Because I haven’t the energy to write anything tonight that’s even remotely interesting… I give you a 19 year old Jennifer Granholm on the Dating Game

I was searching for footage of Debbie Stabenow on the first season of Temptation Island, but this is as close as I could come.

This entry was posted in Michigan, Politics, Pop Culture and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. Posted September 13, 2012 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

    The Freep has the background on how it was that this footage just came to light.

    And I’m sorry for subjecting you to this, as I know that every other Michigan website will be sharing the same Youtube video tonight, but I didn’t feel like I had a choice. It seemed like the kind of thing that I had to share.

    Now I’m going to go and look for video of Rick Snyder on Beauty and the Geek.

  2. Lumbergrl
    Posted September 13, 2012 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

    I am adding suspenders into my fall wardrobe.

  3. Eel
    Posted September 13, 2012 at 9:56 pm | Permalink

    Before watching this video of the young Granholm, I’d highly recommend that you view the following PSA. I wish that I had.

  4. MrMikesHardCoreSot
    Posted September 13, 2012 at 10:53 pm | Permalink

    “A beauty queen working in the public relations field”, to borrow Jim Lange’s words. She has had a successful career in the acting profession starting when she was 19 years old. If I had seen this video before her election, I would question her substance and sanity, even though she was 19. American culture is so depraved, how can anyone believe in it ?

  5. Edward
    Posted September 13, 2012 at 11:02 pm | Permalink

    Most stories of attractive young women moving to Hollywood, hoping to make it in the movies, don’t end so well.

  6. Posted September 13, 2012 at 11:15 pm | Permalink

    Canuk makes good

  7. Mr. X
    Posted September 13, 2012 at 11:19 pm | Permalink

    I’d love a sci-fi movie in which the young Granholm, trying to make it as an actress, is confronted by this powerful, dynamic woman, from the future.

  8. alan2102
    Posted September 14, 2012 at 7:36 am | Permalink

    You “haven’t the energy to write anything tonight that’s even remotely interesting”.
    How about letting a post write itself? A post on what is perhaps the most momentous event of this decade: Bernanke’s announcement of QE3, yesterday.

  9. anonymous
    Posted September 14, 2012 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    Why so momentous, in your opinion, Alan?

  10. K2
    Posted September 14, 2012 at 9:31 am | Permalink

    I find Michael Darby to be terrifying. I wonder what happened to him.

  11. Mr. Y
    Posted September 14, 2012 at 10:31 am | Permalink

    I’m glad that you enjoy this, Eel. According to a news report, “Mitt Romney’s campaign told a leading anti-pornography group that the Republican nominee will pursue and prosecute pornography if elected president.” In another few years, old Dating Game episodes might be all you have to work with.

  12. SparkleMotion
    Posted September 14, 2012 at 10:46 am | Permalink

    Under a Romney administration, pornography will go away just as much as marijuana has gone away under the last 10.

  13. Eel
    Posted September 14, 2012 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    Making it illegal would just make it dirtier. I’m all for it.

  14. SparkleMotion
    Posted September 14, 2012 at 10:49 am | Permalink

    Come to think of it, there is a distinct lack of search results for “donkey” when I check out the “above the line” sites.

  15. alan2102
    Posted September 14, 2012 at 11:27 am | Permalink

    Well, it was an announcement not just of the long-awaited (and highly significant, in any case) continuation of QE, but of OPEN-ENDED QE; i.e. the Fed left themselves open to monetize via bond purchases WITHOUT LIMIT. This is more than highly significant. I mean, a central bank is supposed to be cautious and conservative, even stingy, for fear of currency debasement, moral hazard and undermining of the bond market. It is supposed to dole out (if it doles out at all) in a carefully controlled way, with strict ceilings and time limits. Otherwise, things go crazy. People come to realize that it is all funny money, and there is a never-ending supply where it came from. That idea has a very destructive effect, for obvious reasons.

    Further, the money that the Fed doles out does not go to common people, as I’m sure you know. It goes to banks. Bernanke SAYS that this is about lowering unemployment, but that is false. Lowering unemployment is a possible minor side effect of what he is doing. But even that is a charitable description. It is unlikely to have any effect on employment. He is essentially providing a [YET ANOTHER] ton of free money to his bankster buddies, to shore-up their deteriorating balance sheets. This is called “crony capitalism”; bing for it.

