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.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Current Events
Could I think of a more boring title? Not likely.
But the only thing I could thing of other than that was: "Dude, seriously? WTF!?"
Because, seriously, what the fuck?
I'm talking, of course, about the economy. I'm ever-so-slowly beginning to understand what happened, why it happened and what the options are to fix it. It's a complicated fucking mess.
It would be like if 800,000 of the richest people in the world broke into, um, a mythical museum that had a 60 trillion dollar piece of crystal glassware or whatever. And they pass it around and toss it up and down and generally make gobs of money off this expensive crystal thing and then the damn thing, being tossed around like it was, it falls to the ground and shatters. And these 800,000 rich guys all look around at each other like: Can we get someone to clean this shit up?
(Cough, cough, let's get a black guy to do it....cough cough the crystal was the "economy" in my metaphor...cough cough cough, man I have a cold).
OK I'm not sure anyone here wants me to give my explanation of what actually happened to fuck everything up so I'll just skip to how to fix it.
But before that, I'll say this: I wish Obama had come to power with better circumstances, and I'm glad it's him in there and not McCain or Bush (or Romney or Palin or Hillary or Bill Richardson). But I'm still not all that happy with how Obama is handling things.
He seems to be (in cooperation with Timothy Geithner, who looks like a crook, smells like a crook, and cheats on his taxes like a crook....and seriously? Go by Tim, you're old now) desperate to save capitalism from its excesses (a la FDR, who was not a "socialist" despite the far-right's insistence that he was. He was as capitalist as the rest of 'em).
My whole thing is: Is this system worth saving? There is no serious debate on television about this. But is the global system that led to such soaring wealth and success for so many not the same system that led to where we are now? Is it an inconsiderate question to ask if this is not the inevitable result of capitalism? Is it not destined to end in chaos and fear and depression?
Two things:
1) Even before this collapse, in the boom times, were things even really that good? No. They weren't. Many were still poor. Many were still dying needlessly. Gas and food were still too expensive. AIDS and malaria still ravaged Africa. Extremism and violence still raged across the globe. The difference between now and then? Then, a few of the elite were making gobs and gobs of money.
2) In light of that, what's the goal here? To get back to that? Obama C.O.S. Rahm Emanuel is reportedly fond of saying, "Don't ever waste a crisis" or something to that effect. I'll admit some crises are capable of being used to push the country to greater heights (9/11 was one, and it was largely wasted). But really, what the crisis we have here exposed is this: All those supposedly smart guys who ran around making so much money in our system weren't "smart" at all, and were just playing around in an elite system that aimed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. And then they went and had too much of a good time and fucked it up for everyone on the planet. Are we really trying to go back to that?
I'd rather not. But I'm not the HNIC, am I?
So how to fix it? Geithner, whom I don't trust, and who is a crook, still is deluded to think that some sort of public-private bullshit can be worked out to save the banks, which are filled with "toxic assets." As a person who uses words frequently, I'm astonished at this pairing of "toxic" and "assets." It's such a wonky phrase.
Anyway what it means is that, OK, banks have all this money they loaned out, and now they don't expect to get back because they gave it to people who couldn't afford it in good times, and now the good times are gone. But they might be paid back, eventually, so they are still "assets" -- they are just so worthless right now that the losses over these assets are larger than the amount of cash the bank has (making the bank "insolvent" or "fucked" in normalspeak).
So banks still have money, but none of them want to loan any more money out. They want high cash reserves to show investors they can handle the losses over these toxic assets. (Investors are still bailing).
Holy shit this is complicated.
So all these assets, no one knows what they are worth. If you just have the banks sell these assets off on their own, and let the market price them, the banks probably will lose too much money, and they'll fail. So the banks won't sell 'em. But while they aren't selling them, they aren't lending, and the economy needs lending to grow. So, we're stuck, basically.
That's where the government could come in, buy the toxic assets off the banks (using taxpayer money, or a combined public-private thing) and then wait until maybe those fuckers are worth something in five years and sell them then. Then the banks, cleared of these toxic assets, would still probably need some more money to get to lending again.
Good god I hope someone is still reading.
A problem: what do these assets cost, or, how much should one pay for them? Capitalists like Geithner, the crook, want to let the market decide (private pricing). While the market is crazy, it's not an idiot. If a bunch of public money is going to be thrown at the problem, they may jack up the prices, which would fuck the gov't (and the taxpayer) over royally. And this whole public-private thing is short on details about how it would actually work.
At least, that's what I think is going on.
