Grandmothers are special.
sniff.

Oh my god, could she be any cuter? "Saw him on the CNN." "I keep him like my son."

Awwww ... that is so cute! Props to Biji (Grandma) ... she even read Obama's book!

She's such a sweetheart - and that's the thing about O - everyone can relate to him!

That made my heart melt. Shit, I might actually want Obama to win instead of Hillary.

adorable! she reminds me of many people in my grandmother's generation :)

Of course she's cute, and the mildly fractured syntax is endearing, but come on. One thing she doesn't do is tell you why she's supporting him.

"It's just a feeling", and not to completely discount the emotional pull of candidates (cf. JFK)- but on that same level, others will vote their 'feeling' too, and their 'feeling' might go against Obama, and there just might be more of them. Even JFK had a really close shave in 1960.

Solid reasons - separate from feelings - are needed to push Obama beyond what people will think are his 'traditional' bases. I haven't seen the other Youbama videos, but hope they are less sentimental in their approach.

I haven't looked at other such videos but I somehow doubt the point of these youbama videos (which I hadn't heard of before today) is to go into policy minutiae; the website, mailers, ads and (some) stump speeches are supposed to outline policy differences. For a good chunk of people (maybe even a majority) voting seems to be a gut thing (reinforced by selective readings of policy proposals) -- I guess the obama campaign is betting the 'gut'-voters among the 80% of people who thing the US is on the wrong track will like the appeal to ideals, inspiration, unity, blah blah. And I'm guessing the videos fall into that category of campaigning.

Policy-oriented approaches work, but even Hillary's campaign is less about policy details than projecting the aura (rightly or not) of competence and experience. Both campaigns, like all political campaigns, focus on projecting images of themselves and their candidates.

I was going to wax on this in my last post but didnt want the glow to rub off - but seeing that chachaji, jackal have raised the subject - here goes.

i firmly believe that people's (voting) actions are driven off their emotions - the logic is usually a backfill so as to appear something more sophisticated than a chimp to the peers. i loved that the lady said it as she felt it. there wasnt any mealy mouthed punditry. it came from the heart and demonstrated the truest reason why people vote for obama.

khoofia, did you just kick the stool under democracy's ass?

khoofia, did you just kick the stool under democracy's ass?

truest reason why people vote for obama

or bush in 04, or clinton in 92 or reagan in 84, or...

it came from the heart and demonstrated the truest reason why people vote for obama.

Gosh, that's kind of patronizing.

"The individual is the passenger in the car of the material body, and the intelligence is the driver. The mind is the driving instrument [reins] and the senses are the horses." --Katha Upanishad.

Just saying--the comparison does have some pedigree to it.

I love Amrutha, esp being as I'm her Nama-sake. Hers are the kinds of feelings that amount to reasons-- remember, chachaji, that she knows what happened, she read the book. You can vote for her at the site (http://www.youbama.com/popular/) and bring her up the charts. She's on page 5 right now. Khoofia pinned it, voting is about exercising one's judgment, and why not judgment of the Blink variety?

YouBama was started and is run by two Stanford CS students, Eric Park and Christopher Pedregal. It caught my attention with "Yes We Can," a music video by the Black Eyed Peas' will.i.am and Bob Dylan's son, Jesse Dylan, direct link here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yq0tMYPDJQ

Y'all, I'm so impressed that when my Mac just crashed, and I rebooted, and my browser restored, this note was intact just where i left it. Bravo!!! / Brava!!!

My TV is telling me Garrisin Keillor just exercised his Blink.

Garrison, sorry. and Susan Eisenhower, too, but nobody so boldly as Amrutha...

Saheli - your point is well taken but a point of clarification. i consider the mind to be the seat of logic and that is not necessarily linked to intelligence. I've made an earlier comment that emotional intelligence is necessary to taking the right decisions. more below.

Gosh, that's kind of patronizing.

Typical democrat voter...emotional, full of 'feelings.'

Typical democrat voter...emotional, full of 'feelings.'

Yeah. Republicans are heartless heartland residents. Look at the veep.

19 · DDiA said

Typical democrat voter...emotional, full of 'feelings.'

Yeah. Republicans are heartless heartland residents. Look at the veep.