    I am not as pessimistic as Marc Faber (wealthy fund manager), quoted below — “Fed policies will destroy the world” — but he is right on target with the rest:
    “The fallacy of monetary policy in the U.S. is to believe this money will go to the man on the street. It won’t. It goes to the Mayfair economy of the well-to-do people and boosts asset prices of Warhols …Very happy. Very good for the Fed. Congratulations, Mr. Bernanke. I’m happy. My asset values go up [i.e. he personally will profit, as will his clients — alan2102] but as a responsible citizen I have to say the monetary policies of the U.S. will destroy the world.”

    When Faber speaks of “destroying the world”, I think he refers to destroying the bond market (the REALLY big enchilada), and thus destroying savers, which is what Fed policies are doing. Why buy bonds when they pay less than the official inflation rate (which is itself much less than the real rate)? The Fed is in the process — a process that just got a big boost, yesterday — of turning all money into “hot” money, desperately searching for a decent return, since it obviously cannot be had by buying U.S. debt, and since parking it in dollars is a losing game that is sure to get much worse, soon. Everyone has to start thinking like a profit-obsessed Gordon Gekko-oid (“greed-is-good”) speculator, just to freaking survive. It sucks.

    A country which undermines its own bonds is a country that is headed into the crapper. China recognizes this; it stopped buying U.S. debt many months ago, and is feverishly diversifying out of dollars, accumulating hard assets and the sources of them, etc. They are smart enough to see that the endgame cometh. The Fed itself is the last big buyer left. Ask yourself: how long can THAT go on before things implode, explode, or melt down (choose one)? I guess I now sound like (doomer) Marc Faber. Ha.

    Here’s a bit more from the often-excellent Washington’s Blog:

    Related, from same site: even bond king Bill Gross says its time to get out of bonds! Yoiks!

  16. alan2102
    Posted September 14, 2012 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

    That (above) was in reply to anonymous:
    “Why so momentous, in your opinion, Alan?”

    That’s why.

    Slightly more important that Jenny Granholm’s teenage thoughts on boys. Only slightly.

  17. Posted September 14, 2012 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

    I like how women, to be considered sexy at that time, had to appear somewhat drunk, and ditzy… like they might be easy prey. The whole Dating Game thing makes me feel ill. I’m glad the 70s is behind us. Granted, things now aren’t great, but this is gross.

  18. SparkleMotion
    Posted September 15, 2012 at 5:18 am | Permalink

    I don’t think she was just appearing to be ditzy. Imagine the chemical cocktail she had to spray on her head to get it to look like that.

  19. alan2102
    Posted September 15, 2012 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    Here’s a further comment on QE3, which I am posting only because of the overwhelming number of supportive comments I’ve received, from Mark and others, asking for more information on this mega-ripoff and ongoing confiscation of the wealth of the common people (running, ultimately, into $trillions) that is occurring before our eyes.
    Immorality of QE3
    Submitted by Hrunner on September 14, 2012 – 3:20pm.
    Marc Faber alluded to this on Bloomberg, but the immorality of Bernanke devaluing the ‘peoples money’ with open-ended QE, which is bad enough by itself, but that the “transmission mechanism” is now just a way to funnel more money-printing to the banks.
    Remember, in a counterfeit scheme, the party that gets to use the money first gets the maximum benefit. After that, the funney money results in higher prices and devalued money for all “downstream”, with no benefit, only inflation.
    Where do MBS come from? They are securities created only by Wall Street. In collaboration with mortgage originators like local banks.
    Excuse me, but wasn’t it excess mortgage instruments (CDOs) that got us into the financial crisis in the first place?!!!
    I’m beginning to feel very nervous that we are going to get a whoosh of new mortgages and thus MBS created to feed the open-ended Fed buying. And blow a bigger credit bubble.

