If you don't watch the BBC's Top Gear, you're missing one of the smartest, funniest, and most entertaining shows on television. I have watched it with my sisters in the room, one who mildly cares about cars the other who doesn't at all, and we were all laughing and enjoying the show. It's great, and most of you will probably already have seen it.
Recently, I saw a clip on YouTube that made me want to move away more than I ever have before. (A Quick Aside: Part of growing up in Alabama, and not being a worthless redneck bigot, is an intense desire to run far far away as quickly as possible- though this is usually an expression of teenage angst, and massive poverty tends to undermine this for most, imo.) Whatever. The point is, there are two clips, totaling about 20 minutes of an hour long Top Gear episode where they go through Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisianna.
What happens in Alabama is.... embarrassing, to say the least. (It happens in the second half, and there's no need to preface the events by watching the first half, but Top Gear really is entertaining and if you have the extra 10 minutes watch both instead of the horribly uncool bits of part 2)....
Without further ado:
(These are posted on YouTube by the BBC and embedding is disabled, but they should stay up for a long long time)
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOyDLUzAAOY
Part 2: (Containing the truly embarrassing visit to AL) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2syY12OPkwI
Read More...
Monday, October 20, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
McCain's Latest Bullshit
So, as anyone paying attention has heard, this morning Colin Powell- one of, if not the, most popular people in American Politics today, still- has endorsed Obama. What did McCain have to say? "I've been friends with Colin Powell for a long time..." trying to associate his name with the popular dissenter, thereby lessening the effect of Powell's recriminations of a campaign that's so negative the same neo-con pundits telling McCain to go this way a few weeks ago, are begging him to go back to the affable McCain of '00. But that's par for the course in politics, trying to lessen the damage of a popular dissenter.
What shocked me, was McCain's immediate follow-up: Kissinger, Baker, Hague, and the fourth Stooge, all former Secretaries of State, support him. WHAT?!?! You're proud of that? Like we need more proof you're completely out of touch!
McCain told Fox News (of course) "Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Wolfman" are behind him. Like sewing up the old white war-criminal vote is cause for relief! Kissinger: war criminal, just ask Christopher Hitchens. Baker: one of the geniuses behind Iraq War I, and the current travesty of a sequel. Haig: "I'm in control", and if that's not enough (from wikipedia): "A military hawk, Haig caused some alarm with his suggestion that a "nuclear warning shot" in Europe might be effective in deterring the Soviet Union." Eagleburger: Never heard of him? He's such a minor figure wikipedia only offers two sentences about his time as Sec of State: that he was appointed after Baker went to handle re-election and he was put on in a recess appointment.
Haig and Eagleburger are old Kissinger flunkies, and Baker is only a factor in politics because of George Dub's daddy. How was that, Senator? You're not WHO again?
It's disappointing, I really like McCain back in '00, before Rove's boyz got their hooks in him. Back when he really cared about his message and what he had to say. Back before he'd decided cozying up the Rep base was more important than honesty. It's a sad day, when such a truly amazing man is such a horrible caricature of who we all knew he once was.
And just so you don't think I'm just picking on McCain, lemme clue you in on something, right now. If McCain loses, and the only way he won't is if Dems and new voters get complacent and don't flood the polls like they're projected to do, there's gonna be some talk about some things. No, I don't mean the bullshit Republican speil that ACORN and other "nefarious" organizations have committed massive voter fraud be- shock of shocks- allowing poor people to vote!
There's going to be a discussion about if McCain could have changed the Republican party. He was a moderate- fuck he might still be, underneath all the base-pandering bullshit he's been doing in his general campaign. He had chastised Republicans on several issues- though if siding with your own party 90% of the time makes you a Maverick, there's not many who aren't. He could, conceivably pull the Republicans away from this evangelical bullshit and back to the fiscally conservative, small government, socially moderate, Republicans we all like to remember fondly.
The problem is, it's not likely. Sure, maybe he could do it if he got elected to his SECOND term; but his first- with 18 months of governing before the mid-terms- isn't going to be especially maverick-y and gee-golly new. It's going to be that 90% time, not that 10% time. But that won't stop the discussions. I've already heard it mentioned once; don't be surprised if it's talked about more, especially if Obama wins and that somehow keeps the evangelicals in power. (Don't think they're dumb enough to hold on after a resounding reprimand from the American People? Remember these are the people who STILL think Bush is doing a GOOD job.)
The Republicans have shown their true colors, in my opinion. Over the past 8 years, we've seen aggressive roll backs on corporate punishments, corporate oversight, and corporate restrictions. We've seen aggressive tax cuts that significantly help the richest 1%, who control more wealth than the poorest 50%. And to top it all off, there was increased defense spending the WHOLE time, roll-back of civil rights (outting Valerie Plame, wire-tapping, torture, etc etc). Now, they're telling everyone that anyone in a big city isn't American- even though the majority of the 300 million+ people in America live in a BIG CITY! They've chosen a hypocritical, rabidly anti-environment oil lobbyist evangelical, married to a pro-secessionist, as a hideous way of trying to re-brand themselves "modern"; and they've turned one of their absolute best into a horribly miserly, asshat who is barely worthy of respect.
