Ye damn whale!!!

How does the writer know that the bailout plan won't work? What proof does he offer? How would someone who has received no economic training whatsoever know better than Henry Paulson, who went to Dartmouth, then Harvard, then went on to run the most massive and successful investment firm in our country's history? You need not pay any more attention to what this writer has to say on the bailout plan than to what Sarah Palin has to say about world travel.

P.S. The Bush administration did not "bring us 9/11". A woefully mismanaged war in Iraq? Absolutely. But his administration didn't bring us 9/11 any more than FDR brought us the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Yes Paul, because I obviously support date rape and think the concept is funny.

Obviously.

But you know what? That line did sound good in my head and sounds even better read aloud. And my mom says I'm the handsomest boy in school, so it must be true!

Pardon me for not being clearer.

However, "fucking moron?" I know I'm a broken record in the comments on this subject but here's the deal: This is not a snaps contest. There is no timer. You, the commentor, have literally unlimited time to ponder your comment before clicking "post".

"Fucking moron" can't seriously be the single best one you could come up with, could it? I mean, surely there're meaner and wittier things you could say, right? Better ways to express your lack of approval for my profanity?

You're not just some humorless concern troll, right? Of course not. Come on, I know you can do it.

Anyway, let me spell it out. I THINK DATE RAPE IS WRONG. Oh, and in case it isn't clear I also think Child molestation is wrong too. Happy?

matchframe: If the economic decisions of the last eight years are a good indicator of financial competence via Dartmouth and Harvard then I'm much prefer someone trained at a Polytech somewhere.

Is this Paulson's fault? I doubt it since he hasn't been on the job that long. But giving the foxes all the hens they can eat only increases the appetite for hens...if you get my meaning.

Johnny: BANG-ON!

Viki: Get the book at the library and read the first chapter. Once you get that far you may not be able to put the book down. It's very well written and an excellent example of early American writing.

This article reminds me of a one frame cartoon I saw. Two whales are talking next to a destroyed sailing ship.

One says to the other "I love crushing their ships, but I don't like swallowing the sea men."

Amen, shipmate Lincoln!

Nobody has made a good Moby-Dick movie ever. EVAR.
Because, among other reason they make the same mistake. Namely, they make Ahab the main character. Carve this on your fetlocks with a rusty harpoon:

"ISHMAEL is the main character of Moby-Dick. Not Ahab."

And if they even include Ishmael in the adaptation, he's portrayed as some "Gee wilikers, gosh there, sir" golden-haired boy out for adventure. Whereas in the real story, Ishmael goes to sea because if he doesn't, he's gonna kill himself. This is not a happy guy. Basically, Ishmael is so much more goth than you will ever be.

Then again, Ahab's allure is the temptation to submit your will to the rantings of a delusional tyrant. Not surprising that people think he's a hero.

I'm with Tashtego, somebody pass the rum.

Matchframe, I was referring to this:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=bin+laden+determined+to+strike+in+US&spell=1

No, I don't think Bush planned 911. But I think he sure as hell had some pretty loud alarms going off but found it more prudent to sit back and fuck off in Crawford, clearing brush.

Also, my issue specifically whether or not Paulson's bailout will work - it's that it shouldn't be Paulson's bailout at all. Or Bush's. These guys have demonstrated again and again their incompetance and lack of regard for the rule of law, and they're asking for disctatorial powers over the economy.

Even FDR had to get congressional approval over and over again, and specific provisions of the NEw Deal kept recieving SCOTUS challenges. The bill submitted to congress last friday contains the following:

"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

If you believe that congress ought to essentially cede all authority over trade and commerce to an unelected official working on behalf of an executive branch that has constantly attempted to increase its power at the expense of the rule of law, we're not going to agree on much.

But couldn't we at least agree that the Bush track record is abysmal and that asking us to just trust them is kind of an insult to our intelligence?

Bingos: Whose economic decisions of the last 8 years lead to the crisis we're in now? Greenspan's? Bush's? Chairpersons of investment banks? Mortgage brokers? Homebuyers? I honestly don't know, and so wouldn't presume to be able to identify a culprit. Is Paulson making the right decisions? I honestly don't know that either. Perhaps an agriculture major from CalTech would be just as effective in the job. My reaction was simply to the writer's unsubstantiated, histrionic, and not at all well-argued call to action against the government's proposed bailout plan.

While I certainly understood the concept illustrated by the "fox and hen" analogy, there is simply no evidence to suggest that giving the government more money to bailout the financial industry will somehow cause them to want even more after that.

Hey Ross,

Ha, certainly can't argue with you about President Bush. The man won't be mentioned in the same breath as Lincoln or FDR, that's for sure. I too wish we would've taken Islamic extremism much more seriously, in retrospect. Maybe it could've been prevented. But to me, the people who "brought us 9/11" are the Al-Qaeda terrorists described in the links you sent me in your response. I mean, most people would probably concede that the person who most deserves to be tried for the crime is Mr. Bin Laden.

As for the other stuff, I'll just repeat that I don't have an opinion on whether or not the bailout will work. Not an economist. Like everyone else, you've got concerns about the consolidation of power in the office of the Treasury Secretary, but that's something altogether separate from the notion that the bailout is doomed to failure. Bush's track record is abysmal, to be sure, but the bailout plan is Paulson's, not his. You think Bush could've thought of that? = )

cheers

danwah, don't say that too loud. You might be posting your next comment from a computer station in Cuba.

Besides, I actually care about the fate of the whales. Feeding them that kind of shit diet will only hasten their demise. If they aren't poisoned to death, they'll kill themselves from shame.

Since this is the only thread talking about the $700,000,000,000 bailout here's my $0.02.

To me this looks like the last feeding frenzy of the ultra wealthy. They know that McCain doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. Come Jan 20th 2009 there's a new sheriff in town, so it's grab all you can while you can.

Here's what I find infuriating.

Socialized Medicine = BAD!

Socialized Capitalisim = GOOD!

Pretty screwed up priorities if you ask me.

This entry reads like a 19-year old English major writing a complaint to the Daily Trojan.

Also, I think that the picture you put up is either a humpback or grey whale, not a sperm whale.

dick cheese?

As to the bailout, not the subject of this article (sorry Lincoln), rescuing companies with flawed business plans seems...stupid.

The taxpayer will be raped (sorry Ellise) twice. First, in losing their homes (this applies to renters too you know) and second having to pay for someone elses greed.

Ok. Dick paper. I stand corrected. Perhaps about the weirdest thing ever.

Seriously, fuck remakes. Great post, funny shit.