Sarah Palin Makes Intermediate Language-Learners Look Like Churchill

I teach the English language to Korean learners from the beginner to advanced level. And I can say, with absolute confidence, that my intermediate-level students would perform better than Sarah Palin did in her latest interview. I linked to an excerpt last time, but this answer is even worse (or better, if comedy is what you're looking for):

COURIC: Why isn’t it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? Allow them to spend more, and put more money into the economy, instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

PALIN: That’s why I say I, like every American I’m speaking with, we're ill about this position that we have been put in. Where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, it’s got to be about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade — we have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today. We’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation.

Actually, I shouldn't even compare her answer to the kinds of things my students say. My students make sense.

Bank Note 2

Yesterday's post was full of jargon, and likely difficult to parse for those who don't read the business section of the newspaper. So I'll leave the topic with this: the answer to the question I posed yesterday appears to be, "I would." Hardly surprising.

Bank Note

A brief note about the Fed's AIG bailout, and the financial meltdown in the US: Suppose I'm a hedge fund manager who wants to get rich in a bear market. In the wake of the AIG bailout, why wouldn't I short the stock of some investment/insurance house that's, like AIG, wrapped up in CDS, and that's, like AIG, "too big to fail." I continue shorting until the stock tanks, which causes the firm's credit rating to drop, which in turn cripples the firm's ability to raise capital. With the stock in the toilet, credit unavailable, and with CDS coming due, the firm can't remain solvent, so it turns to the US government for assistance. The US government bails out the firm, wipes out the shareholders, and I get rich. So, tell me, why wouldn't I do this?