home

Monday Morning Open Thread

On the story of the day, Obama's plan to rescue the Masters of the Universe, I've said all I can say for weeks now.

So, here is a thread for other topics. In other words, this is an Open Thread.

< Axelrod: AIG Furor Won't Stop Obama From Giving Handouts To Financial Industry | Mid-Day News Roundup >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Volcanic Eruption underway (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 10:06:02 AM EST
    in Alaska.

    Mother Nature is something to behold. I vividly remember watching beautiful (albeit dangerous) ash plumes rising from Mt St Helens in 1980 from my parent's living room.

    Haven't heard anything about whether Mt Redoubt has had a dramatic reshaping from this.

    That she is.... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 10:10:32 AM EST
    Kinda puts our manmade nonsense in perspective.

    That volcano don't give a sh*t about AIG, and for some reason that gives me hope.  The earth will keep spinning and life will go on no matter what.

    Parent

    I've been (none / 0) (#9)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 10:17:30 AM EST
    trying to find stories and photos that can be downloaded on my slow computer about this...

    nature is awe-inspiring. Of course, I lived through Katrina, so I don't need to say a lot more about that.

    Parent

    One interesting place to (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by eric on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 10:54:33 AM EST
    look for information is here, Alaska Volcano Observatory:

    LINK

    Parent

    TY eric (none / 0) (#109)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 02:33:59 PM EST
    Only if humans don't succeed (none / 0) (#52)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:30:36 PM EST
    in destroying all of it, though, kdog.

    The earth will keep spinning and life will go on no matter what.


    Parent
    I do not believe we have the power... (none / 0) (#68)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:46:46 PM EST
    to end all life on this planet, only to maybe end human life on this planet.

    The earth will spin without us...count on it Molly.  

    Parent

    We've already demonstrated the power (none / 0) (#74)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:56:46 PM EST
    to send many species to extinction. And many more are occurring exponentially.

    The earth may continue spinning but I wouldn't want to inhabit it with most species gone.

    Parent

    And many more have become extinct... (none / 0) (#77)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    because of Mother Nature just doing her Mother Nature thing...and one day she'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.

    h/t George Carlin...Miss ya big guy!

    Parent

    A new discipline - Libertarian Ecology (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 01:46:55 PM EST
    Weird that some people (not you) (none / 0) (#80)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 01:25:38 PM EST
    think animals, plants, etc., are part of Mother Nature but that we're not.

    Anyway, right along with what you said, since the dawn of time every living thing has done every single thing that it possibly could every second of it's life to benefit itself, and does so at the expense of any/every other living thing.

    Every living thing has done that except mankind, of course.

    Parent

    True... (none / 0) (#82)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 01:33:36 PM EST
    and when any species started to adversely effect their ecosystem at the expense of all other life, mother nature always came along and righted the ship somehow...a new predator, migration, disease, a meteor....something.

    Our bill should be due any day now...which in cosmic terms could mean tomorrow or a thousand years.

    Parent

    december 21st (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 01:44:12 PM EST
    2012

    Parent
    Lookin' more likely... (none / 0) (#92)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 01:49:02 PM EST
    everyday.

    Parent
    long count, but who knows?

    Parent
    it was a joke (none / 0) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 02:14:57 PM EST
    sort of.  but to quote Riddick, it had to end sometime.

    Parent
    Heh. you keep what you kill, (none / 0) (#107)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 02:29:48 PM EST
    right?

    Something strangely familiar with the AIG/AIU/ F>U>P>M

    name change, too.

    Parent

    This is not true (none / 0) (#85)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 01:43:48 PM EST
    And it pretty much negates decades of scientific understanding of human impact on the environment. It is not equivalent by any means.

    Parent
    I think cynobacteria probably has us beat (none / 0) (#111)
    by cenobite on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 02:44:18 PM EST
    In pure species-killing.

    Cynobacteria

    Since they flooded the atmosphere with a potent corrosive gas called "oxygen" which wiped out most life on earth at the time.


    Parent

    What a selfish stupid.... (none / 0) (#115)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 02:49:03 PM EST
    race of bacteria...did they not have a Sierra Club?

    Parent
    Compelling argument. Not. (none / 0) (#116)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 02:57:44 PM EST
    Also - it's "cyanobacteria".

    Parent
    Yes it is. (none / 0) (#120)
    by cenobite on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 03:03:49 PM EST
    I blame EVE-Online.