So now, the word creeping its way into the national conversation is nationalization, which even "high priest of laissez-faire capitalism" Alan Greenspan is now supporting. (Along with, it seems, SC Sen. Lindsey Graham).
Here it wouldn't matter, presumably, what these assets are worth. With the banks under the control of the government (rather than just owing the gov't a shit-ton of money), the gov't could just remove the assets at will and put them into a "bad bank." Then they could fix up the banks and eventually give them back over to private investors (But when? After how long? What if the economy never returns to the levels the gov't wants? It's a touchy issue.) Add to this: it worked in Sweden. But Sweden isn't America. There are many, many more banks.
Read the Washington Post for some info about it, if I'm being unclear.
But James Surowiecki says this about nationalization. Even if you "stress test" banks and only take over the "insolvent" ones, investors are still going to bail on all banks, which means the banks that were tested to be "good" will suddenly be cash-strapped, and will need more and more money. Which is why all that money we poured in to the banks doesn't seem to have done anything. Because the stock prices have tanked, the banks are just vacuuming up money and nothing positive is happening.
So the gov't would have to nationalize all banks, from the kinda-OK ones to the horrible ones, from Bank of America to BB&T to every last shitty bank around this country. Huge deal. Big undertaking. And there is no guarantee it will work. In fact, it may make things worse before it makes it better. And when has a politician had the will to do what's right, even if it takes time? (See Iraq, Bush? Kidding, kidding).
OK so that's that. No conclusions.
My whole hope is this: Fix it. Get it right. Make it better. And dear God, if you could screw over those rich fuckers who did this in the process, then by all means do it. That's why crooks like Chuck Schumer, who is a sleazy slimeball of a man, oppose nationalization: it would screw over their rich Wall Street friends who've made a killing playing this dangerous game and who've bankrolled political careers of people like fucking Chuck Schumer.*
I was going to do some quick hits, but I'll just make another post. I doubt anyone made it this far. Hey, if you did, leave a comment. And answer me this: Is capitalism worth saving?
*My disappointment in Obama largely results from the fact that he is not immune to the charms of sleazy fucks like Geithner and Schumer, and may in fact be one himself, though I'm holding out all hope that he's not.
But the only thing I could thing of other than that was: "Dude, seriously? WTF!?"
Because, seriously, what the fuck?
I'm talking, of course, about the economy. I'm ever-so-slowly beginning to understand what happened, why it happened and what the options are to fix it. It's a complicated fucking mess.
It would be like if 800,000 of the richest people in the world broke into, um, a mythical museum that had a 60 trillion dollar piece of crystal glassware or whatever. And they pass it around and toss it up and down and generally make gobs of money off this expensive crystal thing and then the damn thing, being tossed around like it was, it falls to the ground and shatters. And these 800,000 rich guys all look around at each other like: Can we get someone to clean this shit up?
(Cough, cough, let's get a black guy to do it....cough cough the crystal was the "economy" in my metaphor...cough cough cough, man I have a cold).
OK I'm not sure anyone here wants me to give my explanation of what actually happened to fuck everything up so I'll just skip to how to fix it.
But before that, I'll say this: I wish Obama had come to power with better circumstances, and I'm glad it's him in there and not McCain or Bush (or Romney or Palin or Hillary or Bill Richardson). But I'm still not all that happy with how Obama is handling things.
He seems to be (in cooperation with Timothy Geithner, who looks like a crook, smells like a crook, and cheats on his taxes like a crook....and seriously? Go by Tim, you're old now) desperate to save capitalism from its excesses (a la FDR, who was not a "socialist" despite the far-right's insistence that he was. He was as capitalist as the rest of 'em).
My whole thing is: Is this system worth saving? There is no serious debate on television about this. But is the global system that led to such soaring wealth and success for so many not the same system that led to where we are now? Is it an inconsiderate question to ask if this is not the inevitable result of capitalism? Is it not destined to end in chaos and fear and depression?
Two things:
1) Even before this collapse, in the boom times, were things even really that good? No. They weren't. Many were still poor. Many were still dying needlessly. Gas and food were still too expensive. AIDS and malaria still ravaged Africa. Extremism and violence still raged across the globe. The difference between now and then? Then, a few of the elite were making gobs and gobs of money.
2) In light of that, what's the goal here? To get back to that? Obama C.O.S. Rahm Emanuel is reportedly fond of saying, "Don't ever waste a crisis" or something to that effect. I'll admit some crises are capable of being used to push the country to greater heights (9/11 was one, and it was largely wasted). But really, what the crisis we have here exposed is this: All those supposedly smart guys who ran around making so much money in our system weren't "smart" at all, and were just playing around in an elite system that aimed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. And then they went and had too much of a good time and fucked it up for everyone on the planet. Are we really trying to go back to that?
