Satire
Læsetid: 2 min.

Romney går løs på homoseksuelle

Den republikanske præsidentkandidat har vist ungdommelig handlekraft mod afvigende adfærd
Udland
12. maj 2012

Jovist, der er forskel på Demokraternes Barack Obama og Republikanernes Mitt Romney. Der er handlekraften til forskel.

I forgårs kom Obama – efter lang tids tøven – med en »personlig« støtte til homoseksuelle ægteskaber. Tydeligvis var det uden begejstring, og Obama fulgte ikke op med forslag til hjælp for giftelystne bøsse-lesbiske.

Hans modkandidat, Mitt Romney, har derimod vist anderledes engagement og initiativ i sagen. Avisen The Washington Post kunne i går fortælle, at Romney som gymnasieelev i 1960’erne stod i spidsen for et overfald på en skolekammerat, John Lauber, som man antog for homoseksuel. Romneys gruppe sparkede benene væk under John Lauber og pressede ham mod jorden. Mens Lauber med tårer i øjnene råbte om hjælp, klippede Romney i Laubers lange, lyse hår.

John Lauber er sidenhen sprunget ud som erklæret homoseksuel.

Til den højreorienterede tv-station Fox News har Romney forklaret sin rolle således: »Først og fremmest vidste jeg ikke, hvad den persons seksuelle orientering kunne være. Tilbage i 1960’erne var det ikke noget, vi diskuterede eller tænkte på.«

Kunne folk kureres?

At homoseksualitet ikke skulle have været til diskussion i 1960’erne, er en Romney-påstand, der har fået amerikanske bloggere til at bestrø deres hjemmesider med datidens avisudklip, der lidenskabeligt handler om homoseksualitet: Var det en sygdom? Kunne folk kureres? Kunne homoseksuelle overhovedet bestride et offentligt embede?

60’ernes homodebat

1960’erne var på deres egen måde nærmest lige så fikserede på homoseksualitet, som nutiden er det – blot at fordømmelsen fyldte meget mere i billedet.

I bedste fald har Mitt Romney en meget mangelfuld hukommelse. Hvad der jo ikke er særligt heldigt for en kandidat til højt embede. Eller også er den gamle episode et udslag af Romneys stemningssvingninger i forhold til homoseksuelle. Da Romney i 1994 stillede op til USA’s Senat mod Edward Kennedy, overgik Romney Kennedy i venlighed over for bøsser og lesbiske.

»Jeg vil være deres talsmand og værner,« lovede Romney i en tv-transmitteret tale. Og nu – inden nyheden kom frem om Romney som overfaldsmand – havde Romneys kampagnestab bebudet, at han vil føre præsidentvalgkamp på et forslag om et forfatningsforbud mod samkønnede ægteskaber.

Måske er forklaringen den, at Romney ikke kan styre sig selv, når han kommer i nærheden af homoseksuelle.

Følg disse emner på mail

Vores abonnenter kalder os kritisk,
seriøs og troværdig.

Få ubegrænset adgang med et digitalt abonnement.
Prøv en måned gratis.

Prøv nu

Er du abonnent? Log ind her

Bill Atkins

Mitt Romney har vist ungdommelig handlekraft

Et eksempel på overskriftsredaktørens dominante underdanighed?

Philip C Stone

"John Lauber er sidenhen sprunget ud som erklæret homoseksuel."

John Lauber døde i 2004.

Vedr. den religiøse højrefløjs reaktion på Obamas udtalelse se:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-gay-marriage-endorsement-mo...

Philip C Stone

"Jovist, der er forskel på Demokraternes Barack Obama og Republikanernes Mitt Romney."

Her er lidt om forskellen mellem deres partier og hvilken politik de støtter. Desværre er det en forskel som Information ikke beskæfiger sig med.

For more than a year, House Republicans have energetically worked to demolish vital social programs that have made this country both stronger and fairer over the last half-century. At the same time, they have insisted on preserving bloated military spending and unjustifiably low tax rates for the rich. That effort reached a nadir on Thursday when the House voted to prevent $55 billion in automatic cuts imposed on the Pentagon as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, choosing instead to make all those cuts, and much more, from domestic programs.