    Cynosural Field

    Parent

    Fascinating. Great info! (none / 0) (#144)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 12:08:58 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#100)
    by eric on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 02:13:25 PM EST
    since the dawn of time every living thing has done every single thing that it possibly could every second of it's life to benefit itself, and does so at the expense of any/every other living thing.

    Except for symbiotic relationships between organisms, of course.

    Parent

    yes, and except for the fact (none / 0) (#102)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 02:17:39 PM EST
    that successful species are those that live in a delicate balance within their ecosystem (e.g., wipe out your prey, go extinct, etc.). Until we get to humans, of course.

    Parent
    I'm not sure what you're saying here, (none / 0) (#105)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 02:24:49 PM EST
    no non-human species has extincted another?

    Parent
    What were (none / 0) (#110)
    by eric on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 02:39:35 PM EST
    saying is that most species do not live "at the expense of others".  Quite the opposite, actually, as many live in symbiosis, whether it be a necessary interaction between the two, or merely incidental.  In fact, ecosystems evolve toward a state of balance.

    Parent
    Sometimes I feel that (none / 0) (#117)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 02:59:20 PM EST
    I might as well be on RedState or some such blog when it comes to environmental issues.

    Parent
    Tell that to the gazelle... (none / 0) (#118)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 03:01:31 PM EST
    with a lion on its heels:)

    I do agree that ecosystems (aka mother nature) have a way of balancing themselves out in sometimes cruel yet natural ways...which leads me again to wonder why the hell are there so many humans still around?

    I guess we are proving to be one of her problem children, she will figure it out eventually...it's the only kind of higher power I believe in.

    Parent

    to the absolute best of it's ability, despite any incidental symbiosis. Except man.

    Parent
    That is absolutely wrong (none / 0) (#122)
    by eric on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 03:10:03 PM EST
    Some species live in actual, necessary symbiosis with another species.

    Wikipedia has a good primer: LINK

    I think that it may be possible that your world view - that one exists for oneself and against others - may be coloring your view of nature.

    Parent

    All species are in constant competition with others for their very existence. And no species, except man, restrains itself from fully competing with those other species.

    Now, despite this completely unique to Mother Nature self-restraint you may still think man competes more than it should, but that's different conversation altogether...

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#125)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 03:24:21 PM EST
    And no species, except man, restrains itself from fully competing with those other species.

    Did you go to an Intelligent Design school?

    Parent

    with the anemone but does the clownfish not compete every second of it's life for the food it eats? If clownfish has a choice between eating that bit of food or letting it go so some hungry angel fish could eat it, would they let it go? Of course not.

    Man is the only species that chooses to let it go. Again, whether or not man "lets it go" enough is another discussion altogether.

    Parent

    Do we really know this? (none / 0) (#128)
    by Bemused on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 03:30:06 PM EST
      We do not have  not a full awareness of the level of consciousness and motivations for behavior of all other species. Who are we to say that no other species ever  exercises restraint?

    Parent
    on our planet shows that when a species has the power to eat or outcompete another species, even to the extinction of that other species, they do it. And man is the only species who has chosen not to do it...again, whether or not you feel man has used its power to so it too much.

    Parent
    i'm asking (none / 0) (#133)
    by Bemused on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 03:50:17 PM EST
      about whether we know that to be true since we cannot observe all interaction between species and they can't tell us about it, and we certainly can't divine all motivation for all behavior. Do we know as absolute fact that say dolphins or whales don't ever act with a purpose to preserve other species? Can we be absolutely certain that animals which perhaps share a food source with another species never restrain from consuming that food and select a different one to help preserve the "competing" species.

      You seem to be accepting that man is the only animal capable of understanding interdependent relationships and also of acting out of altruism, sympathy or compassion. I'd agree that the vast majority of species can't, but I'm not convinced the higher order mammals do not have a level of such understanding.

    Parent

    Good point, Bemused, maybe so. (none / 0) (#134)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 03:54:24 PM EST
    We won't (none / 0) (#78)
    by Bemused on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 01:15:50 PM EST
      Man is far from the species least vulnerable to extinction because of inability to adapt to changed environment. We might be the species most capable of changing or controlling our environment, but if we don't exercise that capability wisely we will leave the planet to the  species more capable of adaptation.

    Parent
    Indeed we will (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 01:44:56 PM EST
    Too bad we can't find it in ourselves to be more wise.