Fucking pathetic. If there was anyway to split them into the Libertarian Party and Hezbollah (remember, that means: Party of God), I'd gladly do it. At least, then you could hope someone as worthy of respect as McCain might actually be worthy of the vote he won't be getting. Read More...
What shocked me, was McCain's immediate follow-up: Kissinger, Baker, Hague, and the fourth Stooge, all former Secretaries of State, support him. WHAT?!?! You're proud of that? Like we need more proof you're completely out of touch!
McCain told Fox News (of course) "Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Wolfman" are behind him. Like sewing up the old white war-criminal vote is cause for relief! Kissinger: war criminal, just ask Christopher Hitchens. Baker: one of the geniuses behind Iraq War I, and the current travesty of a sequel. Haig: "I'm in control", and if that's not enough (from wikipedia): "A military hawk, Haig caused some alarm with his suggestion that a "nuclear warning shot" in Europe might be effective in deterring the Soviet Union." Eagleburger: Never heard of him? He's such a minor figure wikipedia only offers two sentences about his time as Sec of State: that he was appointed after Baker went to handle re-election and he was put on in a recess appointment.
Haig and Eagleburger are old Kissinger flunkies, and Baker is only a factor in politics because of George Dub's daddy. How was that, Senator? You're not WHO again?
It's disappointing, I really like McCain back in '00, before Rove's boyz got their hooks in him. Back when he really cared about his message and what he had to say. Back before he'd decided cozying up the Rep base was more important than honesty. It's a sad day, when such a truly amazing man is such a horrible caricature of who we all knew he once was.
And just so you don't think I'm just picking on McCain, lemme clue you in on something, right now. If McCain loses, and the only way he won't is if Dems and new voters get complacent and don't flood the polls like they're projected to do, there's gonna be some talk about some things. No, I don't mean the bullshit Republican speil that ACORN and other "nefarious" organizations have committed massive voter fraud be- shock of shocks- allowing poor people to vote!
There's going to be a discussion about if McCain could have changed the Republican party. He was a moderate- fuck he might still be, underneath all the base-pandering bullshit he's been doing in his general campaign. He had chastised Republicans on several issues- though if siding with your own party 90% of the time makes you a Maverick, there's not many who aren't. He could, conceivably pull the Republicans away from this evangelical bullshit and back to the fiscally conservative, small government, socially moderate, Republicans we all like to remember fondly.
The problem is, it's not likely. Sure, maybe he could do it if he got elected to his SECOND term; but his first- with 18 months of governing before the mid-terms- isn't going to be especially maverick-y and gee-golly new. It's going to be that 90% time, not that 10% time. But that won't stop the discussions. I've already heard it mentioned once; don't be surprised if it's talked about more, especially if Obama wins and that somehow keeps the evangelicals in power. (Don't think they're dumb enough to hold on after a resounding reprimand from the American People? Remember these are the people who STILL think Bush is doing a GOOD job.)
The Republicans have shown their true colors, in my opinion. Over the past 8 years, we've seen aggressive roll backs on corporate punishments, corporate oversight, and corporate restrictions. We've seen aggressive tax cuts that significantly help the richest 1%, who control more wealth than the poorest 50%. And to top it all off, there was increased defense spending the WHOLE time, roll-back of civil rights (outting Valerie Plame, wire-tapping, torture, etc etc). Now, they're telling everyone that anyone in a big city isn't American- even though the majority of the 300 million+ people in America live in a BIG CITY! They've chosen a hypocritical, rabidly anti-environment oil lobbyist evangelical, married to a pro-secessionist, as a hideous way of trying to re-brand themselves "modern"; and they've turned one of their absolute best into a horribly miserly, asshat who is barely worthy of respect.
Fucking pathetic. If there was anyway to split them into the Libertarian Party and Hezbollah (remember, that means: Party of God), I'd gladly do it. At least, then you could hope someone as worthy of respect as McCain might actually be worthy of the vote he won't be getting. Read More...
Stuck in my Head
This has been stuck in my head, recently; and i can't say I'm mad. It's very catchy, and it's an awesome band.
Read More...
Read More...
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
MMO's
Recently, I've been looking at, and thinking about, various Massively Multiplayer Online games. It started, for me, back when Everquest was new-ish (around the time immediately before the first expansion came out). I played World of Warcraft last year; and I just finished reading Charlie Stross's HALTING STATE- about AUG's, MMO's, and life in near future Scotland.