If this bill were enacted, estimates suggest that nearly two million Americans would lose food stamps and 44 million others would find them reduced. The bill would eliminate a program that
allows disabled older people to live at home and out of institutions. It cuts money that helps low- income families buy health insurance. At the same time, the House bill actually adds more than $8 billion to the Pentagon budget.

In all, the bill would cut $310 billion from domestic programs; a third of that comes out of programs that serve low- and moderate-income people. Other provisions would slash by half the budget of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was set up after the financial meltdown to protect consumers from predatory lending and other abuses, and reduce the pay of federal workers...

House Democrats offered an alternative bill that would replace the $109 billion sequester by raising taxes on the wealthy, ending oil company tax loopholes and cutting farm subsidies, but it was
rejected. Republicans are determined to protect millionaires and defense contractors, no matter the costs to the country.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/opinion/the-human-cost-of-ideology.html?
_r=1&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

Stephen Colbert fra Comedy Central forklarer, hvorfor evolution fører til homoseksualitet og hvad Jesus mener om samme emne:

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/05/11

Philip C Stone

Og her er lidt om Romneys (og Republikanernes og desværre også en del Demokraters) forhold til reguleringen af finanssektoren, og om de risici som sektoren stadig indebærer. Baggrunden er denne: JPMorgan har udført nogle risikable handler som indtil videre har kostet firmaet over 10 milliarder kroner. JPMorgans CEO, Jamie Dimon, har været ihærdig i sine forsøg på at skrotte den (utilstrækkelige) regulering der blev vedtaget oven på finanskrisen, og kombinationen af bankens tab og Dimons modstand mod regulering har fremkaldt fornyet opmærksomhed på de fortsatte finansielle farer.

Indlægget er langt. Jeg har forsøgt at tilrettelægge det sådan at de mest basale oplysninger kommer først. De læsere som er interesserede i mere specifikke oplysninger kan så læse videre. Et klik på linkene giver selvfølgelig en hel del mere.

1.
What Mr. Dimon did not say is that the loss also occurred because of a continued lack, nearly four years after the crisis, of rules and regulators up to the task of protecting taxpayers and the economy from the excesses of too big to fail banks; and, yes, of protecting the banks from their executives’ and traders’ destructive risk-taking.

The fact that JPMorgan’s loss — which Mr. Dimon has warned could “easily get worse” — is not enough to topple the bank, is not the point. What matters is that JPMorgan, like the nation’s other big banks, is still engaged in activities that can provoke catastrophic losses. If policy makers do not strengthen reform, then luck is the only thing preventing another meltdown...

There are now several bills in the House, with bipartisan support, to weaken the Dodd-Frank law on derivatives. One of those would let the banks avoid Dodd-Frank regulation by conducting derivatives deals through foreign subsidiaries. The JPMorgan loss was incurred in its London office, which doesn’t lessen the effect here.

Mitt Romney has called for repealing Dodd-Frank. That may win him Wall Street cash, but it is profoundly dangerous. President Obama and Congressional Democrats can take credit for Dodd-Frank, but they have not done enough to ensure that the rules are strong enough.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/12/opinion/jpmorgan-chases-2-billion-los...

2.
WASHINGTON — Soon after lawmakers finished work on the nation’s new financial regulatory law, a team of JPMorgan Chase lobbyists descended on Washington. Their goal was to obtain special breaks that would allow banks to make big bets in their portfolios, including some of the types of trading that led to the $2 billion loss now rocking the bank.

Several visits over months by the bank’s well-connected chief executive, Jamie Dimon, and his top aides were aimed at persuading regulators to create a loophole in the law, known as the Volcker Rule. The rule was designed by Congress to limit the very kind of proprietary [spekulative] trading that JPMorgan was seeking...

Those efforts produced “a big enough loophole that a Mack truck could drive right through it,” Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who co-wrote the legislation that led to the Volcker Rule, said Friday after the disclosure of the JPMorgan loss...

While the banks lobbied furiously, they were in some ways pushing on an open door. Officials at the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve, the main overseer of the banks, as well as the Comptroller of the Currency, also wanted a loose set of restrictions, according to people who took part in the drafting of the Volcker Rule who spoke on the condition of anonymity because no regulatory agencies would officially talk about the rule on Friday.