    Parent
    all it would take is one (none / 0) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 01:45:16 PM EST
    tiny little virus to "right the ship"

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 01:59:55 PM EST
    You gotta laugh to keep from crying.

    Apparently, on blogs at least, the scientific experts have as much credibility on major issues as the economic experts do on the economy.


    Parent

    Don't you just love an optimist? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 02:00:39 PM EST
    I put up a new diary (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 10:18:42 AM EST
    on a few torture-related developments over the past few days.

    If you read it, I hope you enjoy it!

    Finally, (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by NJDem on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:37:59 PM EST
    some good news: "Schumer backs same-sex marriage"

    (it's a small step anyway)

    gov. of michigan (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by CST on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 01:43:33 PM EST
    made a good statement on CNN yesterday about how "healthcare is the economy" for so many working people and businesses.  More of that please.  It finally got John King to shut up on the whole "do we really need healthcare NOW?" tirade he was on.

    more argument (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 02:48:08 PM EST
    for a massive veto proof budget resolution.

    Parent
    RIP (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 02:48:56 PM EST
    FAIRBANKS, Alaska (AP) -- Nicholas Hughes, the son of poets Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes, committed suicide by hanging himself, according to police and his sister. He was 47.
    Hughes, who was not married and had no children, killed himself at his home March 16, Alaska State Troopers said.
    He had suffered from depression, his sister, Frieda, told The Times of London.

    AP

    WB to release 5000 previously unavailable titles (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 09:55:46 AM EST
    Warner Bros has produced over 6,800 theatrical films, but only 1,200 or so titles are available on DVD today. But tonight the studio has announced that they are opening their movie vault, through a new website
    -- WarnerArchive.com. Until now, the limited sales potential of some films and tv shows has prevented Warner Bros from making the titles available to the public. The new site is an on-demand manufacturing operation which allows customers to purchase long tail titles. Movies will cost $19.95, and will be shipped in a shrink-wrapped case with cover art within five days of purchase.

    That will be fun to look through (none / 0) (#14)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 10:24:42 AM EST
    Should be some buried treasure in there!

    Parent
    definitely (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 10:44:31 AM EST
    should have been done years ago.  I have thought for years every film ever made should now be available at the touch of a mouse.
    the only reason they are not is stupid shortsighted management.

    Parent
    Talk about tyranny... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 10:02:54 AM EST
    or you could just call it a legal shakedown, or plain old stealing.  Link

    I tell ya...the wonders never cease in the land of the "free".  The rich get bags of cash handed to 'em on a silver platter, random slobs have bags of cash legally stolen from them by the state.

    Your link creates a new email ? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 10:07:23 AM EST
    n/t

    Looks like (none / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 10:09:56 AM EST
    it needs a wind up key on top.  I would be scared to death to drive one of those things on the road!

    Intended market (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by starsandstripes on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 10:15:12 AM EST
    I doubt it's for sale in North America. You have to keep in mind the intended market. The idea behind the Nano was so that the average person in India could consider buying a car which is a hell of a lot safer to use for transportation than balancing a family of four on a motorcycle and side car.

    Given that the average speed on the roads in Bombay tend to be around 30 mph (traffic mostly), I think that car would be safe enough for those conditions.

    But no, I wouldn't drive it on a freeway in the United States.

    Parent

    I get it (none / 0) (#16)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 10:27:09 AM EST
    But I still don't think it looks like it would hold up on some of the roads in India.  If a cow bumped into that car, I think it would fall apart.

    Although it would be excellent here to parallel park in the city....

    Parent

    If a cow in India (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 10:32:59 AM EST
    bumped into that car, the car would be the least of the driver's problems, from what my spouse learned in a recent trip there.  They're still sacred cows.:-)

    Spouse's reports on traffic there were fascinating.  More likely would be bumping into a camel.  But somehow, he said, it all works.  It's terrifying to watch, and to participate, but the amazing assemblage of vehicles used there, the lack of adherence to lanes and laws and the like, means that everyone appears to be on high alert.  And when people are not lulled as drivers, not on cell phones or doing makeup in rear-view mirrors, and not going at high speeds, it makes for fairly safe streets compared to many of ours.  Camel trains and painted elephants certainly make for colorful streets!  Or so he says.  Me, I'd be just transfixed and fairly terrified.

    Parent

    Camel or an Elephant (none / 0) (#19)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 10:40:17 AM EST
    Being a passenger in any vehicle there is terrifying. Horns honking non-stop to get the foot traffic to move over.