Stop with the stereotypes on both sides.

i have a feeling this reflects where you and i stand on decisionmaking - or at least you believe that the heart has no place in decisionmaking

Interesting theory but if the "heart" had no place in decision making then my career choice (and by implication my life) would be inexplicable. I think maybe we are misunderstanding each other. When I said that your statement was patronizing it was because you were specific in saying that people that vote for OBAMA think with their "heart" and put aside their minds. One might argue that Clinton won in NH because a lot of people were thinking with their "heart" and not their mind. The politically incorrect truth is that the vast majority of people are too stupid to properly select a candidate so questions of heart and mind are largely pointless. The best propaganda matters most.

21 · Abhi the vast majority of people are too stupid to properly select a candidate

No, they're smart enough to properly select a candidate to do it well, if their decision mattered. Most are also smart enough to realize
that their vote won't matter on the margin, so they spend their time on other things. Those of us who post here view politics more as a
hobby, I think, rather than operate under the illusion that our votes are going to, on an individual basis, "matter."

Abhi, I may have been talking past you in my earlier response. I definitely didnt want to suggest you didnt believe passionately in your goals. What i wanted to say was that I do not consider it shallow to think emotionally.

The politically incorrect truth is that the vast majority of people are too stupid to properly select a candidate so questions of heart and mind are largely pointless. The best propaganda matters most.

Okay, I can hardly believe that nobody on this page has read Malcolm Gladwell's Blink! Here's an excerpt about it from his web site, completely relevant to our discussion.

2. How can thinking that takes place so quickly be at all useful? Don't we make the best decisions when we take the time to carefully evaluate all available and relevant information?

Certainly that's what we've always been told. We live in a society dedicated to the idea that we're always better off gathering as much information and spending as much time as possible in deliberation. As children, this lesson is drummed into us again and again: haste makes waste, look before you leap, stop and think. But I don't think this is true. There are lots of situations--particularly at times of high pressure and stress--when haste does not make waste, when our snap judgments and first impressions offer a much better means of making sense of the world.

One of the stories I tell in "Blink" is about the Emergency Room doctors at Cook County Hospital in Chicago. That's the big public hospital in Chicago, and a few years ago they changed the way they diagnosed heart attacks. They instructed their doctors to gather less information on their patients: they encouraged them to zero in on just a few critical pieces of information about patients suffering from chest pain--like blood pressure and the ECG--while ignoring everything else, like the patient's age and weight and medical history. And what happened? Cook County is now one of the best places in the United States at diagnosing chest pain.

Not surprisingly, it was really hard to convince the physicians at Cook County to go along with the plan, because, like all of us, they were committed to the idea that more information is always better. But I describe lots of cases in "Blink" where that simply isn't true. There's a wonderful phrase in psychology--"the power of thin slicing"--which says that as human beings we are capable of making sense of situations based on the thinnest slice of experience. I have an entire chapter in "Blink" on how unbelievably powerful our thin-slicing skills are. I have to say that I still find some of the examples in that chapter hard to believe.

As children, this lesson is drummed into us again and again: haste makes waste, look before you leap, stop and think.

Ahh, so the true rule then is "he who hesitates is lost"--ok, that clears things up. ;-)

Certainly that's what we've always been told. We live in a society dedicated to the idea that we're always better off gathering as much information and spending as much time as possible in deliberation. As children, this lesson is drummed into us again and again: haste makes waste, look before you leap, stop and think. But I don't think this is true.

9 · khoofia said

i firmly believe that people's (voting) actions are driven off their emotions - the logic is usually a backfill so as to appear something more sophisticated than a chimp to the peers. i loved that the lady said it as she felt it. there wasnt any mealy mouthed punditry. it came from the heart and demonstrated the truest reason why people vote for obama

Yup people who vote with their feelings will probably vote for Obama but shrewder,well-connected and experienced Hillary is needed to take some very tough decisions on the Iraq/Afghan/Pak mess and the economy bequeathed by Bush.

Okay, I can hardly believe that nobody on this page has read Malcolm Gladwell's Blink! Here's an excerpt about it from his web site, completely relevant to our discussion

Amrita, thats a nice book but most parts of it is like making a case for short attention span disease that many seem to be developing in this modern age. Depending on how critical and important an issue is, people will have to invest more time to take an informed decision.

Okay, I can hardly believe that nobody on this page has read Malcolm Gladwell's Blink!

I realized that book was junk as soon as I heard about it.

This morning, I watched Michelle Obama address a crowd at the UCLA campus. Having never seen her deliver a speech before, I was really impressed with what I saw. Has there ever been a potential First Lady, who could speak so good?

