Taibbi on AIG

If you're like me, you find the daily talk of "the recession" depressing enough to make your ears bleed.

But here's two comforting facts: It's going to get much, much worse, and it's going to last much, much longer than anyone expects or wants.

OK, comforting wasn't the right word there.

So buckle up, or whatever. Get some headphones. It's all anyone is going to talk about for the next 3 years, at a minimum.

And when you read a clear, well-reported analysis like the one offered by Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi, you begin to develop the frightening picture in your mind. This should be required reading for every man, woman and child in the country.

Because you realize that these financial guys, these "free market" gurus, they're nothing more than common criminals on the grandest of stages. Is there a more helpless feeling in the world? They've infiltrated the government and it's systems of power and regulation and turned them into a big, fat joke. And they allowed themselves to become so big that the entire economy rests in their hands: big, fat companies that are "too big to fail."

So we must bail them out to save the system, which led to the corruption and greed in the first place, because the hunger for bigger profits is all it is based on.

It remains to be seen, but the 2008 election is beginning to look like a puppet show, an expensive, highly choreographed sporting event that had no real meaning or importance. Because these financial guys are still swarming. McCain would have brought with him Phil Gramm, a co-conspirator in this entire mess. Obama bought with him Richard Holbrooke, the pig Larry Summer, Geithner, and countless others.

Some fucking choice.

Ch-Ch-Changes

OK, so I realize this is my third post on late-night TV in a short time.

But bear with me.

Because the institutions of late night TV are as American as apple pie.

And in 2009, we're in for a change.

Conan is set to take over at The Tonight Show in March, and Jimmy Fallon will fill in behind Conan at Late Night.

I'm a big Conan fan, and I'm excited about the move. But that leaves a gaping hole at the 12:30* time, because Jimmy Fallon is a ginormous tool, and Craig Ferguson (at CBS) has a thick accent.**

But I'll get to that below. What I want to say most is how torn I'm going to be between Conan and David Letterman. I've always been a Dave and Conan guy. CBS first, NBC after. Conan is kind of like the people's champ, and a college-age king, so I'm interested to see what he does with The Tonight Show. But, if you haven't been watching, Dave has been putting on the best late night TV I have ever seen.

It isn't as crazy as the old Dave or the old Conan (Dave would fuck with drive-thru people, Conan and his masturbating bear). But it's GOOD. Like, extremely well done.

Two things are contributing, I think.

1. Dave becoming a father. It has given him a new outlook, and an entirely different attitude. He seems more upbeat, which makes him that much funnier. He hosts like the show is just something he does, like it's unimportant, which gives it a breeziness that is quite appealing. A little while ago, Dave had Biff put his son's teddy bear on that fake bridge backdrop. This, right before he had Barack Obama on. Listening to Dave as he describes a conversation with his son is funny, emotional and just damn good TV. When he talks about having a child, he does it in such a universal way. It's so easy to imagine yourself in his shoes.

2. Politics (well, related to 1.). I think Dave, the king of irony and self-deprecation, got a new outlook on life after he became a father. I think he started to care more about the future. And he got political. He went after Bush all the time, with stuff like "Great Moments in Presidential Speeches." He got into heated fights will Bill O'Reilly. He was firm and vocal about his anti-war views, and, to me, served as the Cronkite-like moral voice of our era. When Dave was against it, you knew something was wrong.

More than ever, Dave is just doing what he wants. And his instincts are good. I suggest tuning in.

I'm not sure I've convinced you, after reading what I just wrote. Here's another example. When Paris Hilton came on, right after she went to jail, she kept trying to change the subject. But that's all he wanted to talk about. And he kept bringing it up, again and again. It was a little uncomfortable, but extremely funny. And I think it's exactly what his viewers wanted to hear about, too.

And when John McCain snubbed him for Katie Couric (over the whole campaign-on-hold economy fiasco), he stole an internal feed to show McCain having makeup applied before his Couric interview. And the CBS News people were pissed but he just laughed at 'em. Then he had Couric on and spent the whole time making fun of Sarah Palin, basically. He forgot to talk about the McCain snub, and someone wrote an article about it in the NY Post. So he just puts a segment in the next day where he calls Couric to talk about it, and he goofs around with her until she's like, uh, I got to go, I have a show, too. It's genius in its simplicity and damn funny.