    It's the most beautiful country I've seen. The culture is impossible to describe it's so unique. I loved every minute spent there.
     

    Parent

    My uncle worked in India... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 10:52:51 AM EST
    for two years...the funniest story he tells of that time is going to the market, starts haggling over some fruit, and the vendor goes to the bank of tent, lifts the tarp of his tent, takes a dump, wipes his arse with his hand and goes back to haggling and handling fruit.

    Their immune systems must be super-strength over there...I'm impressed.

    Parent

    India Failing to Control Open Defecation (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 11:03:56 AM EST
    Ack! (none / 0) (#28)
    by Fabian on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 11:43:11 AM EST
    Not even hand dug latrines?  OMG, that is terrible.

    Parent
    Why so terrible? (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 11:50:22 AM EST
    Like I always say when I'm relieving myself in the great outdoors...good enough for a dog, good enough for me...granted though, 99 times out of 100 it's a #1:)

    Parent
    Imagine all of your neighbors (none / 0) (#132)
    by Fabian on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 03:49:28 PM EST
    doing their duty and dumping their bedpans outside.  Not even a sewer, just along the roads, in the fields.  Entire villages, entire towns.  No surface water would be safe to use for anything, unless you boiled it first and these people are poor - they aren't likely to boil the water they wash with.

    Parent
    Bad joke Fabian... (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 04:00:03 PM EST
    for us to go wherever and whenever nature calls would be a santitation disaster...no doubt.  But I'll be honest...if I'm in the yard rakin' leaves or at the park playin' ball and # 1 calls the nearest tree gets it:)

    Parent
    My dog goes in her "area" outside, (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 04:03:04 PM EST
    and man does it reek.

    I can't imagine what it must have been like to have lived in a native American settlement, or London before underground sewers for that matter...

    Parent

    I do it if I gotta! (none / 0) (#137)
    by Fabian on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 04:15:41 PM EST
    Absolutely.  

    Sorry I didn't catch the joke.  I read the entire, rather long, article.  It paints an appalling picture.  

    Some Amish in Ohio got upset when the government told them they needed to move their outdoor lavatory for sanitary reasons.  I think the family was just being obstinate for the sake of it.  Surely they would want to keep their water clean?

    Even a poorly situated latrine makes the environment a little cleaner, a little safer.

    Parent

    camel? elephant train? (none / 0) (#31)
    by starsandstripes on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 11:50:40 AM EST
    What part of India was your spouse in? With teh camel trains, maybe Rajasthan?

    Parent
    Ahmedabad, nearest to Mumbai (none / 0) (#33)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 11:55:21 AM EST
    aka Bombay, but still a few hundreds of miles from it.  Ahmedabad is a major city of millions, though -- a major communications and textiles center.  And the home of Gandhi's most significant and famed ashram.  So cool.

    Parent
    It's waiting for the cable guy week (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 10:21:58 AM EST
    Paul Krugman's turn today.

    dont tell me there is no good news (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 10:26:12 AM EST
    from blog.beliefnet.com:

    The other day I found myself talking to some Dallas friends -- ordinary, conservative, middle-class professional, Christian -- about their thoughts regarding expatriating to Costa Rica. They think they could make a go of it there with their business, and besides, they think it'd be a good place to be if things got bad in the US.

    hey
    dont let the door hit ya in the rear end.

    ugh. Poor Costa Rica. (none / 0) (#17)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 10:30:08 AM EST
    Poor Costa Rica? (none / 0) (#21)
    by bocajeff on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 10:52:29 AM EST
    Why, because the are:

    1. Ordinary?
    2. Conservative?
    3. Middle-class?
    4. Professional?
    or
    5) Christian?

    Reminds me of the vast migration to Canada and Europe when Bush won...

    Parent

    Maybe .01 percent... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 10:59:12 AM EST
    of those who make the claim to move if their horse loses actually make the move...the rest are all talk, no action.  

    I'll move when there is no work, no food, and/or no clean water to be found.

    Parent

    for some reason (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 11:06:12 AM EST
    I think the right wingers are more likely to make good on the threat.

    Parent
    I wish them well... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:32:06 PM EST
    We've all got the inalienable right to pursue our happiness, though governments the world over disagree I think your birth is your passport, and the only passport you should need to roam your home, home being planet earth.

    Parent
    If the GOP had won this last (none / 0) (#57)
    by hairspray on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:32:49 PM EST
    election that all may have come true.