The Fed and the Treasury’s views prevailed in the face of opposition from both the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulate markets and companies’ reporting of their financial positions. Both commissions and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which insures bank deposits, pushed for tighter restrictions, the people said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/12/business/jpmorgan-chase-fought-rule-o...

3.The bad trades that caused JPMorgan’s loss recalled the type of complex, highly speculative strategies that helped to nearly crater the banking industry in 2008 — before taxpayers stepped in to bail it out.
In this case, the trader in London tried to “hedge,” or protect against, corporate bonds and loans owned by JPMorgan.

But instead of simply selling those bonds and loans, the trader engaged in a series of extraordinarily complex transactions, buying and selling other specialized investments, to protect the bank if the bonds and loans lost value. The web of investments proved too complex, creating risks the bank did not anticipate...

Now, JPMorgan is not only facing the outrage of lawmakers but also intense regulatory scrutiny. The Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve and British regulators are all looking into the problematic trades...

At a Senate hearing Wednesday, former Fed chairman Paul Volcker, the intellectual father of the [Volcker] rule, offered a full-throated defense.
“Proprietary [speculative] trading is not a necessary ingredient of bank profits. It’s a very volatile ingredient of bank profits,” he said. “You know, I think it’s appropriate that all the money that was made on trading in this century by banks up until 2007 disappeared in 2008, which gives you a sense that this is not a risk-free business.”

Sheila Bair, the former chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. who pushed for aggressive financial reforms, said in an interview that the JPMorgan case revealed a fundamental question.

“It reinforces the question of whether these banks are too big to manage,” she said. “Are these financial institutions too big and too complex for anybody to manage?”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/jpmorgan-losses-reignite-...

Skolebøllen Romney beskrives af skolekammerater som "ond", lidt" lige som Fluernes Herre."

http://hoisonten.b.dk/Event/Hoisonten/29926640

Steffen Gliese

Nogen har set skriften på væggen! :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6S5caRGpK4

Philip C Stone

Her er en link til artiklen i The Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romneys-prep-school-classmat...

I dag har avisens tegner præsteret en genial kobling mellem Romneys adfærd som ung og hans politik over for de ikke-rige. Følgende oplysning vil måske bidrage til forståelsen: Take A Haircut basically means: suffer a severe financial loss. Such as in: “Investors in Irish banks may have to take a haircut in order to deal with the solvency problems facing the Nation.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/toles
https://hansishallucinations.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/take-a-haircut/

Romney har igen og igen demonstreret at han er en patologisk, samvittighedsløs løgner. Det ene øjeblik påstår han at han ikke kan huske episoden. Det næste, at han ikke var klar over at Lauber var bøsse. Og mens han svarer, smågriner han. De andre som deltog i eller overværede overfaldet har udtrykt skam og beklagelse. En sådan handling glemmer man ikke med mindre man er afstumpet.

Philip C Stone

WE INTERRUPT THIS PROGRAM TO BRING YOU AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE

Under overskriften, JP Morgan's $2 Billion Tumble Renews Call: 'Break Up the Big Banks', har Common Dreams uddrag fra flere artikler om JPMorgans spekulation. Rolling Stones Matt Taibbi er citeret for følgende guldkorn:

"It’s a simple concept: you either get to be a bank, or you get to be a casino. But you can’t be both. If we don’t have rules to enforce that concept, we ought to get some."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/jamies-cryin-dimon-j...

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/05/11-0

The Atlantic nævner andre eksempler på bankernes omgåelse af loven:

The reports are startlingly familiar. Late Thursday, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon announced a surprise $2 billion trading loss and stocks swooned. Diamond insisted, though, that there was no need for a Volcker Rule that would ban big banks from risky trading.

Last week, a Reuters investigation revealed that HSBC, the world's fifth-largest bank, failed to review thousands of internal anti-money-laundering alerts. The bank did not file legally required "suspicious activity reports" to U.S. law enforcement officials. It hired "gullible, poorly trained, and otherwise incompetent personnel" to run its anti-money-laundering effort. Each year, hundreds of billions of dollars flowed through the bank without being properly monitored.