  20. alan2102
    Posted September 15, 2012 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    much better:’s take:
    US Federal Reserve Extends Unlimited Support to Financial Markets
    ” It is a measure of the deepening crisis of global capitalism that on the eve of the fourth anniversary of the collapse of investment bank Lehman Brothers, the US Federal Reserve has decided to pump still more money into the financial system….
    the new program means the central bank will be pumping around $85 billion per month into financial markets for an indefinite period.”

    85B x 12 = 1020B, or 1.2 trillion, per year.

    A trillion here, a trillion there, and before you know it, you’re talking serious money.

  21. Posted September 15, 2012 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

    We need a lot more stimulus. With the Republican stone walling any form of fiscal stimulus, the Fed. Res. is all that is left. The Fed Res has a mandate to promote “Full Employment”, with inflation running less than 3% a year (and during most of the last 5 years, at less than 2%), and the Financial melt-down putting over a trillion dollar hole a year in consumption–the 1.2 trillion you indicate–is barely sufficient to keep consumption at current levels. Everyone of us who have seen the value of our homes decline by over 30% NEED this inflationary stimulus. Without it my home will never appreciate to the value I owe on its mortgage. We have had in essence 5 years of near deflation—INFLATION (under 6% a year) is GOOD for those of us who owe money and have fixed rate loans. We have seen the value of asset inflation in the current run up in stock prices (making my 401k look a lot better). All that Government debt the Right Wing whines about all the time, we will be able to pay off with cheaper dollars. It is a win-win for everyone with the exception of bond holders, but they will also make out because people who own bonds are much more sophisticated in their investment portfolios, so if they lose money on bonds, they will make money on stocks, and real estate. Don’t listen to right wing economic propaganda. They do not have the common persons interest in mind when they demand we pay down the debt with over valued dollars.

  22. alan2102
    Posted September 15, 2012 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    Wobblie: “We need a lot more stimulus. ”

    I AGREE. But the Fed is not providing stimulus of the sort you are talking about. They are providing big bucks to their cronies, which is demonstrably NOT getting through to people like you and me. QE1 and QE2 accomplished almost nothing, as we can all see. I mean, NOTHING FOR MAIN STREET, though they did a fine job of keeping the banksters and the super-rich afloat — which was the intent. So, from the standpoint of original intent, they were successful.

    If they were serious about helping you and me, and creating the basis for prosperity long into the future, they would undertake massive infrastructure-development programs a la the New Deal programs of the 30s — except this time with a heavily green orientation (green energy, rail transport, etc.). Or, perhaps establish a guaranteed minimum income. Or, single-payer health insurance. There are many possibilities — IF they were seriously on the side of the common people. But, obviously, they are not.

    The inflation that you seem to welcome would be (I agree) OK as a side effect of those kinds of programs, but not as the result of megabucks give-aways to banks. More inflation would be fine if the proceeds actually benefited common people. But that is not what is happening, and not what will happen. There’s no way that inflation (short of hyperinflation) would compensate for the terrible bath that you and others have taken on real estate — which was the bursting of a Fed-caused bubble, you will note. When inflation gets that intense, you will not like it, trust me. Your appreciating home value, just like the gains in your 401K, will not come close to compensating for the much higher prices of everything that you will be facing.

    By the way, I am talking about real inflation, not the fudged figures released by the fedgov — which exclude (unbelievably) everything that is most subject to inflation, like food and fuel! (It is true! Their “core inflation” figure excludes the very things that are rising the fastest!)

    The problem is structural. The system is set up so that people like you and me, in the aggregate, are destined to lose, even if you can point to slight benefits here and there, like “my 401K is up”. Yes, your 401K is up. See how much it buys you next year of food, fuel, education, medical care, etc. The people who really benefit from inflation are not the small fry like you; it is the people who get the money FIRST, i.e. the banks. People who get the money first get to spend it at full value; it is all downhill after that.

    The gist of your comment is that Keynesianism is a good idea — and I partially agree, with the critical qualification that IT DEPENDS WHAT YOU SPEND THE MONEY ON. I am constantly getting into arguments with right-wingers about this. They think that government spending is always bad, which is obviously not true; they seem incapable of comprehending that government can invest in the public good, with great results. But it is even more foolish to think that what is going on right now (an orgy of theft, fraud and crony-capitalistic bailouts) is such an investment or that it represents wise use of public monies. What is going on right now is psychopathic. The nation is being looted and saddled with impossible debts by psychopaths. This is not what Keynes had in mind!