    Parent
    More because of cultural pollution. (none / 0) (#96)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 02:05:32 PM EST
    I do like the central and south american cultures. Different, but something to be said for not being consumerists.

    Parent
    Peep this... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 11:41:14 AM EST
    the police force in Schnechtady NY is so f*cked up they're talking about disbanding the force and declaring martial law in the interim.  Link

    Martial law is whack, but disbanding the force don't sound so bad:)

    Isn't that type of thing (none / 0) (#37)
    by eric on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:04:06 PM EST
    prohibited by the Posse Comitatus Act?

    Parent
    AIG is talking about changing their (none / 0) (#29)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 11:50:06 AM EST
    name.

    In other news, Charles Manson changes name and gets paroled. (kidding)

    The AIG story is true though.

    Good idea... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 11:53:08 AM EST
    in theory, AIG may as well be IRS at this point...acronym of scorn.

    But they don't have any money to change the signs, the letterhead, and assorted knick-knack promotional handouts...better call Geithner and tell him to get out the checkbook:)

    Parent

    AIG by any other name is still (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:24:49 PM EST
    AIG unless they change a heck of a lot more than their name.


    Parent
    It is only really a good idea if they (none / 0) (#36)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:03:19 PM EST
    can keep their previous identity under the new name a secret.

    I work in the branding and marketing field and I'll take their money to re-brand them, but I don't think it will do them any good.  Same with Citi.  I think they've managed to kill their brands which were actually fairly valuable assets to them at one time.  They'd be better off breaking themselves into a bunch of different companies under new names because a name change alone is not going to effectively solve their problem. In fact, they've already made the first mistake which is to start talking about this before they are out of the woods.  

    OTOH, that's probably because their insurance sales people are probably complaining mightily that they can't sell their insurance products to anyone right now because the AIG brand is so tarnished.  

    But I don't think that the sales people are going to be able to convince a wary buyer by saying "Well, we changed our name!" at this point.  They're going to have to have much more to say about how the funds backing their insurance products are protected from crazy hedge fund managers in London - which I am not sure they can say yet. Normally, companies do this sort of thing at the same time that they make a substantial change in their business structure that is the real basis for the change in the perception - the name just helps that change - it can't in and of itself make that change happen in cases as extreme as this one.

    Parent

    So I suspect that you would agree (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:13:30 PM EST
    per nycstray's comment below, that changing AIG to AIU is, um, insufficient.:-)  And as these changes can cost a lot for new signage, stationery, etc., it's an almost laughable attempt at a name change, I would think.

    Worse, of course, is that we-the-taxpayers are essentially the ones paying for this name change meant to fool us.  It all just gets crazier by the day.  And that AIG/U would try this today, when Obama and Geithner want the focus on their plan -- well, it probably is owing to AIG just being so out of touch, or it would almost seem to be sabotage.

    Parent

    It is not just about stationary (none / 0) (#49)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:22:22 PM EST
    and signage.  There's a lot more to it than that.  For a company the size of AIG or now AIU - the costs associated with concepting, design, advertising, marketing materials and a whole lot of other stuff are quite impressive to behold.  They are lucky they aren't probably going to be dealing with uniforms.  But their adjuster's clip boards will have to be changed out.  If they pick a new color - all the things painted the color of the logo will be repainted.  It goes on and on and on and it costs a lot of money.

    Parent
    Yes. Thus, the etc. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:38:20 PM EST
    More for others edification than for you. (none / 0) (#64)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:41:17 PM EST
    Of course, I am pretty sure lots more people will become aware of what a name change costs for a giant multi-national corporation fairly soon.  There will be some reporter who will do a scathing expose hoping to get invited onto all the talk shows.

    Parent
    How about A.I.O.U? (none / 0) (#75)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:58:58 PM EST
    Accurate anyway

    Parent
    I've heard it suggested that (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 03:03:48 PM EST
    the most appropriate name would be PIG...

    But that probably wouldn't be too good for business, lol.

    Parent

    this (none / 0) (#127)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 03:28:34 PM EST
    never gets old

    and works for so many things

    Parent

    Hmm, if all of the legislation (none / 0) (#35)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 11:57:50 AM EST
    has the name AIG, with no clauses to cover a name change, maybe we can just not pay out any more?:-)

    The relabeling game is such a common cover.  All too predictable.  We'll just take a cue from the singer Prince and call it "the firm formerly known as AIG."