I'd rather not. But I'm not the HNIC, am I?
So how to fix it? Geithner, whom I don't trust, and who is a crook, still is deluded to think that some sort of public-private bullshit can be worked out to save the banks, which are filled with "toxic assets." As a person who uses words frequently, I'm astonished at this pairing of "toxic" and "assets." It's such a wonky phrase.
Anyway what it means is that, OK, banks have all this money they loaned out, and now they don't expect to get back because they gave it to people who couldn't afford it in good times, and now the good times are gone. But they might be paid back, eventually, so they are still "assets" -- they are just so worthless right now that the losses over these assets are larger than the amount of cash the bank has (making the bank "insolvent" or "fucked" in normalspeak).
So banks still have money, but none of them want to loan any more money out. They want high cash reserves to show investors they can handle the losses over these toxic assets. (Investors are still bailing).
Holy shit this is complicated.
So all these assets, no one knows what they are worth. If you just have the banks sell these assets off on their own, and let the market price them, the banks probably will lose too much money, and they'll fail. So the banks won't sell 'em. But while they aren't selling them, they aren't lending, and the economy needs lending to grow. So, we're stuck, basically.
That's where the government could come in, buy the toxic assets off the banks (using taxpayer money, or a combined public-private thing) and then wait until maybe those fuckers are worth something in five years and sell them then. Then the banks, cleared of these toxic assets, would still probably need some more money to get to lending again.
Good god I hope someone is still reading.
A problem: what do these assets cost, or, how much should one pay for them? Capitalists like Geithner, the crook, want to let the market decide (private pricing). While the market is crazy, it's not an idiot. If a bunch of public money is going to be thrown at the problem, they may jack up the prices, which would fuck the gov't (and the taxpayer) over royally. And this whole public-private thing is short on details about how it would actually work.
At least, that's what I think is going on.
So now, the word creeping its way into the national conversation is nationalization, which even "high priest of laissez-faire capitalism" Alan Greenspan is now supporting. (Along with, it seems, SC Sen. Lindsey Graham).
Here it wouldn't matter, presumably, what these assets are worth. With the banks under the control of the government (rather than just owing the gov't a shit-ton of money), the gov't could just remove the assets at will and put them into a "bad bank." Then they could fix up the banks and eventually give them back over to private investors (But when? After how long? What if the economy never returns to the levels the gov't wants? It's a touchy issue.) Add to this: it worked in Sweden. But Sweden isn't America. There are many, many more banks.
Read the Washington Post for some info about it, if I'm being unclear.
But James Surowiecki says this about nationalization. Even if you "stress test" banks and only take over the "insolvent" ones, investors are still going to bail on all banks, which means the banks that were tested to be "good" will suddenly be cash-strapped, and will need more and more money. Which is why all that money we poured in to the banks doesn't seem to have done anything. Because the stock prices have tanked, the banks are just vacuuming up money and nothing positive is happening.
So the gov't would have to nationalize all banks, from the kinda-OK ones to the horrible ones, from Bank of America to BB&T to every last shitty bank around this country. Huge deal. Big undertaking. And there is no guarantee it will work. In fact, it may make things worse before it makes it better. And when has a politician had the will to do what's right, even if it takes time? (See Iraq, Bush? Kidding, kidding).
OK so that's that. No conclusions.
My whole hope is this: Fix it. Get it right. Make it better. And dear God, if you could screw over those rich fuckers who did this in the process, then by all means do it. That's why crooks like Chuck Schumer, who is a sleazy slimeball of a man, oppose nationalization: it would screw over their rich Wall Street friends who've made a killing playing this dangerous game and who've bankrolled political careers of people like fucking Chuck Schumer.*
I was going to do some quick hits, but I'll just make another post. I doubt anyone made it this far. Hey, if you did, leave a comment. And answer me this: Is capitalism worth saving?
*My disappointment in Obama largely results from the fact that he is not immune to the charms of sleazy fucks like Geithner and Schumer, and may in fact be one himself, though I'm holding out all hope that he's not.
Saturday, December 06, 2008
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)
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)
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
How it all could go to shit
Christopher Hitchens is a smart guy.
In this essay, he's hedging his vote for Barack Obama. He's a little queasy with all this happiness and history that's going on. He's thinking maybe we've all forgotten that our troubles haven't magically gone away (and by we, I mean the ones who are actually enjoying the victory).