Last month, U.S. regulators accused Citigroup of having major lapses in its anti-money-laundering systems as well. Under an agreement with the Comptroller of the Currency, the agency that regulates national U.S. banks, Citigroup agreed to improve its monitoring operations, but did not pay a monetary penalty or admit any wrongdoing.

For critics of mega-banks, the reports are the latest sign of big banks' ability to defy regulation, engage in dubious business practices and face few consequences.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/05/the-lesson-of-jp-mor...

(Jeg ved at de fleste at mine indslag her er OT, men jeg synes at de indeholder vigtige oplysninger. Desværre har jeg ikke lagt mærke til andre artikler i dagens avis hvor de bedre hører hjemme.)

Philip C Stone

I fredags diskuterede Diane Rehm JPMorgan sagen med sine gæster. Bemærk især Jeanne Cummings kommentar til lytterens email, allersidst. Der er flere retssager i gang imod bankerne, men bankerne er blevet mere kæphøje og genstridige. Hvor de tidligere ville have accepteret en løsning, trækker de nu sagerne i langdrag. Jeg formoder at dette skyldes både retslige og politiske overvejelser. Som det fremgår af mit kommentar 14:16 nummer 1 og af det efterfølgende (Roberts: midtfor), er Mitt Romney (og det Republikanske parti) imod finansiel regulering. Bankerne støtter nu overvejende Republikanerne, og de regner sandsynligvis med at mere gunstige politiske forhold vil føre til en mere lempelig retslig behandling. Men i lyset af JPMorgans uansvarlighed og CEO Jamie Dimons indsats imod regulering, ser det for øjeblikket ud til at bankernes hybris er blevet til nemesis.

REHM
Jeanne Cummings, this J.P. Morgan story is a big one, $2 billion in loses, which Jamie Dimon says happened because somebody wasn't paying close attention.
CUMMINGS
...obviously, J.P. Morgan stock prices are down and that sort of thing. But Jamie Dimon was leading the lobbying charge to loosen up regulation under the new banking reform law that would have banned or restricted this kind of transaction. And now, that lobbying effort has been derailed.
REHM
And we have a statement from Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Mary Schapiro, who told reporters, "I think it's safe to say that all the regulators are focused on this." She declined to make any further comment related to J.P. Morgan. Are we likely to see this kind of incident support the idea for more regulation, Steve?
ROBERTS
Well, of course, there already has -- was passed in Dodd-Frank some very significant regulations, which, as Jeanne said, Jamie Dimon and a lot of the bankers are -- were fighting to try to mitigate and repeal. I think there's a political implication here, too, because Mitt Romney has campaigned very heavily against Dodd-Frank, very heavily against the idea of regulation.
At the core of his economic argument is that the economy is overregulated and that the Obama administration, Democrats in general, are throttling initiative by overregulating the banks and other economic institutions. And I think this strengthens the Democratic argument that Wall Street cannot be fully trusted and that [a] certain amount of regulation is necessary. It's a pretty stark reminder that, for all of its enormous virtues, the free market does have some drawbacks and that regulation on some level is necessary.
PAGE
Also, don't forget Dodd-Frank, while it's viewed as overregulation by Jamie Dimon and some folks, others would say Dodd-Frank's final version was watered down from where it ought to be...
REHM
And here's an email from Emily on this very issue: "Please comment on why so little has really been accomplished so far in reforming Wall Street, much less prosecuting the most egregious offenders." Jeanne.
CUMMINGS
Well, there have been stories written about this, and as time goes on, perhaps it deserves a lot more attention. But a couple of things are happening. First of all, the regulations were passed. They are now being written by the bureaucrats. That takes a certain amount of time, but many are in place. And there are indeed charges being brought against people on Wall Street. But what's different is that the banks are challenging cases that normally would be settled are now not being settled. They're being challenged.
And so the government regulators are increasingly being brought into court. And so it's taking longer to punish those who have been accused of wrongdoing. Bloomberg's working on a story on this right now. This is a big shift in the way the regulators and the banks traditionally have interacted. If somebody got called up by the SEC or something, they would settle the case through an agreement. That's not so now. Increasingly, they're going into court which -- for what become very long trials.
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-05-11/friday-news-roundup-domesti...

Det citerede uddrag starter 10:20:46.