HurtfulTruth.com

Sometimes the Truth Hurts

HurtfulTruth.com header image 1

Is Hugh Hefner Losing His Girlfriends?

October 5th, 2008 · No Comments

→ No CommentsTags: hollywood gossip

What do the Taliban want in Pakistan?

October 5th, 2008 · No Comments

→ No CommentsTags: left wing news

Last days of the American Republic?

October 5th, 2008 · No Comments

→ No CommentsTags: left wing news

Palin’s conservative problem

September 30th, 2008 · No Comments

→ No CommentsTags: news

Is This Miley-Justin Thing Legal?

September 30th, 2008 · 1 Comment

Miley Cyrus, Justin Gaston Flynet

I hear Miley Cyrus is dating some guy named Justin Gaston. I also hear he’s 20. Is it illegal for them to be dating because she’s 15, or is it OK because she’s famous?
—Megan, Atlanta, Ga.

If you are implying that Ms. Miley Cyrus, who has shielded herself with a purity ring to ward off sexing of any kind, would ever engage in nonvirgin-like relations with her gentleman friend—well! I! Never! Ms. Cyrus is as pure as a spring emanating from a Tibetan peak, and I know because her PR machine says so.

Let’s stoop to your febrile level for a minute, here. To answer your question in detail, there is no law in California governing dating between minors. Dating, as in, going to a Pussycat Dolls show and then sleeping by oneself in one’s bubblegum-pink Barbie bed.

But if you are asking about intimate contact between Cyrus and Gaston, and what criminal charges such a union might trigger, well, that’s a different story…

Laws vary from state to state, of course. If Gaston were to deflower Cyrus in Ohio, for example, the law would be much harsher than if he made the same attempt in California. But here in Los Angeles, the law is pretty lax.

In the simplest terms: Sex between Cyrus and Gaston—highly theoretical sex, of course—is illegal. In California, any intercourse where one person is between 14 and 17 and the other person is over 18 is technically subject to criminal prosecution. But whether it’s a misdemeanor, or a more serious crime of felony, is all up to a prosecutor. The prosecutor first takes into account any other circumstances—stalking, pregnancy—before deciding whether to pursue a case.

source

→ 1 CommentTags: hollywood gossip

Sharon Stone Gives Her Kid Botox

September 30th, 2008 · No Comments

→ No CommentsTags: hollywood gossip

Heather Locklear Arrested — Classic Mugshot

September 30th, 2008 · No Comments

→ No CommentsTags: hollywood gossip

Bailout denied: What now?

September 30th, 2008 · No Comments

→ No CommentsTags: financial crisis

Why Conservatives Led the Fight Against the Bailout Deal

September 30th, 2008 · No Comments

On Monday, the Bush administration’s massive Wall Street bailout went down to a narrow defeat in the House. After the 228-205 vote, markets crashed, and the usual partisan finger-pointing followed. According to the Washington Post, Speaker Nancy Pelosi “maintained that Democrats ‘delivered on our side of the bargain’ by getting 60 percent of House Democrats to support a bill that was built around the Bush administration’s proposal, whereas 67 percent of House Republicans voted against it.”

At first glance, it may appear that the 133 House Republicans who broke with their party’s leadership did so out of principle — that they bravely stood up against a massive cash transfer to those most responsible for precipitating the financial crisis in the first place. They appeared to be gambling a lot in taking that principled position, despite the fact that the bailout had drawn fire from across the political spectrum. The conventional wisdom, after all, has gelled around the idea that only an unprecedented cash infusion into the ailing banking system will stave off a potential Next Great Depression. The message many rebellious conservatives sent was that it takes courage to roll the dice with the world’s economy six weeks before an election, even if the public was deeply skeptical of the measure (the reality is that almost none of the lawmakers who face tight races this fall voted for the bailout, fearing a backlash from voters; Congress is not known for courage or principle on the eve of an election).

And there’s no question that the bill they and 95 of their Democratic colleagues killed was an extremely bad one, even if some token nods to “Main Street” had been added to help it go down lawmakers’ throats more smoothly. Democrats abandoned a key provision — one vehemently opposed by lenders — to allow bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages that are in the process of foreclosure, and they accepted only token limits on executive compensation for companies that would be rescued under the plan (PDF). Worst of all was a vaguely worded provision that might have allowed the Treasury to buy up bad paper at the price at which it was originally booked, rather than at those securities’ largely unknowable but deeply diminished current value. That would have essentially given a small investor class an opportunity to recover its losses at the expense of the American taxpayer (and future taxpayers, as the bailout would be financed through debt).

But a deeper look reveals another picture of the legislative fight that has occupied Washington since George W. Bush first proposed the bailout. Unlike most House Democrats, who voted against the bill in an attempt to send the plan back to the drawing board to get a deal that might better protect taxpayers and homeowners, House conservatives torpedoed the measure in order to advance their own alternative “bailout,” one that’s an ideologically motivated back door to bailing out Wall Street without doing anything for Main Street.

The plan is notably light on detail, even for campaign season, when politicians are loath to discuss the fine points of any proposal. But based on what can be gleaned from media reports, the heart of the “alternative” scheme is for the government to sell insurance for securities based on bad loans, rather than buy up the paper directly. Supposedly, the premiums would be high enough to assure that Joe and Jane taxpayer don’t get fleeced.

On its face, that idea seems both fiscally sound and decidedly conservative, in the traditional sense of the word.

But remember what the immediate problem we face is all about. The financial industry is weighed down by an enormous “shit pile” of bad paper — mortgage-backed securities, complex derivatives and insurance-like instruments that were supposed to make all these “creative” investment vehicles somewhat sound. That shit pile, impossible to value accurately, is threatening the whole economy, as lenders hunker down and hold onto their cash reserves in an attempt to ride out the storm of foreclosures, and that’s making it tough for businesses and consumers to get credit they need to expand their operations or buy new gizmos.

For more visit alternet

→ No CommentsTags: financial crisis

Hello world!

September 8th, 2008 · 1 Comment

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!

→ 1 CommentTags: Uncategorized