And I have no trouble being in complete agreement.
I think Obama will make for a terrific president. Of the people who ran this time around, he was the best choice by far. But I'm not stupid, previous post not withstanding. I can see how all this confetti can turn to ash.
The economy is pretty scary, but I'm pretty confident. I think it will rebound after a few years. It won't be pretty, but I have hope that Obama will act out of the best interests of the vast majority of Americans. I think we can emerge as leaders in the new economy. We will because we must.
That's not what worries me. What worries me is the unknown factor: terrorism.
The Bush Administration deserves as much credit for the absence of an attack on America since Sept. 11 as it does for the letting 9/11 happen on their watch. Which is to say, very little.
Few people saw it coming; the administration's failure was our failure. Since that time, no other attack has occurred, while some have reportedly been thwarted. Credit is due, but we cannot forget that Bush has drastically increased executive power, installed a culture of torture and trampled on rights we used to think were quite important -- Habeas corpus? -- and American . And lest we forget, we've lost more American men and women in Iraq than we did on 9/11. So success is really a relative thing, here.
Anyway, this isn't a history lesson. This is how it could all go to shit. If by some chance al Qaeda or some nutballs with simpathies, etc., manage an attack on America under an Obama presidency, the reaction, I imagine, will be quite different than when Dumbo sat and read the children's book for 7 minutes.
To conservatives, this will be all the ammunition they need. Their empty lines about appeasment and terrorists and their insinuations that Democrats are just faggy wimps who can't stand up to big, bag Arabs might take hold.
This is a danger to any Democrat in a post-9/11 world, where Republicans have taken the issue of terrorism and made it into a campaign slogan.
I fear, though, that Obama's newness and his differentness make him especially vulnerable. I only hope I'm proved wrong. Because I believe that the way to peace is not by torture and bombings and wars of choice. But we can be a trigger-happy country when we're attacked.
After 9/11, Bush was given the ultimate blank check: With a 90% approval rating, he had the ability to take us wherever he would like. He chose where we are now, which was not only a giant waste but an insult to those that died on that day. He fucked up so royally that he's now below Nixon's lowest approval ratings, and his presidency is a joke.
I only hope that in the terrible event of another attack that Americans give Obama the same chance. If they do, I expect him to lead with boldness and courage and righteous conviction. If they don't, then his presidency will have been a blip of hope on a dark period in our history. And the crew Americans so emphatically rejected in 2006 and 2008 will slither back into power, desperate, hungry and with revenge on their mind.
For now, it's perhaps best to savor the moment.
In this essay, he's hedging his vote for Barack Obama. He's a little queasy with all this happiness and history that's going on. He's thinking maybe we've all forgotten that our troubles haven't magically gone away (and by we, I mean the ones who are actually enjoying the victory).
And I have no trouble being in complete agreement.
I think Obama will make for a terrific president. Of the people who ran this time around, he was the best choice by far. But I'm not stupid, previous post not withstanding. I can see how all this confetti can turn to ash.
The economy is pretty scary, but I'm pretty confident. I think it will rebound after a few years. It won't be pretty, but I have hope that Obama will act out of the best interests of the vast majority of Americans. I think we can emerge as leaders in the new economy. We will because we must.
That's not what worries me. What worries me is the unknown factor: terrorism.
The Bush Administration deserves as much credit for the absence of an attack on America since Sept. 11 as it does for the letting 9/11 happen on their watch. Which is to say, very little.
Few people saw it coming; the administration's failure was our failure. Since that time, no other attack has occurred, while some have reportedly been thwarted. Credit is due, but we cannot forget that Bush has drastically increased executive power, installed a culture of torture and trampled on rights we used to think were quite important -- Habeas corpus? -- and American . And lest we forget, we've lost more American men and women in Iraq than we did on 9/11. So success is really a relative thing, here.
Anyway, this isn't a history lesson. This is how it could all go to shit. If by some chance al Qaeda or some nutballs with simpathies, etc., manage an attack on America under an Obama presidency, the reaction, I imagine, will be quite different than when Dumbo sat and read the children's book for 7 minutes.
To conservatives, this will be all the ammunition they need. Their empty lines about appeasment and terrorists and their insinuations that Democrats are just faggy wimps who can't stand up to big, bag Arabs might take hold.
This is a danger to any Democrat in a post-9/11 world, where Republicans have taken the issue of terrorism and made it into a campaign slogan.
I fear, though, that Obama's newness and his differentness make him especially vulnerable. I only hope I'm proved wrong. Because I believe that the way to peace is not by torture and bombings and wars of choice. But we can be a trigger-happy country when we're attacked.