Stuff like this keeps happening. It's must-see TV.

UPDATE: I'm always trying to think, in my head, of three people, dead or alive, I'd like to have as dinner guests. It used to be a question they'd always ask athletes in the NY Post, which I grew up reading.*** Dave is always on the list. The other two are always the hardest. Carlin, Taibbi, David Foster Wallace, Bill Hicks, etc., etc. Maybe I'll have a post about this later.

*- One possibility is that ABC will nab Leno and bump Jimmy Kimmel back a little, which would instantly give them a huge place in the late night TV world that they've never had (presumably, assuming people watch The Tonight Show for Leno and not due to some brand or institutional loyalty.). And it would give me something to watch at 12:30 (Kimmel is a funny dude, but he relies on his security guards too much, and their stuff is inconsistent and often boring. But overall a funny show.)

**- I'm like legally deaf and accents are very hard to understand, especially on a small TV with tinny speakers. And captioning ruins jokes. I do think Ferguson is quite funny, though.

***And whose flashy and often offensive headlines are the type I instinctively come up with first when I'm writing headlines for a newspaper (if, say, that were my job, which I'm not confirming or denying). Some quick examples:

Holy Shiite (about the Koran in the toilet story)
Kiss Your Asteroid Goodbye
Wacko Jacko Backo
Let U$ Prey (About rapist priests...something about money too)
Hill No! (Clinton says she'll never run for president)
Jiggle All The Way (About getting boob jobs for Christmas)

Fuck Joe the Plumber

I can't wait until McCain loses and this self-serving hack goes away forever.

Go stick your nose in a shit-filled toilet and keep your idiotic thoughts to yourself.

How's he paying the bills running around the country questioning Obama's loyalty to the country and saying a vote for Obama means the destruction of Israel?

He isn't plumbing that's for sure.

So let's cut the bullshit, thank you.

McCain-Palin 2008: because you might just be dumb enough to vote for us.

My official election prediction

Well, it isn't really a prediction.

Basically I'm combining my two favorite polling sources and a betting site and making a guess, the only point of which will be another post where I share how right -- or wrong -- I was.

So to avoid any lack of crediting, here are my sources:

FiveThirtyEight -- named for the total available electoral college votes and run by experienced pollster Nate Silver. This gets top billing because I trust it the most.

Pollster -- run by Mark Blumenthal, it's much more user friendly than 538 and I place nearly as much trust in its trends.

Intrade -- although it has had some fishy moments, I place a good deal of value in its state-by-state predictions.

OK, here's the prediction:

Obama/Biden: 353 McCain/Palin: 185

Obama will surely win: MA, CT, ME, NH, RI, VT, NY, NJ, MD, DC, DE, PA, MI, NM, CO, CA, WA, OR, HI, IL, WI, MN, IA

Obama will probably win: NV, OH, VA

I bet Obama takes: FL, NC

McCain will surely win: SC, TX, AL, LA, MS, TN, KY, OK, AR, WV, KS, NE, ND, SD, AZ, UT, ID, WY, AK

McCain will probably win: GA, MT

I bet McCain wins: IN, MO

Basically, I don't buy that McCain has any shot in Pennsylvania. I think Obama has Ohio pretty well in hand. I think Florida and North Carolina will both be close for Obama. I think Georgia will be close, but will go to McCain. And I'm doubtful Obama can pull off Indiana. But it will be an overwhelming victory for the Obama ticket.

Obama - 52% McCain - 45.5%, with remaining 2.5% going to third party candidates.

All in all, a terrific day for Democrats.

**********************

Best of the rest:

The best Senate race is without a doubt in Minnesota, where incumbent Republican Norm Coleman is battling SNL's Al Franken. Third party candidate Dean Barkley, with almost no money, has made this an exciting battle. Although Barkley has little chance, he has opened the door for Franken to take it. This is too close to predict.

Other races to watch:

• Liddy Dole likely to lose her seat in N.C.


• Ted Stevens likely to lose his seat in A.K. following fraud conviction.