29 · UberMetroMallu said

This morning, I watched Michelle Obama address a crowd at the UCLA campus. Having never seen her deliver a speech before, I was really impressed with what I saw. Has there ever been a potential First Lady, who could speak so good?

Was that last sentence supposed to be a joke?

Has there ever been a potential First Lady, who could speak so good?

If you really care about this issue, you can make a difference.

>>i firmly believe that people's (voting) actions are driven off their emotions - the logic is usually a backfill so as to appear something more sophisticated than a chimp to the peers.

Ok - analyse this...

I will be voting for a Liberal Democrat this time around - the more liberal, the merrier. Not because I want the person to win, but because I want the person to be the President and "take the rap".

I firmly believe - correction - I most certainly know, that the US financial system is far too structurally damaged by the excesses of the last forty or so years. The Government has been good at keeping things under the wraps - but remember, this is the same Government that asserted in Aug'07 that the "Subprime mess is well contained." There is a credit card and commercial REIT mess that has just begun to unfold, and they are much bigger than the sub-prime mess. To cut a long story short, don't keep more than $100K in any of your bank accounts - because many of them will go under (all accounts are FDIC insured to upto $100K).

The US will undergo an extrmely painful national re-structuring over the next 7-10 years. The coming two-three Presidents (and the ideology behind it, unfortunately also the race/gender) will be blamed for this pain. We will be witness to a generational shift of attitudes.

Of course, at the end of it, the US will come out better and ahead, and Americans will soon retake the lead in the world. In the meantime though, there will be extreme pain that cannot be alleviated with 75 bps rate cuts.

So - is my voting choice based on the heart or the mind?

M. Nam

Was that last sentence supposed to be a joke?

Nope; I'm not American and was just curious. I really thought her speech at UCLA was very good. I'm obviously referring to her oratorical ability to get the crowd all pumped up.

If you really care about this issue, you can make a difference.

:D

I have noticed that Obama and Hillary supporters tend (key word here is tend) to be intellectuals and/or people with a kind heart and good intentions. These are just my observations only and I am aware there will be exceptions. The republicans I have encountered tend to be selfish, egotistical and unpleasant people in general. The few Republicans I have seen- like some of my own idiotic relatives that are diehard republicans- are extremely selfish, exploiting, racist, sexist, homophobic and obnoxious. Maybe the republican candidate(s) for president are different because McCain doesn't seem like such a bad guy. I don't know too much about the other primary candidates for the Republican Party.

At this point, anyone will be better than Bush. The current administration has really screwed with the US economy and whoever wins the Presidential office this year will have to deal with a big economic mess.

33 · UberMetroMallu said

Was that last sentence supposed to be a joke?

Nope; I'm not American and was just curious. I really thought her speech at UCLA was very good. I'm obviously referring to her oratorical ability to get the crowd all pumped up.

If you really care about this issue, you can make a difference.

:D

What Rahul and I are responding to in your comment is the use of the grammatically incorrect "speak so good," to describe someone with an extraordinary oratorical ability, and not disagreeing with or trivializing the content of your question.

Has there ever been a potential First Lady, who could speak so good?

Also, she might be articulate but is she a nice-looking gal?

(I know that's not the context you meant it in, UMM. By the way, is Biden still running? Or have they quarantined him with a diagnosis of acute foot-in-mouth disease?)

>>The current administration has really screwed with the US economy and whoever wins the Presidential office this year will have to deal with a big economic mess.

The seeds of the current mess were laid during the "New Deal" era (when most of us were not even born). The current sub-prime mess can be directly linked to a 1997 legislation which gave incentives to lend to people with questionable credit. This was passed by Clinton and hailed as a breakaway piece of law which would guarantee that being poor would no longer prevent a person from speculating on half-a-million dollar houses.

M. Nam

to pluck a passage from Nassim Taleb's Fooled by Randomness:

Damasio's Descartes' Error presents a very simple thesis: You perform a surgical ablation on a piece of someone's brain (say, to remove a tumor and tissue around it) with the sole resulting effect of an inability to register emotions, nothing else (the IQ and every other faculty remain the same). What you have done is a controlled experiment to separate someone's intelligence from his emotions. Now you have a purely rational human being unencumbered with feelings and emotions. Let's watch: Damasio reported that the purely unemotional man was incapable of making the simplest decision. He could not get out of bed in the morning, and frittered away his days fruitlessly weighing decisions. Shock! This flies in the face of everything one would have expected: One cannot make a decision without emotion. Now, mathematics gives the same answer: If one were to perform an optimizing operation across a large collection of variables, even with a brain as large as ours, it would take a very long time to decide on the simplest of tasks. So we need a shortcut; emotions are there to prevent us from temporizing. Does it remind of you Herbert Simon's idea? It seems that the emotions are the ones doing the job. Psychologists call them "lubricants of reason."