    Parent

    Just wait until the taxpayers (none / 0) (#42)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:13:19 PM EST
    figure out how much a rebranding effort costs.  I bet I know who the firm is that got the business and they aren't cheap by any standards.  And again AIG will be caught engaging in a fairly normal business process and won't be able to explain why they are doing it or why it costs so much to do it - further injuring my industry with their sheer incompetence.  Shaking head.  First they shut down the live event business for probably the next two years because they couldn't explain why their sales people need to meet from time to time and now they will kill the video and design side of the business.  I am begining to think they hate artists.  Sigh.

    Parent
    Looks like we were writing (none / 0) (#45)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:15:49 PM EST
    the same thing at the same time, essentially (see my reply to you above).  Yes, when I was in the field and then the teaching of it, I read and used a lot of the classic case studies of name changes -- so have read up on a lot of them since and see how massive the costs can be.  I bet you're right that this will be the next searing expose . . . so, of course, everyone will know it's really still AIG.  Thus defeating the purpose but at least keeping the marketing firm from laying off more.:-)

    Parent
    Well, I am glad there is work, but as (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:30:50 PM EST
    I said, I don't trust AIG to be able to competently defend paying for it and not end up shutting that end of my biz down too.

    I can't tell you the list of non-tarp companies who have cancelled all of their meetings for the year because of that AIG fiasco last Fall.  Everyone is afraid of ending up being lambasted on the cover of the WSJ.  We thought we still had some video and other alternate communications production we could do in the interim to make up for the fact that these companies are not communicating to clients and employees in person this year - but AIG could derail that too now.

    Parent

    Name is already off the building (none / 0) (#41)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:08:43 PM EST
    here in NYC. New name is AIU. Be interesting to see if they get the new name up today . . .

    Parent
    Here's the website (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:32:30 PM EST
    Link

    Should be A-IOU.

    Parent

    LOL.... (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:52:13 PM EST
    They are taking resumesat AI-IOU...anyone here out of work and have any experience with shakedowns?  

    Parent
    That's catchy! (none / 0) (#44)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:14:10 PM EST
    What does the "U" stand for?  Union?  They are afterall "socialized" now right?

    Parent
    My thought, too. So if it's "Union" (none / 0) (#46)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:16:49 PM EST
    we now can negotiate down those contracts for bonuses -- as was done to the unions.  Bwwaaahhh.

    Parent
    Underwriters (none / 0) (#70)
    by Amiss on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:47:37 PM EST
    " A member company of American International Group"

    Parent
    I figured that. (none / 0) (#86)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 01:44:09 PM EST
    I was just being glib.

    Parent
    Shouldn't that be... (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:22:04 PM EST
    I.O.U.?

    Or F.U.P.M...F*ck You Pay Me?

    Parent

    maybe they should change their name (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 03:33:39 PM EST
    to Carls Jr and use the slogan from Idiocracy:

    F**k you, I'm eating

    Parent

    I like it... (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 03:36:35 PM EST
    or even more apt, how about the title of Kenny Powers' book from the hilarious HBO series "Eastbound and Down."

    "You're F*cking out, I'm F*cking in."

    Parent

    Perfect: AI-IOU. Thanks for the laff. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:39:08 PM EST
    IOU Insurance, but all I've got (none / 0) (#89)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 01:44:57 PM EST
    are these CDS thingies.

    Parent
    why not just 'Goodfellows?' (none / 0) (#97)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 02:07:15 PM EST
    There do seem to be (none / 0) (#99)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 02:12:20 PM EST
    some made men out there.

    Parent
    MT, do you have an email? (none / 0) (#103)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 02:19:54 PM EST
    I'm looking at some DAC positions at Ft Rucker, could use some advice.

    Parent
    I do (none / 0) (#108)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 02:29:53 PM EST
    liberalbarking@yahoo.com.......we could use some good brainage around here.  If we can be of any  assistance just let us know.  My husband just made instructor of the quarter here, pretty sure he'll take instructor of the year.  He can be a good person to help steer you around in some places and he often has a good finger on the pulse of things.

    Parent
    Nah jeff... (none / 0) (#140)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 04:46:10 PM EST
    Goodfellas could take lesson from AIG, Citi, and Uncle Sam on how to really run a racket, they're straight-shootin' businessmen by comparison.