• Saxby Chambliss, who won by defaming war hero Max Cleland in 2002, will probably still prevail in Georgia. If high African-American turnout puts Dem. candidate Jim Martin over the edge, it could be huge day for Obama and Dems.


• I expect Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell to win in K.Y.


• Watch Mississippi's race between Roger Wicker (R) and Ronnie Musgrove (D). A Dem win bodes well for them. Obama has been gaining in this deep South state.
  

Bottom line: Dems get 59 or 60 Senate seats (including Sanders (I-VT) but not Lieberman(mopey-CT), big majority in House, and a Democratic president.

Thanks Bush!

My official endorsement for President

In 2004, I followed the election with all the cynicism of a snarky college freshman, convinced that South Park had it right: When all you have to choose between is a turd sandwich and a giant douche, you really have no choice at all.

I didn't vote. Truth is, I wasn't really sure if I could stand Kerry any more or less than Bush. Yet, when Bush won, I felt disappointed. My gut was telling me he was the wrong choice.

In that same year, I wrote a paper for my English class, one of the first college papers I wrote. It was about a young Senator from Illinois who roused the Democratic convention with his unbelievable story, his passion, and his soaring rhetoric. It was about Barack Obama.

By late 2007, I grew more convinced than ever how wrong George W. Bush has been for this country. I'm not going to list his failures here. This is about the direction we take on Jan. 20, 2009. By all accounts, it looked like it was Hillary vs. the Republicans. The return of the Clintons. My cynicism remained. I liked Barack but I didn't think he could win.

Then came Iowa, when Obama shocked everyone and won, with young voters pushing him over the top. I saw my chance: He would be coming to South Carolina, and my vote could help make him a candidate for president. This was for real.

My roommate and I went to see him with Oprah. I hate Oprah. But I loved Obama and Michelle. On Jan. 26, I slapped an Obama sticker on my car and drove around town, beeping my horn at all the supporters waving signs. I did what I consider to be the most important action of my short life and voted for Obama. My cynicism was gone.

After that came Hope. Yes We Can. This is Our Moment. Soaring speeches and tough debates. Obama kept his cool and kept on doing the impossible. It took forever but he finally won the nomination.

Since then, I've sobered up. I no longer think Obama will change the very nature of politics in America. He's more conventional than I thought. But in other ways, he's even better than I could have imagined. And my cynicism hasn't returned.

He's proven to be the more cautious and careful campaigner. He's attacked, but fairly. He's dodged bullets by taking them head on; he's stayed focused, never wavering or panicking. He's shown himself to be curious, intelligent and thoughtful. He's exactly the kind of president I want. Some jackasses call him the anti-Christ. But really, he's the anti-Bush.

I don't agree with him on everything. Sometimes I'm more liberal. Sometimes I'm more conservative. Sometimes I'm just plain crazy. But Obama's positions have always been measured and reasonable, and that's a breath of fresh air.

Along the way, I've talked with liberals and conservatives alike who were worried. Does he have enough experience? Are we heading toward socialism? What about this Rev. Wright guy? I've tried to answer them as eloquently as Obama (with mixed results).

This isn't meant to convince anyone. I could never state the case as succinctly as Colin Powell. If you haven't made up your mind by now, read this piece by David Sedaris.  I'm merely letting everyone out there know: you have nothing to be afraid of.  I've followed Obama for a long time now, and he has done nothing but continue to impress me.  He will be an impressive president; a Clinton without the drama. 

His race and his party may keep him from ever attaining atmospheric popularity, but I'm confident he has the best interests of this country at heart. On positions and on personality, Obama has presented himself as the most agreeable candidate.

A brief word on the opposition. I used to like John McCain ("Oh, you mean when he was a Democrat?" said a friend). But, no, really. He seemed to have developed a genuine independent streak, whatever his past as an underachiever and the whole Keating mess. But he threw that out the window in an attempt to win this election.

He's defended attacks he must know in his heart were unfair. He picked a completely unqualified candidate for V.P. because she was a woman and because she placated the nutball right-wingers that distrusted him. He's gruff, angry and impulsive. He made the cynical moves, and maybe he had to, with the election tilted towards the Democrats the way it was. But he's tarnished now, in my eyes, and he's made the decision that much easier.