Joseph LeDoux's theory about the role of emotions in behavior is even more potent: Emotions affect one's thinking. He figured out that much of the connections from the emotional systems to the cognitive systems are stronger than the connections from the cognitive systems to the emotional systems. The implication is that we feel emotions (limbic brain) then find an explanation (neocortex).

Damasio also touched on the same interplay:

He argues that first, rationality stems from our emotions, and second, that our emotions stem from our bodily senses. The state of the mind, or feeling, is merely a reflection of the state of the body, and feeling is an indispensable ingredient of rational thought.[link]

The current sub-prime mess can be directly linked to a 1997 legislation

What on earth are you talking about? Any attribution to legislation ignores the developments in financial engineering, specifically the derivatives market and complex CDOs (collateralized debt obligations).

The New Deal? 1997? Are you kidding me?

DJDP,
I understood what Rahul alluded to, whereas, I thought you meant that there were others who were better than her.

Let me elaborate. The snark was intended, as most of her rhetoric seemed to have "pumped up" the audience rather than educate them; that's certainly not her fault. The contrast between her and Mrs.Schwarzenegger, who came on after her, was stark and comical. I mean, who in their right mind would embark on a crusade to provide "shout-outs" to all the candidates, their spouses, and their dogs after a speech like that? I personally think that besides being a brilliant orator, she has a very good understanding of Obama's politics and is an asset to his campaign. But, the reality is that to a lot of "ordinary folks" who support Obama, she is someone who "speaks so good" and nothing more. Moreover, I bet that if he becomes president, they'll reduce her to smart, sexy, sassy, funky and a plethora of other "in" adjectives.

Peace

The seeds of the current mess were laid during the "New Deal" era (when most of us were not even born).

MoorNam, I see your explanation and raise you an "Unidentified Fiscal Orchestration" sighting theory.

Moron Paul for Prez!

My folly was to include "New Deal" and 1997 in quick succession. Did not mean to imply they were the same.

New Deal had more to do with social welfare policies. As to the other, please google for "Financial Modernization Bill" and you'll know what I mean.

I wish Edwards had won the nomination - now I have to choose between Hillary and Obama to punish.

M. Nam

The seeds of the current mess were laid during the "New Deal" era (when most of us were not even born). The current sub-prime mess can be directly linked to a 1997 legislation which gave incentives to lend to people with questionable credit. This was passed by Clinton and hailed as a breakaway piece of law which would guarantee that being poor would no longer prevent a person from speculating on half-a-million dollar houses.

It was mentioned that the sub prime mess isn't the worst (post #32) so maybe the Democrats get a little break here.

I don't want to sound elitist, but my (New England area) neighborhood has a mix of houses with prices ranging from $300K to 1.5million . (Yes, it really is like that - and these are houses that are within 2 blocks of my place. I would never have believed it until I relocated here and saw the house prices.) To be honest and blunt, I have not seen any "poor" neighbors living in houses that are about half a million. Then again, that may be due to my limited experience and things might be different in other states/towns. I don't know the statistics of people with lower incomes and their housing arrangements and prices too. But the majority of the neighbors I am familiar (and friends) with are either medical doctors, professors, engineers, well off retirees, small business owners, one free lance writer/author, etc and ditto for my retired parents living in the Bay Area. People in the professions/jobs I just mentioned tend to have decent incomes and probably can afford their places of residence. I don't pry into peoples' businesses, but they don't look like people who live beyond their means, are big gamblers with insane debts, etc.