    Parent
    heh, small to micro (none / 0) (#141)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 04:56:22 PM EST
    businessmen at that. Amazing, the families are less parasitical than some wall street firms.

    Parent
    I'm sure I've dealt with them indirectly.... (none / 0) (#142)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 05:06:29 PM EST
    I mean I do drugs, I gamble illegally, I've purchased bootleg cigarettes out of the trunk of a car...law of averages says I must have right?

    Anyway...no complaints, services provided to my satisfaction at a price I felt was fair.

    I can't say the same about the Uncle Sam, banking, and general corporate rackets...I really can't.

    Parent

    Zombie banks ? (none / 0) (#34)
    by joze46 on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 11:56:40 AM EST
    It's not always that I see "Joe in the Morning" or Steven Colbert, even Sean Hannity is on my list to watch the absurd. When Colbert pulled a pitch fork from under his desk and jabbed into the camera saying something like "Let's get those AIG guys" I just had to laugh at the same time sympathizing with the notion for mob action with pitch forks and torches. Then I hear emails flying around talking about using piano wire to chock these Wall Street bonus bailers. Sheesh.

    Now after cheating America out of trillions these guys want you to buy stock and don't sell what you have. There is some funny business going on here. I think they are all unloading while selling short. I had such a laugh while Steve Forbes was on CNBC saying we need to change the rules everybody is loosing money. The real belly laugh is from Andre Mitchell wife of Federal Reserve Board Chairman saying Obama and the Treasury keep changing their mind in this bail out. Heck the American labor force had to deal with the "AT WILL" ways of business for almost a century and that Obama just in about six weeks is the new CEO they say how come you're always changing the rules. Sheesh.  

    Well, CNBC uses the term Zombie banks so what the heck we created an economic Frankenstein and Mainstream Media knows it, especially MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, and FOX all use the terms toxic assets. Are these toxic assets a bunch of Frankensteins running around breathing fire burning up all the money you throw at them? Or, are these toxic assets loaded with radiation that has a half life of two billion years? No way to see interest pay back any time soon.

    Joe Scarbough said mobs are appearing in front of Wall Street Bonus Bailer houses have crossed the line...Yikes I thought Americas have a first Amendment right to assemble and present their grievances to the government. So now these big shots are a part of the government, We the people own them, and according to the "AT WILL" way to do things we want our money back seems very reasonable to charter a bus and peacefully knock on their door say yoo hoo come out and play we like to show how screwed up stuff is now.

    Hannity always thinking the use of force means a bayonet at the point of loaded weapon but could mean a hard hand shake and a big table to sit and talk like it or not. Diplomacy using elegance for the good with a lot of sugar is better, an offer that is easy likeable to agree given often perhaps seventy time seven until the hypocrisy of hate is diminished. The use of force could be interpreted to force your self making an effort not wage war or terrorize the population.        


    Try Decaf next time... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by bocajeff on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:06:50 PM EST
    Oh Goodness (none / 0) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 01:30:42 PM EST
    If a company is 80 percent (none / 0) (#98)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 02:08:29 PM EST
    government owned, does that protect 8/10ths of the epithets people are screaming?

    Parent
    Pogo-esque. (none / 0) (#104)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 02:22:43 PM EST
    We have met the enemy, and it is us?  Us yelling at us? :-)

    Parent
    Yeah, seeming more (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 02:27:02 PM EST
    surreal by the minute.

    Parent
    Except, how many of us are going to be (none / 0) (#112)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 02:45:03 PM EST
    making the decisions for all?

    Parent
    Larry Tribe thinks the 90% tax on bonuses (none / 0) (#38)
    by Joelarama on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:04:28 PM EST
    for execs at TARP banks is an unconstitutional bill of attainder, or at least he is "leaning" that way (sound suspiciously political?).

    Link: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/economy/law-professor-who-advised-obama-says-house-aig-bill-may-be -unconstitutional/

    Why is everyone at that level so in (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by hairspray on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:46:03 PM EST
    love with CEO's (crooked or not) is a mystery I do not understand.  Do they think the only crooks are the ones as David Sirota says "shower after work instead of before work."

    Parent
    Tell you one thing... (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:56:27 PM EST
    I felt a helluva lot cleaner on the inside when I had to shower after work as opposed to before.

    Parent
    BTD or Jeralyn, (none / 0) (#39)
    by Joelarama on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:06:20 PM EST
    sorry for the long link

    Parent
    He's wrong. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Bemused on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:18:41 PM EST
     That argument has already been declared nonsense by the resident legal scholar here.

