I have trouble listening to what [Cheney] says sometimes because of the blood that drips from his teeth while he’s talking, but my response is this: he’s just angry because the president doesn’t shoot old men in the face. But by the way, when he was done speaking, did he just then turn into a bat and fly away?
McCain’s Male Voters Suffered Testosterone Drop

robot-heart-politics:

azspot:

A new study from researchers at Duke University and the University of Michigan found that young men who voted for the Republican candidate John McCain suffered from an immediate drop in testosterone when the election results were announced.

I thought this was from The Onion…

theoriginaljoefisher:

There’s a Rep for that. (via robtish)

soupsoup:

REP. HENRY WAXMAN (D), California: And my question for you is simple: Were you wrong?
ALAN GREENSPAN: Partially.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Democrats on the committee, led by the chairman, Henry Waxman of California, pressed Greenspan on whether his fundamental economic philosophy was mistaken.
REP. HENRY WAXMAN: The question I have for you is, you had an ideology, you had a belief that free, competitive — and this is your statement — “I do have an ideology. My judgment is that free, competitive markets are by far the unrivaled way to organize economies. We’ve tried regulation. None meaningfully worked.” That was your quote.
You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others. And now our whole economy is paying its price.
Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?
ALAN GREENSPAN: Well, remember that what an ideology is, is a conceptual framework with the way people deal with reality. Everyone has one. You have to — to exist, you need an ideology. The question is whether it is accurate or not.
And what I’m saying to you is, yes, I found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is, but I’ve been very distressed by that fact.
REP. HENRY WAXMAN: You found a flaw in the reality…
ALAN GREENSPAN: Flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works, so to speak.
REP. HENRY WAXMAN: In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working?
ALAN GREENSPAN: That is — precisely. No, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I had been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.

soupsoup:

REP. HENRY WAXMAN (D), California: And my question for you is simple: Were you wrong?

ALAN GREENSPAN: Partially.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Democrats on the committee, led by the chairman, Henry Waxman of California, pressed Greenspan on whether his fundamental economic philosophy was mistaken.

REP. HENRY WAXMAN: The question I have for you is, you had an ideology, you had a belief that free, competitive — and this is your statement — “I do have an ideology. My judgment is that free, competitive markets are by far the unrivaled way to organize economies. We’ve tried regulation. None meaningfully worked.” That was your quote.

You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others. And now our whole economy is paying its price.

Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?

ALAN GREENSPAN: Well, remember that what an ideology is, is a conceptual framework with the way people deal with reality. Everyone has one. You have to — to exist, you need an ideology. The question is whether it is accurate or not.

And what I’m saying to you is, yes, I found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is, but I’ve been very distressed by that fact.

REP. HENRY WAXMAN: You found a flaw in the reality…

ALAN GREENSPAN: Flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works, so to speak.

REP. HENRY WAXMAN: In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working?

ALAN GREENSPAN: That is — precisely. No, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I had been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.

The White House tapping FOX News on the proverbial shoulder and asking them to “step outside” is more about shaming all the other news outlets who from this point forward proceed to regurgitate their horseshit smears as if it were legitimate news. It’s an extremely smart tactic. I can totally imagine, after 6 more months of saying that FOX “isn’t really a news network”, some White House official sarcastically prefacing their answer to someone at CNN with, “Wow, that’s a FOX News question..” Its a great way of marginalizing FOX while rhetorically wrapping legitimate news organizations on the wrists for clumsily reporting smears. This is a brilliant strategy, please keep it up.
The death penalty in the U.S. is an enormously expensive and wasteful program with no clear benefits. All of the studies on the cost of capital punishment conclude it is much more expensive than a system with life sentences as the maximum penalty. In a time of painful budget cutbacks, states are pouring money into a system that results in a declining number of death sentences and executions that are almost exclusively carried out in just one area of the country. As many states face further deficits, it is an appropriate time to consider whether maintaining the costly death penalty system is being smart on crime.
For a lot of reasons, that was an important part of my thinking … One of the greatest threats we face is from people who believe they are absolutely, certainly right about everything.
This mayor gets to make decisions in a much freer manner. People used to talk about the mayor’s money initially—‘Oh, he’s got all this money, he’s going to buy an election.’ But no one could ever really point to any system of success of politicians being able to buy elections. Look at Mike Bloomberg and Jon Corzine. Very similar backgrounds, very similar people. Both came into office spending a lot of money, okay? And one of them has been very successful, and one has generally been very unsuccessful, both in competitive environments. Why is that? I would argue it’s because one turned out to be really good at his job, and is surrounded by really good people, and he’s used persuasion to move things forward. If Mike Bloomberg were unsuccessful, he’d be a one-term mayor.
That’s how politicians often are when talking about taxes, and it doesn’t make much sense. Best Buy doesn’t tell you the price before they show you the TV.