second, in the upper right corner of the page (when you are in facebook), there is a link for SETTINGS. Click that and you can next choose PRIVACY settings. Then, you can choose (click) what appears on your NEWS FEED AND WALL.

I have a lunch date with two friends from HS for next week. We graduated 37 years ago. I saw one of them at the 20 year reunion. I haven't seen the senior year yearbook for decades because I used to be in a cult and left stuff with my mother when I was moving all over tarnation. One of them is going to bring the yearbook. I spoke with both of them on the phone today... one characterized facebook as "cathartic." I agree. Of course, for many, GSC has been cathartic... but these people were never in this particular cult. :)

That's an intriguing reflection of YOU... what lives inside YOU... reminds YOU of "ole docvic, eh??" Nothing more, nothing less.

One can only surmise. However, President Obama is in California for a couple of Town Hall meetings today. This seems a likely extension thereof, or at least extension of one aspect of a town hall type meeting. I generally don't watch Leno. But Letterman is in reruns tonight and tomorrow because the opening round NCAA tournament is on CBS today and tomorrow. So, I will be able to record Leno (hence, skip the commercials).

AMEN!

Geez... PEOPLE... I wasn't criticizing Mr. Beck for telling this person's story. And I certainly wasn't criticizing RR for posting the link to Beck's clip. My statement was simply that I can't listen to the guy. I think I adequately explained WHY I can't listen to the guy. By all means, I reflected MY neurosis in saying that I can't listen to the guy. I will still feel free to criticize Beck... but certainly NOT for telling this lady's story. IOW, neither I, nor LindaZ was suggesting anyone needed to be politically correct in their beliefs or opinions or statements or actions... And I appreciate the kind act by the person who found the other clip.

I watched this one... a wonderful woman!

You're not the only one who can't take watching Glenn Beck... I think the guy is just plain creepy.

YES! I strongly dislike classmates.com but have reconnected with a handful of people I knew in high school (37+ years ago). ... on facebook, that is.

I know plenty of Liberals on facebook (including ME). I don't like MySpace. Here's what it (facebook) means to me: 17 years ago, my brother died, leaving a (then) 14 year old daughter and 8 year old son. For at least the last 10 years, it's been difficult for me to stay in touch with them. I joined facebook in December 2008. IMMEDIATELY, I connected with them and am in touch and communicate with them every day. I'm thrilled about that. I was born in Rochester NY but moved to AZ more than 40 years ago. My dad had a second family. Even with email, it was difficult to stay in touch with family in NY. (Dad died 12 years ago this month). I invited my half sister to join facebook. She did so a couple of weeks ago. I'm thrilled about reconnecting with those folks back east. I have friends on facebook from GSC, from the WC social site, (many of whom live outside of Arizona) and from people I used to work with and know from my involvement in local politics. Facebook makes it easy and convenient to stay up to date with what is happening with each of those people in each of those groups. Like others have said, you can control how much of yourself you tell about and show on your facebook page. AND you can control who you allow to view that information. AND... there are games. Games can be time wasting activities OR they can be important mental exercise(s) for us 50+ people who would like to put off loss of memory and other thinking related skills. I play Scrabble on facebook. It's a social activity as well as mental exercise.