The less we hear of Sarah Palin in the future the better. She is many things, least of all scary and dangerous. More on her later, if necessary. (I hope not).

So there is the choice. Between the desperate old man and a youngster full of hope and promise. Between progress and business as usual. Between the past and the future. Decide according to your own conscience.

I often give people this anecdote when they ask why I support Barack with such passion.  As a person who obsesses over politics it was disheartening not having a major national figure I could get behind. Hillary? Edwards? Kerry? None were deserving enough for me.  I wanted to be the old guy with the picture of JFK or FDR hanging on my wall. I was jealous. I wanted a president I could be proud of.

On November 4, I'm going to supplant my most important act with a vote for Barack Obama as the next President of the United States. It will make history. But that's a small matter. I hope it will make things better.

He's got a full plate. The hole George W. has dug may be too big to climb out of. But I can't think of any other person I'd rather have leading the way. And corny as it sounds, if he wins, I'll be putting a picture of him up in my room.

I Like...

These YouTube videos, which I found linked on Andrew Sullivan's blog.

Featuring: The return of the Wassup Guys:



And, a brief overview of the VP situation in the McCain-Palin camp:

You betcha!

The only reason to watch the debate last night was the small possibility that a national candidate would melt under the klieg lights and do something that completely screws over their running mate.  Sarah Palin was about 50-50 to do it; Biden's odds were better, though he could have been equally destructive.

But, as predicted, both candidates were up to snuff.  Biden can still be a little ridiculous but he toned it down and focused on McCain.  Most of Palin's sentences were somewhat well formed, but, some were not (read down to No. 11).  

With expectations so low, Palin almost had to stare blankly for 20 seconds in order for someone to scream, "Gaffe!"  I mean, if you're only casually listening, it sounds like she's making all the usual points.  But when you break it down, what she really does is throw together a bunch of words semi-coherently then, when she's in a panic, throws in some sort of faux folksy nonsense, like "You betcha!" or "Gee, you know."

And she also says the word "also" way too much, and for seemingly no reason.  If she makes two points in secession, she just throws the also at the end of a sentence.  It sounds awful, but I bet her slight nervousness and the (supposed) charm of her accent more than cover for how dumb she sounds.

But I think people are wise to her game.  They know she was too good to be true (A hockey mom who can run the country!).  They see her for what she truly is (An ideologue and a zealot who doesn't have a strong enough grasp on what's going on in the world).

So I'm not too worried.  If anything, it just sort of prolongs the agony (More interviews!).

Oops

Much to my dismay, I was late getting home to watch the debate.  So the whole drinking thing went out the window.  (I was at a sushi place eating dinner...ate too much...but it was delicious).

Anyway, I'm not even sure a case of beer could have made the debate interesting.  It was a sleeper for sure.  I think I'd have better luck with the Palin-Biden debate (but I'm not going to promise to do that).

I kept switching back to college football when McCain was answering.  Honestly I don't think anyone is going to pick the next president based on their reaction to the fighting in Georgia.

So that's that.

Maybe the next one will be better.  I want some fireworks!

P.S. Obama had a narrow victory, in my view (and in the polls).

Debate tonight

I'm well aware the few people who actually read this space probably do not have the same passion for politics that I do.

So, in the interest of trying to write something someone will actually read, I'm going to try to make the first presidential debate interesting by adding a bit of fun to the proceedings.

Specifically, heavy amounts of booze.

In probably my worst decision since whatever the hell happened last weekend, I'm going to play a debate drinking game and write down my thoughts as I go along.  Whatever I write, I'll post here on the blog.  I can't promise I'll get it up there tonight though, because judging by the rules, I'll probably black out before 10 p.m.

The debate is 90 minutes long and starts at 9 p.m.

My rules are as follows, borrowed and modified from this guy's blog.

Take a drink when...

• When someone says "change," "hope," or "maverick."
• When someone says "I voted for/against" or "He voted for/against"
• When McCain mentions his POW experience
• Whenever McCain says "my friends"
• Whenever Obama compares McCain to Bush
• Whenever Obama talks about "his story"
• Whenever either one claims to be bipartisan
• Whenever someone utters the "Main Street...Wall Street" line (I live a few blocks over from Main Street so I guess I'm fucked either way)
• Whenever someone says 700 billion
• Whenever one of them lies (I'll be the judge)

Chug a beer when...

