Stuart Varney says the Obama administration is refusing to allow banks to pay back TARP money so the federal government can maintain control over them. It’s also pretty despicable that the Bush administration would threaten a bank with a public audit unless it accepted TARP money the bank didn’t want.

I’d be careful here. I thought the same thing initially, and blogged about it at Outside the Beltway. Then I did more research and became less convinced that this is a widespread issue. Maybe in a specific case this happened and for possibly valid reasons. But, at least 5 banks have returned TARP money and several more were awaiting approval.

The fact of the matter is, Geithner (and Obama) has, on multiple occasions, talked a game of authoritarianism when it comes to federally-backed companies (…and perhaps “others”). If a bank doesn’t want to play by those rules, they shouldn’t be forced to.

Whether or not Varney was correct in how far his assertions went is one thing, but the Administration has demonstrated a desire to control these institutions.

The Hinkle lady in the 11-year old “rapist” story very fucked in the head but her attitude is common almost the point of uniformity in this country.

FTA: “These kids are watching this stuff on television, they see it on the computers, they are seeing their parent or guardians in relationships where more physical or sexual stuff is being shown then used to be or even should be,” Ritchason said. “Young kids are being exposed to things today through technology and lifestyles that they really shouldn’t be.”

They shouldn’t be? Well, maybe. But what are you going to do about it? The typical position that most people will jump to ranges from mandatory content blockers on TVs for the regular dimwits, G-rated-only entertainment for the super-extra dimwits, and then some not-all-that-dim people might say that it’s up to parents to control what their kids watch/see.

The problem is that nobody is acknowledging REALITY, which is that kids WILL see sexual content on TV. Hinkle said she’s seen an increase in the last 15 years, which if it is true (not taking that for granted) would correspond with the rise of highly sexualized primetime TV.

So basically we’re putting sexual content on TV and “hoping” kids don’t see it. The problem is that we try to act like sex DOESN’T EXIST with children below a certain age. They will find out that it does, more often than not, and they need to be equipped with at least some BASIC information to keep them from fucking up. And if you do try to teach elementary school children even the most basic idea of what sexual contact is and what its purposes are and aren’t, you get bullshit like the “mandatory sex ed for kindergartners” ad McCain ran last year.

Hinkle wishes she could just wave a magic wand and make these “technologies and lifestyles” disappear, and even though she knows it’s impossible to get rid of them, she still chooses the blame the technology rather than the imposition of archaic Puritanical values on a society immersed in said technology.

“Rhonda Hinkle, a supervisor with Muskingum County Children’s Services, said the girl is a very rare case, but her office is continually seeing more and more children who are committing sex crimes, not just being victims.”

It does not seem to have entered the mind of anyone in this story that perhaps more children aren’t “committing sex crimes,” but doing what kids will do and have done forever and being charged. I guess this must be the usual mixture of zero-tolerance, puritanical, bad laws, and pure unthinking bureaucracy. Blame the children, now made victims, and don’t bother to speak out and say this is just stupid.

So, if the author works for foxnews that automatically makes him an untrustworthy source for a fact that’s fairly benign, at least in context of the rest of the story? Out of curiousity, do you hold the same view of Radleys work? Would it make it more palatable of a story if it was published on Politico?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/20871.html

The basic argument for the Varney article was:

My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control.

I’m just trying to figure out if you don’t believe the story because you don’t buy the argument, or because you just out of hand dismiss a story by a guy who appears on Foxnews.

“Editor’s note: Due to the sensitive nature of this story, we are invoking Rule 7 of Rules of Engagement at http://www.zanesvilletimesrecorder.com/rules and not allowing reader comments.”

Imagine that.
Can’t have anyone pointing out the fuckwittery of the ‘authorities’, now, can we?

Yup. Those are all stupid laws.

Not to mention a multitude of things that make you evil because you are not “for the children.”

First he says

“Because, and this surprised the hell out of us, people aren’t completely retarded.”

and then just a few sentances later he says

“Few things are more dangerously retarded than people in large groups.”

I suppose these two statements don’t technically conflict, but that still made me look twice. And I firmly in the second camp myself.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/07/judge-expected-toss-stevens-conviction/

“‘In nearly 25 years on the bench, I’ve never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I’ve seen in this case,’ U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said”

I guess he’s either a) lying or b) really hasn’t paid attention to any prosecutors.

Who the fuck thinks that this will lead to the best outcome for an 11 year-old?

There you go spouting off some common sense! It has nothing to do with considering the best outcome FOR THE CHILD. It has everything to do with considering the best outcome FOR THE STATE, which is total domination and destruction of your life in the interest of putting fear of the State into you, and thus hopefully turning one into a pliant slave. It may turn one into a cognizant patriot that has nothing but disdain for the State, but statistically speaking maybe 1/100 would turn out that way.

During two weeks of watching television game shows and trying to keep up with homework online, the Fairfax teen, an honor student and lettered athlete, had time to study the handbook closely. If she had been caught high on LSD, heroin or another illegal drug, she found, she would have been suspended for five days. Taking her prescribed birth-control pill on campus drew the same punishment as bringing a gun to school would have.

… and naturally, by extension, realized that birth-control equals murder. So the Catholic Church was right all along.