    If I were you I would not be so sanguine about bonds. When U.S. bonds stop being bought, you will see how crazy things get. When the usual buyers fail to buy (as is already happening; e.g. China) and when the Fed has maxed-out its own purchases, they will seek you as a new buyer. Your 401K or IRA will be frozen, and you will be forced to buy (loser) U.S. bonds with it. You see, the bonds MUST be bought, otherwise the whole system goes kerblooey. 401Ks, pension funds, and the like represent an enormous chunk of assets that will be used to shore-up the sinking U.S. and its bonds.

    All the paper assets of the little people in the U.S. will be confiscated in such a way, eventually. Just part of the ongoing and intensifying mega-ripoff, calculated to enrich the already-rich, and to impoverish you and me. Everything that can be stolen, will be stolen. We don’t have an economy anymore; we have a kleptonomy.

    BUT THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE, SIR WOBBLIE (IWW?). That would be an international proletarian revolution and replacement of capitalism with a social democratic (or perhaps anarcho-syndicalist, a la IWW) commonwealth. Which will not happen as long as you are imagining the enemy to be Republicans.

  23. Posted September 15, 2012 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

    I’ve got no problems with most of your critique Alan, but the specific purchases helicopter ben is talking about (ie. mortgage backed securities) will prop up housing values (maybe even blow some air into the bubble). Just as the other QE’s propped up folks 401k’s, without QE 1 and 2, many folks living on fixed incomes would have been reduced to absolute poverty . Since we (collectively as the government) can borrow money at near 0% interest, there is no real risk. We can buy up our own debt at 0%, with bonds that pay 1.5 or 2 %. The end result is we in essence reduce our debt through our purchases of our own bonds (savings). Dean Baker has written about this extensively, and has proposed that as a mechanism to deal with the debt. QE is without a doubt the least efficient stimulus possible. I would prefer direct fiscal stimulus–but the Congress has failed since the ARRA to do anything to create demand.

    The bond vigilantes are the same folks who believe in the confidence fairies. They have been predicting the demise of the dollar (quick buy silver—the Hunt brothers tried to pull that same stunt in the 80’s) for years. Any one who’s livelihood relies upon manufacturing has needed a cheap dollar, so if this causes the dollar to slip in international currency markets–I am all for it. The only one’s hurt in that scenario are currency speculators like Dan. The cheaper dollar should increase our exports which will reduce our balance of trade problems resulting in more domestic employment and thus an increase in domestic demand. It is a long and inefficient way to increase demand. In the absence of the Democrat gaining a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, I can’t see any other way.

    So in my mind the choices are
    1)Social Revolution–not really likely to happen
    2)A Democratic landslide in November–not likely to happen
    3)Some action by the Fed’s to some how massage some life back into the economy.

    We have no choices (in the absence of world wide social revolution) given the grid-lock of the legislative branch. The Fed can duplicate the activity of the Japan Central Bank, or it can do nothing. Basically we have chosen to emulate Japan’s economic policies , which will at least put a bottom on the economy. To do nothing would mean the current asset bubble would pop—with bad economic consequences for most of us.

    By the way I do not imagine the Republicans to be my “enemy”, I even have friends and relatives who are Republicans. I do know there are economic policies which will benefit most of us (even if most of the benefit is siphoned off by the 1%) , and there are economic policies which will directly hurt me. Tight money policies have never helped the poor or working classes.

  24. Posted September 16, 2012 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    some good graphs on historic levels of inflation in the US

  25. alan2102
    Posted September 16, 2012 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    Thanks for your reply, Wobblie.

    I don’t know how QE1/2 prevented any “absolute poverty” for common people, unless you refer to the possibility of some institutions collapsing without them (institutions on which some were dependent for income). Mostly what QE1/2 did was prevent pain and inconvenience for the already-very-rich. At the same time, what is happening is just as I said: the desperate search for a decent return, in an artificially low-interest-rate environment (the era of QE), is driving people nuts, and is dooming pension programs and pensioners to… well, maybe not “absolute poverty”, but serious problems nonetheless.