    Parent
    Lol. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Joelarama on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:24:29 PM EST
    Bill of attainder is what came to my mind immediately, but I looked at a few cases after BTD expressed his opinion, and I have to agree with him.  Of course there's no telling what this pro-business court will do.

    I think Tribe is giving Obama cover, as the update on the linked story indicates.  Since when has Tribe merely "leaned" one way or another on anything?  Oh, wait: since he started advising Obama.

    Parent

    Well, (none / 0) (#54)
    by Bemused on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:31:46 PM EST
      no  cases exist close enough to being directly  on point to state anything beyond there are strong arguments both ways and that for anyone on either side to argue the other side's position is "nonsense" is, well, nonsense.

     

    Nothing on all fours, but there are some (none / 0) (#58)
    by Joelarama on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:33:06 PM EST
    cases where some pretty specific taxation schemes were not ruled Bills of Attainder.

    Parent
    Did any of those cases (none / 0) (#59)
    by Bemused on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:35:22 PM EST
      involve taxes imposed on a very narrow class of people and have the very apparent punitive intent present here?

       

    People vs. Corporations? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Joelarama on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:39:03 PM EST
    I don't see why that is any distinction with a difference.

    Punitive intent was certainly alleged, and for purposes of appeal assumed.  There is a good law review article on the subject -- Yal Law Review, IIRC.  Look on westlaw.

    Parent

    corporations are "persons" (none / 0) (#65)
    by Bemused on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:41:37 PM EST
      for the purposes of the law. I meant to distinguish between cases where taxes on certain activities or commodities are selected for differential taxation as opposed to when one small class of persons are hit with, no matter what you want to call it, an income tax surcharge.

    Parent
    I recall they were some income tax cases. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Joelarama on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:45:05 PM EST
    Sorry, but please look it up.

    Parent
    I have (none / 0) (#69)
    by Bemused on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:46:48 PM EST
      which is why I stated there are no cases close enough to being on point for anyone to claim that the positions of either side are nonsense.

     

    Parent

    I was merely stating that I looked at some (none / 0) (#71)
    by Joelarama on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 12:50:45 PM EST
    cases a few days ago agreed with BTD's view that this tax is not unconstitutional.

    I did not mean to say that it was nonsense.  Have a good day.

    Parent

    That raises (none / 0) (#76)
    by Bemused on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 01:03:41 PM EST
      the question of what about the cases at which you looked causes you think the reasoning of those cases supports the postition this particular tax proposal would be constitutiuonal.

    Parent
    Yes, perhaps it does. (none / 0) (#79)
    by Joelarama on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 01:20:56 PM EST
    I don't have time right now.  Thanks.

    Parent
    Well thanks (none / 0) (#143)
    by Bemused on Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 06:56:28 AM EST
      for taking the time to review some cases and report your comclusion. I understand that the additional time it would take to explain why you think those cases you have already reviewed support your conclusion would be far too much of a burdent.

    Parent
    Ron Sims, King County Exec (Seattle) (none / 0) (#83)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 01:37:09 PM EST
    is off to WA DC as Deputy Secretary to HUD. What I know of Simms dates back to before 2000.

    He's still dealing with a lawsuit for his role in the building of Qwest field (Seahawk stadium).

    He started as an appointee to replace Gary Locke when Locke was elected governor. I'm finding all kinds of criticism against him on the internet, but not much positive.

    He lost a bid for election to a US Senate seat, and one for Governor, so clearly he isn't popular in WA State.

    Stock market up 500 pts., 4 pm eastern (none / 0) (#123)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 03:10:25 PM EST
    A signal that the Obama plan is well received.  Not a time to buy; imo, we will test lows.  But good news for our 401Ks.

    That's correct, but (none / 0) (#138)
    by NYShooter on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 04:16:32 PM EST
    What's good for the stock market is not necessarily good for average, working people.
    When two behemoths merge, lay off 10,000 people, the stock also shoots to the sky.

    Occasionally, the "masters of the universe" and average people are on the same side, so you have to dig into the numbers, and the psychology, to determine if stocks rising are good for all.

    All we schleps can hope for is that total economy, read: jobs, does well. "They'll" get their billions, we'll get underpaid jobs.

    Better than nothing, I guess.

    Parent

    Agreed! (none / 0) (#139)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 04:43:35 PM EST
    Trickle down, anyone?

    Parent