I also wonder what effect this current Iraq war will have on the economy in a few years or even months. I realize that WWII may have helped the US get out of the Great Depression, but there might be more factors. While it is true that many Democrat politicians went along with it, and probably even gave their blessings for this war, this prolonged war is definitely Bush's baby and his idea. Pouring a billion dollars of tax money into it every couple of years just does not seem like a good investment. (or whatever aburd amount it is. ) Although it's better for the Iraqis (and the world) to finally be free of that idiot Hussein, I am not sure about their current quality of life. It is a very complicated scenario with no simple explanation, but why hasn't the average Iraqi seen any of the money or wealth the US is throwing at their country? I really don't see the US money going to Iraq being used to build highways, libraries, playgrounds, malls, schools, etc. (Or perhaps the media isn't showing any images and cases of currently satisfied Iraqis. Who knows? I just feel we are not going to get the whole story and of course, the media will be censored during a war.)

Also, why do people berate this sweet lady featured in the video for "making decisions on her emotions"? Now I am going to make another statement based on my emotions - she seems like she has experienced a lot in life and has lots of wisdom as a result. Nothing scientific or even rational here , but it is just my "sense".

You can look at the passing of a bill and say "Aha! That's where this crisis came from." Or, you can acknowledge that securitization has added multiple layers of complexity to financial markets where

Complexity means that an event can propagate in nonlinear and unanticipated ways...For financial markets, complexity is spelled d-e-r-i-v-a-t-i-v-e-s. Many derivatives have nonlinear payoffs, so that a small move in the market might lead to a small move in the price of the derivative in one instance and to a much larger move in the price in another. Many derivatives also lead to unexpected and sometimes unnatural linkages between instruments and markets. Thanks to collateralized debt obligations, this is what is at the root of the first leg of the contagion we observed from the subprime market. Subprimes were included in various CDOs, as were other types of mortgages and corporate bonds. Like a kid who brings his cold to a birthday party, the sickly subprime mortgages mingled with these other instruments.

The result can be unexpected higher correlation. Investors that have to reduce their derivatives exposure or hedge their exposure by taking positions in the underlying bonds will look at them as part of a CDO. It doesn’t matter if one of the underlying bonds is issued by a AA-rated energy company and another by a BB financial; the bonds in a given package will move in lockstep. And although subprime happens to be the culprit this time around, any one of the markets involved in the CDO packaging could have started things off.[link]

Say what you will, NVM, but we both know that this is all FDR's fault.

I realized that book was junk as soon as I heard about it.

MoorNam, it's too simplistic to blame the subprime crisis on 1997 legislation. There was a pattern of dismantling securities provisions and oversight, paired with changes in the financial markets, that certainly contributed to the current issue. Both the Clintons and Bush did a great job of removing regulatory frameworks that moderated stupid behavior (or at least made it more costly) in the securities world. Many of the mortgages facing foreclosure today, depending on your municipality, were refinances, not first-time debts.

UMM, it depends on what you think the purpose of campaign speeches are. I've seen Michelle Obama speak on policy, and she is fantastic. You saw her deliver a speech that is 100% intended to get people pumped up and out to vote. Based on that single experience you make the assumption that she's incapable of delivering any other speeches?

Sometimes I seriously wonder what people imagine the role of the President (and his/her capacity) to be.

I don't think we need to label Republicans as cold, selfish, heartless, etc. -- it's simplistic and untrue. Many of the differences between folks voting in the Repub v. Dem primaries centers around their priorities; i.e., what they believe are the key issues facing the country. And while there's overlap, those priorities (and potential solutions) are not the same.

Amrita, thats a nice book but most parts of it is like making a case for short attention span disease that many seem to be developing in this modern age. Depending on how critical and important an issue is, people will have to invest more time to take an informed decision.

Why do people consider the sub-prime / mortgage "crisis" a crisis? We are indeed facing tough economic times but in this economic system, we take the bad times with the good times. This just happens to be a bad time. I'm not sure you can blame any administration or piece of legislation. This sort of thing is exogenous (thankfully) of government.

34 · gm said

These are just my observations only and I am aware there will be exceptions. The republicans I have encountered tend to be selfish

Just wanted to say I did mention there are exceptions to the generalizations and stereotypes of Republicans and Democrats.
That may not have been clear in my post and I am truly sorry if that caused any hurt feelings, confusion, etc.