After 9/11, Bush was given the ultimate blank check: With a 90% approval rating, he had the ability to take us wherever he would like. He chose where we are now, which was not only a giant waste but an insult to those that died on that day. He fucked up so royally that he's now below Nixon's lowest approval ratings, and his presidency is a joke.
I only hope that in the terrible event of another attack that Americans give Obama the same chance. If they do, I expect him to lead with boldness and courage and righteous conviction. If they don't, then his presidency will have been a blip of hope on a dark period in our history. And the crew Americans so emphatically rejected in 2006 and 2008 will slither back into power, desperate, hungry and with revenge on their mind.
For now, it's perhaps best to savor the moment.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
The post-election wrap up post
Wow.
What a night.
We may not know the final numbers for a few days, but by all accounts it was a huge day for Obama. He was right about where I thought in the popular vote (a resounding mandate for change) and he even picked up Indiana, which I thought would go to McCain by a few points. It appears late-breakers didn't flock to McCain, which is quite surprising but also very satisfying.
Once N.C. shakes out, I think it will be in Obama's column, which will bring his E.C. total to 364, right around where Bill Clinton was when he won in 1992.
I won't expound on this significance of this, or lament the shameful reactions of some right-leaning simpletons on Facebook. The former is beyond words in many ways, the latter isn't worth the energy. This is an exciting time in the history of our country.
The Democrats didn't sweep to 60 Senate seats, which is just as well. The focus on a filibuster-proof majority was misplaced anyway. Already we are seeing Obama call for cooperation and bipartisanship, with the possibility of filling his cabinet with members of the opposing party (like Lincoln). And he's talking about solving problems, not creating new ones. Unlike the White House's current occupant, I believe Obama will deliver on this promise.
McCain was exceptionally gracious in defeat, and I hope he will return to the Senate with the same passion and vigor he had before the campaign started.
Around the country:
What a night.
We may not know the final numbers for a few days, but by all accounts it was a huge day for Obama. He was right about where I thought in the popular vote (a resounding mandate for change) and he even picked up Indiana, which I thought would go to McCain by a few points. It appears late-breakers didn't flock to McCain, which is quite surprising but also very satisfying.
Once N.C. shakes out, I think it will be in Obama's column, which will bring his E.C. total to 364, right around where Bill Clinton was when he won in 1992.
I won't expound on this significance of this, or lament the shameful reactions of some right-leaning simpletons on Facebook. The former is beyond words in many ways, the latter isn't worth the energy. This is an exciting time in the history of our country.
The Democrats didn't sweep to 60 Senate seats, which is just as well. The focus on a filibuster-proof majority was misplaced anyway. Already we are seeing Obama call for cooperation and bipartisanship, with the possibility of filling his cabinet with members of the opposing party (like Lincoln). And he's talking about solving problems, not creating new ones. Unlike the White House's current occupant, I believe Obama will deliver on this promise.
McCain was exceptionally gracious in defeat, and I hope he will return to the Senate with the same passion and vigor he had before the campaign started.
Around the country:
- Prop 8 passed, banning gay marriage in California. A dark cloud on a sunny day. Eventually, all of these discriminatory laws will get written off the books. It just is going to take a while longer now.
- There was less than 1,000 votes difference between Norm Coleman and Al Franken in Minnesota, and a recount has been triggered (I think). Still, I doubt Franken will win, as he's behind right now. That's too bad -- he would have been the most entertaining and intelligent Senators in a long time.
- Kay Hagen won despite a despicable ad that tried to paint her as an atheist, despite the fact she used to run a Sunday school. I'm glad the N.C. voters rejected that kind of dirty politics.
- Alaska voted in Sen. Ted Stevens to another term despite his being convicted recently. Usually I would say something like, "All Alaskans have the intellect of their governor." But I think this just speaks to how huge Stevens is in Alaska. He's like their George Washington. I don't expect him to be in the Senate, which is a victory for the Internet. But it would have been nice to get a Democrat in there.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Obama!
There may be nothing more boring than waiting in line for a half hour to punch a few buttons on a screen.
But damn that was a lot of fun.
Results to come!
But damn that was a lot of fun.
Results to come!
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
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.
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!Tuesday, October 28, 2008
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 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.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
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:
Featuring: The return of the Wassup Guys:
And, a brief overview of the VP situation in the McCain-Palin camp:
Monday, September 29, 2008
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).
Friday, September 26, 2008
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.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, September 22, 2008
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).
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