    Zero Return World Squeezes Retirement Plans
    Published: Friday, 3 Aug 2012
    Workers can kiss their retirement plans goodbye unless they take more risk to keep nest-eggs growing in a world where playing safe can be even more costly.
    Four years of near-zero official interest rates and successive market panics have driven the returns from low-risk German, British or U.S. government bonds on which pension funds traditionally rely to record lows.
    That may yet rescue the global economy by supporting borrowing and growth, but it is very bad news for several generations of workers already set to retire later — and for longer — than their predecessors. [end quote]

    As for true “absolute poverty” for common people: you’ll see plenty of it in the coming years, quite shortly. If the stimuli were actually directed in the ways that I mentioned, this would not have to be so (or would be much less so); but they aren’t being so directed. They’re going to all the wrong things.

    I agree that a weaker dollar has benefits. But those benefits come at the cost of much higher prices; i.e. everyone gets effectively poorer, and especially the already-poor, because such a large fraction of their income goes to the very things that are rising in price. Increases of 50% on the grocery bill are no big deal for someone who makes $100K/year, but are devastating for someone living on $10K.

    I don’t know what the Hunt brothers have to do with the subject of the demise of the dollar.

    you write:
    “1) Social Revolution–not really likely to happen” …. don’t be so sure! Arab spring, occupy movement, the fourth turning, the end of economic super-cycles. We’re in an era of revolutionary change. Much is possible that was not possible, just a few years ago.

    “2) A Democratic landslide in November–not likely to happen” …. might happen. This QE3 will pump up the stock market and make everyone feel good, like everything is on track. Unfortunately, much higher energy (and all other) prices will not be far behind. I predict an “inauguration surprise” of oil at circa $120/barrel, or maybe even $140. At those levels, economic growth will be difficult or impossible.

    Food prices around the world will move higher, increasing tensions in MENA, China, Africa, etc. As I just pointed out, increases in the price of essentials like food has a devastating impact on poor people. I’m glad that your 401K is going to be boosted by a few grand, but before you break out the bubbly maybe you should consider that the way it is being done will (further) stress and immiserate hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of humans.

    Likewise, I don’t have anything against your recouping some bucks lost in the R.E. debacle. Everyone has to take care of themselves and their own (including me), and I don’t disparage you for that; go ahead and cheer when your 401K and house value goes up. The problem is THE WAY it is being done. These MBS purchases (QE3) are just another subsidy for banksters at the expense of the broad mass of taxpayers, and savers, and even more so at the expense of the poor. The banks have a ton of un-sellable underwater MBS’s that they want to unload, and Benny has stepped up to buy them, on our behalf. This is called “conversion of private into public debt”, or “private profits, socialized losses”. Or, more simply: LOOTING, or THEFT.

    (Oh, and further: this new open-ended QE almost cannot help but increase moral hazard, with banks now being incentivized to issue dubious mortgages — just to flip them to the Fed! Hey, why not? The Fed will buy ANYTHING. Right?)

    It is true that not ONLY the banksters will benefit. Some of the smaller people will benefit; you are one of them. But keep in mind that “smaller people” can be part of the 1%, too, and can benefit greatly while millions or billions of others suffer as a result. Anyone with an income over about $50K (with wealth to match) is part of the 1%:

    Actually, rather than thinking in polarized terms like “1%” vs. “99%”, (“us” vs. “them”), it is better to think in terms of a continuum. We’re all on the continuum, somewhere; many of us are much closer to that 1% zone than we usually think. Current Fed policies will benefit not just a small group of thieves at the top. It will benefit them mostly, but there will also be lesser benefits, distributed on a curve (a continuum), quite far down, including relatively little people like you, Wobblie. (You, with what I take to be a substantial 401K, and a home with substantial equity — substantial enough so that you are distressed by the loss of 30% of it. That means you are quite rich, really. Not everyone is so lucky.) And who will pay for these benefits? Who will NOT partake of them? Take a guess.

  26. Marc Faber
    Posted January 25, 2013 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

    Andy Kaufman was also on the Dating Game, and would have made a better Governor.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

5 + = nine

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


Sidetrack ad Aubree’s ad BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Dave Miller 3