• Sarah Palin is mentioned by name
• McCain clearly loses his temper
• If Obama messes up so bad it makes me want to chug a beer

I can't promise this will be coherent, or even fun to read.  But I can promise you I'll have a good time doing it.

Why you should care

Although I respect one's right to be divorced from the political process, with all its dishonesty and the frustrating sense that your opinion doesn't matter, I just can't see how one can turn away from this 2008 presidential election, considering the direct impact it will have on your wallet.

Let's say someone walked up to you and reached into your pocket and pulled out your ATM card. That person walks to the bank and withdraws more than $2,200, and just walks away.

You'd be incensed. You'd feel robbed and cheated. And you'd be right.

That's a conservative estimate of the average cost to a tax payer from the proposed $700 billion Wall Street bailout. But you can't go to the cops after this robbery. Your only recourse for getting that money back is a politician standing up for you in Washington, promising not to punish you for the failures of those financial fat cats who can't stop sniffing their own ass and reaping millions of dollars in profit.

Barack Obama says we need to worry about three things. That's good, but that's not enough. McCain says it might cost each household $10,000, and that the money shouldn't go to rich CEOs. That's good, but not enough.

Demand more. Write them e-mails. Let them know that the person who shows real leadership on this issue, and all issues, will be the one to win in 2008.

Almost everyone agrees this election is about change. But change is already here. Wall Street will soon be unrecognizable. I'll admit, I don't understand exactly what's going on here. I'm not sure anyone does. This has even the smartest economists scratching their heads, and making educated guesses (which is pretty much the whole of the study of economics).

But as a young voter, I'm just thinking, "What the fuck?" What did I do to suddenly find myself in this difficult situation? It's exasperating. Soon I'll find myself out in the workforce, in a shitty economy, with a nearly worthless degree and a pile of student loans. Thanks for that. I thought I was doing what I was supposed to.

I'm not worried, though. America has seen worse, and has rebounded because of sensible regulation and effective leadership. Of course, in the absence of those two things (see Bush, George W.) you get nonsense like this.

Elsewhere

In Carolina Reporter, we've been working on a story about gas prices, and how they were less than $1 per gallon just ten years ago. Remember who was president then? I bet Oval Office blow jobs seem like a small price to pay for such good economic times.

Watch President Clinton on Letterman. I'm not even sure if what he is saying is true, but I believe it. Dude's such a good politician, it's scary. He's much more skilled than Obama. That might be merely because Clinton is so much more comfortable with a good lie, but it's the case nonetheless.

Of course, Chris Rock ripped him a new one just moments later.

Sam Harris, one of my favorite authors, writes a nice Newsweek article on the Moose Hunter.

And in the surprise of the century....

Also: I'm going to start a long piece on a controversial cult made famous by bartender Brian Flanagan (aka Maverick). Is this something anyone is interested in? Leave a comment. Or don't, whatever.

Elsewhere...

Credit where it's due, not where it isn't.

Just to change things up, a little praise for Bush & Co. A great short piece by George Packer gives 43 some credit, then goes on to explain why we should be fearful of McCain-Palin (and yes, perhaps, Obama-Biden).

"A lot has been written lately about the dishonest tactics of the two tickets, especially McCain-Palin. The problem with a campaign based on relentless message discipline, repeated falsehoods, and the habitual perversion of language is that none of it stops after election day. You can’t be indifferent to truth for months on end and then suddenly return to straight talk. If McCain should win, Steve Schmidt won’t be in charge of the new Administration, but his spirit will. Prostitutes hardly ever go straight: the mental atmosphere of a campaign becomes the mental atmosphere of a government. And the results aren’t pretty—ask any Iraqi."

Even though I'd rather cut off my own foot than vote for McCain, I am worried that Obama is coming of age as a campaigner, not as an elected leader. I still feel he is capable of great things, but I hope he knows how to pivot from campaigner to leader in January 2009. As I wrote once when I was fed up after another Clinton victory, "The qualities needed to be elected president, and the qualities needed to be an effective president once elected, are at best mutually exclusive and unrelated, and at worst wholly at odds with one another."