But I thought the reason why this happened was because credit was too easy to get for those who could not afford it? But... nevermind.
This really demonstrates that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Yes, credit was too easy, and banks overextended themselves because they figured the government would back their loans. And now that they're dealing with the repercussions of these bad loans, credit has entirely dried up.
This concept isn't complicated. It's utterly simple. And if you don't even understand THIS, then you don't understand anything about this crisis.
In which case you should probably learn a lesson from Palin and just stop talking before you look not only petulant but stupid as well.
I think Sullivan's hatred of the Clinton borders on the irrational, but I have to admit I'm a fan of his. I think he's honest and a good writer and generally does a good job of justifying his opinions.
And on this story, while I totally agree the Obama campaign shouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole, I think there was enough strangeness to merit some investigation. Specifically because Palin's son has become part of the campaign. Her decision to have him is a huge part of the reason the religious right loves her. If they didn't want him to be part of the campaign, they could have asked that their family be off-limits, as other candidates have in the past. But instead they've run with it, and are totally happy to use their son as a demonstration of their convictions.
I'm usually pretty anti-conspiracy-theory (a few guys where I work are big-time 9/11 conspiracy theorists and I think they're utterly insane), but there were enough things that were odd to warrant some investigation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe all these are true:
Palin's pregnancy was revealed surprisingly late.
There are photos of her at 7 months not looking particularly pregnant. She wasn't in a bikini or anything, but she certainly didn't look obviously pregnant.
Her daughter was pulled out of school for an inordinate amount of time, even for mono. 5+ months.
When her water broke, a month early and with a known downs syndrome baby, she took two multi-hour plane flights and a 45-minute car ride to a local hospital.
Of course that doesn't prove a thing. And one of those, by itself, wouldn't raise too many eyebrows (though the plane thing is pretty overtly negligent). But all of them together makes me think that something strange was going on. Maybe not, maybe it's just a coincidence. But I don't think it's unreasonable to say "hey, all of these things are kind of strange, and we don't want to jump to any conclusions, could you just provide us with some typical documentation to assure us that things are on the up-and-up here?"
Why would she NOT release enough medical records to put this thing easily to rest? It's no invasion of privacy to get a doctor's records of a baby being delivered. She's on the public stage, she should expect that people aren't necessarily going to be taking her at her word on everything, especially when she's such an unknown.
So no, I don't think Sullivan has anything to apologize for, and I think he approached it with a reasonable amount of skepticism from the start. He never pushed any of the rumors or guesses as fact, and he always asked for confirmation that she was telling the truth so we could put the matter to rest.
And for the record, I don't think it's unreasonable for people to ask for verification that Obama was born when and where he said he was born either.
What about the experts at the Department of Energy who say that it would take years before offshore drilling would yield any oil at all
Well, given the nature of oil and its price depending futures trading, it's a bit misleading to insinuate that you must actually introduce oil to the system to cause a reaction in oil prices.
That's simply not true -- if tomorrow we discovered a way to manufacture an infinite amount of oil out of thin air, but that building the machine would take 5 years, you'd see a reaction in the price of oil instantly.
As much as I'd like to see this come to pass, it's WAY more difficult than the Apollo project. Achieving an engineering success with a blank check is a much simpler thing than overcoming the inertia involved in restructuring the entire energy infrastructure of a nation the size of the US.
I totally support minimizing or eliminating subsidies and tax breaks we're giving to companies making these kind of profits.
That said, I don't see why we should be going after them for "windfall profits". Everything I've read indicates that the oil companies have extremely similar profit margins to other industries (about 10%) -- it's just that they are moving such vast amounts of product that they end up making lots of money. Also, when the product more than doubles in price, that 10% profit also more than doubles.
Still, it's not like they're gouging customers by increasing their profit margins, and I don't see why we should penalize companies simply for being successful.
Is it really a sexist argument that a woman should get bumped to the front of the job queue for consideration because she's younger and prettier? Yes.
I disagree. Edwards gets all kinds of airtime and attention because he's relatively young and good-looking as well. I recall right here on MyDD when Edwards endorsed Obama, there was a big thread on how great-looking that ticket would be.
Women might face that kind of thing more, but it's not inherently sexist.