I actually embrace some of the Republican values (like anti gun control, not messing with the Constitution, etc) myself but I really have encountered more obnoxious Republicans than Democrats. The anti African American , anti Jewish and anti Muslim and other racist and sexist sentiments expressed by most of my Republican relatives and acquaintances rubbed me the wrong way, I guess. And then there's people like Rush Limbaugh with a very popular radio show, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, who all tend to be a bit hypocritical and a little irritating. It appears that they are very well respected with many Republican fans (and maybe even some Democrats) otherwise they would not be raking in the big bucks from their books sales, radio and TV shows and lectures. I guess the closest Democratic counterpart to these guys would be Al Franken, but at least he is a great comedian. (Maybe there are more examples but I just can't think of any now.) I want to emphasize these are MY experiences only. Everyone has different experiences and different opinions. Again, I support some of the actions Bush had to take in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, I just disagreed with the way some things have been handled in Iraq and of course, no one (and no plan) is perfect. However, I won't get started on the way education & health care & senior issues are (mis)handled by the GOP.

Here is another generalization that might be similar to this issue of Republicans/Democrats and their supporters. When I was in high school(many, many decades ago:( ), I used to like Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd but I couldn't stand the people (in my high school) who liked them 'cause they were almost always smokers, druggies and complete stoners. I still listened to the bands so their fan base didn't turn me off completely.

Sorry to change gears and now back to the topic. If McCain wins the Presidency, he has my full support because he seems like a very decent candidate. Jack Kemp would have been an awesome President, too.

I can see the appeal of Obama (beloved son type) over Hillary ("too much" independent daughter-in-law), for elderly desi women.

50 · A bahu's place is in the ? said

I can see the appeal of Obama (beloved son type) over Hillary ("too much" independent daughter-in-law), for elderly desi women.

Ha Ha..Ha. Old habits die hard ?

#50...Pardesi Gori?

language is inadequate for articulating complex thought

Artaud, Chomsky... and now khoofia.

MoorNam, NVM and Camille,

Did you know that a desi had a hand in creating the framework in which packaged derivatives of sub-prime mortgages would be made more liquid? Here's an article, in case you hadn't already seen it. As for government oversight, there seems to have been little in the creation of the market for CDOs, as stated in the article: "The new standardized contracts they created would allow firms to protect themselves from the risks of subprime mortgages, enable speculators to bet against the U.S. housing market, and help meet demand from institutional investors for the high yields of loans to homeowners with poor credit." I am not sure that these bankers were aware of the long term ramifications of what these contracts would have meant to the marketplace, that should have been the govt's role. However, it does appear that some were willing to shade the edges in due diligence to make a profit. As MoorNam suggests, there will be blood in the streets, and it might go back to some who may have directly profited from creating the CDO market.

Back to the thread, if nanni wants to vote for Obama based on her feelings and what she read in Obama's book, it's probably as good a reason as any other. I'm sure there a lot of vets who might vote for Mccain solely because of his service in the military. If either finds something in the candidate they identify with, it may cause them to believe that candidate may have similar values. What's wrong with that?

I do have one question: Why this nanni? It "feels" like an attempt to specifically target the desi community to play on the respect most in our community have to our elders and another way for Obama to distance himself from "the Clinton, senator of Punjab comments". To be clear, I don't have a problem with that, it's a smart marketing tool and I think nanni is awesome in this video.

Maybe I'm too cynical. It might have played a little better for me, if it was a bunch of grandmas talking about their affection for Obama and less at a play to pull at Indian heartstrings. Though upon further reflection, I guess the case could be made that nannis are universal and that affection for grandmas cuts across any racial or national origins. Who doesn't believe there isn't a kernel of truth in the wisdom and judgment of their or any grandmother.

I wonder if this will lead to a battle of grandma videos from the Clinton camp? A nanni smack-down.

39 · No von Mises said

What on earth are you talking about? Any attribution to legislation ignores the developments in financial engineering, specifically the derivatives market and complex CDOs (collateralized debt obligations).

but these financial intstruments go back to at least the early 80s. yet lending to individuals with poor credit did not become a big business until the 2000s. perhaps its not mutually exclusive and the 1997 legislation adds an important piece to the puzzle.

If these instruments were clearly problematic, why did all these institutions load up on them and create complex financial webs which they knew would eventually bring them down? Doesn't the market always do the right thing independent of the time frame?

Obama is now polling 3 points higher to Clinton in CA.
Obama is leading in MS, leading by a whisker in CT and dead even in NJ.

Get ready everyone for the Obama presidency.

Why do people consider the sub-prime / mortgage "crisis" a crisis? We are indeed facing tough economic times but in this economic system, we take the bad times with the good times. This just happens to be a bad time. I'm not sure you can blame any administration or piece of legislation. This sort of thing is exogenous (thankfully) of government.

But I don't really want to argue about the subprime crisis here :)

tomorrow this atheist is hoping that tomorrow america will declare that yes we can! if the dems are dumb enough to nominate hillary this republican is ready to vote for mccain. no issue with hillary; but dynastic politics me no like.

...oh, i mention that i'm an atheist cuz i sure as hell am praying ;-)

mrita - i do not disagree except for your last statement. there is merit to reason ... but the rationalizing has to be balanced with risk and other factors beyond the realm of current knowledge.

Sorry Khoofia, I forgot to hit the blockquote button-- those are Malcolm Gladwell's words, not mine. I'm agreeing with you! I do think, though, that what you're calling an emotional response has other component, including what you might call a recognition factor.

i agree. i advocated the emotional response up front but i consider that as a proxy for decisionmaking that can not be articulated through linear or univariate logic. language is inadequate for articulating complex thought, though it can be very effective for browbeating an opponent into concession which isnt necessarily the same thing as making the best decision.

Agree with the above 1000%! I think it's snap judgment decision making that is making it possible for the Obama campaign to segue into a movement. Let's see if Desi Grandma's prayers work tomorrow --whoops, today!

Speaking of grandmas for Barack.

OMG THAT IS SO CUTE. I cracked up when I watched it, because I could totally imagine my mother saying that =P Especially the part where she said ever since she saw him on "the CNN" she has kept her in her heart, close to her son. Grandmas are like that =)

Heheheh, she said "guy". "Hai [hey], this is the guy who must one day be president."

Grandmom, you're becoming Yankee! :-)

very cute. and yes, go Obama.

Grandma's awesome--reminds me of my own (wanna-be grand)ma. But what's with the watch she's twirling about 20 seconds in?

I had to see this clip again. It still puts a lump in my throat, especially now since we're less than 10 days before the election.

Obama Obama o Mr. Obama
Hare Krishna hare rama
Kucch bhi ho jaaye par aap badal na jaana

Aap kyon lagte ho itne apne
Lagta hai aap hi karoge sabka beda paar
Hanumaanji ki shakti ho aap par aprampaar

Aap mein Mr. Mandela ,Tito , Gandhiji , Mother Teresa ki jhalak milti hai
Par aap ho in sab se bhi tagde
Suna hai aapke naam mein Hussein hai aap jaate ho church
Saath mein ho ek number ke Hanuman bhakt
Apki yahi ada sab ko kar gayi fida
Aap Sirf US ke hi nahi sare vishwa ke ban jaao pita

Aate hi aapne US nuclear program ko kiya hai ban
Cuba detention centeres ko karaya band
Lagta tau hai badhiya hai aapka intentions

Par aapne kaha hai aap US ke prominence ko rakhenge barkaar
Bas yahi baat aapki samajh mein nahi aayi sarkaar
Ismein ho aapki politics sochne ko dil hai bekraar
Kyonki aaj ro raha hai sara sansaar aur US ke paas hai resources aprampaar

Is developed world mein jahan har insaan ek doosre se aage jaana chahta hai
Aur ant mein kucchh nahi paata hai
Wahan aap is duniya ko dikhaoge lagta hai naya rasta
Ya yun kaho wahi purana bhagaan aur naturality waala rasta

Hum saare sachhe aur acche hindustani hain aapke saath
Bas aap bhi mat kar dena kamare saath vishwaas ghaat
Bhagwan/Allah/God se yahi hai vinti
Wah aapko de sadbuddhi aur apni poori Shakti .

Sare vishva ki jaye ho aur sab kucch mangalmaye ho !!

48 · Hari said

I'm not sure you can blame any administration or piece of legislation. This sort of thing is exogenous (thankfully) of government.

this is not exogenous of the government. unless you believe oversight functions of the government regulatory bodies can be taken over by the private agencies, which i am not sure about (because i believe that there is some sense in regulation originating from elected officials. true that legislators can be pressured by firms and lobbyists, but they are also accountable to the public. a private entity need only act in the shareholder's interest). also, the market depends a lot on the contract enforcement powers of the government in general. i love it when these firms come running to the government when they want concessions from the WTO, or protectionist policies enacted against foreign firms. at dividend time, these guys want to be left alone -- to enjoy the fruits of their entrepreneurial 'risk-taking.' but when the risks actually come on scene, they want daddy to hide in daddy's shadows.