Back in 1999, I worked for a small local engineering firm. A software engineer for the company had left maybe a week before I started- small time contractual 3D data manipulation. During the three months I was working there, one of the other engineers showed me what the software guy had left to do- a 3D Space-based MMO. So, when I found Star Sonata, I took a look for the somewhat-nostalgic feeling of "Maybe I sorta knew someone who kinda did one of these things once, possibly."
Jump to 2006. I was introduced to a text MMO called Nation States (link in the sidebar for The Rogue Nation of Sunuvabitch). Nation States is a government simulation, with a hugely active community around it. It was inspired by Max Berry's Jennifer Government. Mostly, it is a whimsical, sarcastic, dystopian view of how solving an issue will always cause something bad to happen. There's not a lot to the game itself. Design a country- name, flag, starting governmental type, currency, and national animal- pick the government's position on issues- gas taxes, environmental impact, freedom of speech, the press, religion, and the citizenry. Initially, your country is a few paragraphs that detail the stuff you picked and the underlying game mechanics- such as crime rate, tax rate, leading economic sectors (Computer Chips, Drugs, Weapons, etc). As positions are chosen- there's always the option to purposefully ignore an issue- witty sentences are added to the last paragraph of the country's description. On an issue such as "Crime is out of control in our nation's schools!", picking one option of the five presented ("Get 'em early and make them behave, OR ELSE!") might result in a new addition to the country's description: "Lines of frightened, dreary, preschoolers and their heavily armed guard/protectors are common sights at the nation's military run schools." There's no direct, head-to-head, competition in the game; but it has the never-ending quality of all MMOs. For more head-to-head aspects, look to games like Cyber Nations.
Jump to 2008. Myspace adds "Apps", games regress to 1995! I remember using my computer's 2400 baud modem (That slowness of yesteryear is total 'net-cred today, bay-be!) to directly connect to other computers and access their BBS's. These BBS had mostly text- interspersed with ASCII art of varying qualities- games that could be played by anyone on the Board. Limiting factors replenished daily at midnight, or whenever else the daily maintenance was scheduled. If you've played MOBSTERS, MAFIA WARS, or any of their clones (DRAGON WARS, etc) on Myspace, imagine the graphics sucked and you'd know almost EXACTLY what those old BBS games were like. Except, it must be said, several of the old BBS games were WAY better. (Red Dragon Inn, Lands of Devastation, and Trade Wars specifically).
Consider, also, Second Life, any of the main- stream MMORPGs (EQ, EQ2, WoW, DAC, UO, SWG, FF:XI, etc). There are a significant number of people playing these games, and a large amount of cash in the industry. Which is why there are games like Star Sonata, and many more, out there. It's like what Penn Jillette supposedly said: "[Y]ou'd think with 300 million people in the country, you don't even have to please 1% to be phenomenally successful." And that's the key: people.
Enter Institute for the Future and their SUPERSTRUCT GAME. I'll let the game describe itself:
What's the point?
[From the FAQ]:
In other words, nuts who think the world might actually end have co-opted MMOs to help develop solutions. Never mind that the world isn't going to end, that the current financial problems will pass, and that little or nothing will come from the game. The point is, it shows that smart (though, completely misguided) people are taking gaming- specifically MMOs- to a new level.
Charlie Stross's vision of the near future of 2018 is looking more real than ever. Read More...
Back in 1999, I worked for a small local engineering firm. A software engineer for the company had left maybe a week before I started- small time contractual 3D data manipulation. During the three months I was working there, one of the other engineers showed me what the software guy had left to do- a 3D Space-based MMO. So, when I found Star Sonata, I took a look for the somewhat-nostalgic feeling of "Maybe I sorta knew someone who kinda did one of these things once, possibly."
Jump to 2006. I was introduced to a text MMO called Nation States (link in the sidebar for The Rogue Nation of Sunuvabitch). Nation States is a government simulation, with a hugely active community around it. It was inspired by Max Berry's Jennifer Government. Mostly, it is a whimsical, sarcastic, dystopian view of how solving an issue will always cause something bad to happen. There's not a lot to the game itself. Design a country- name, flag, starting governmental type, currency, and national animal- pick the government's position on issues- gas taxes, environmental impact, freedom of speech, the press, religion, and the citizenry. Initially, your country is a few paragraphs that detail the stuff you picked and the underlying game mechanics- such as crime rate, tax rate, leading economic sectors (Computer Chips, Drugs, Weapons, etc). As positions are chosen- there's always the option to purposefully ignore an issue- witty sentences are added to the last paragraph of the country's description. On an issue such as "Crime is out of control in our nation's schools!", picking one option of the five presented ("Get 'em early and make them behave, OR ELSE!") might result in a new addition to the country's description: "Lines of frightened, dreary, preschoolers and their heavily armed guard/protectors are common sights at the nation's military run schools." There's no direct, head-to-head, competition in the game; but it has the never-ending quality of all MMOs. For more head-to-head aspects, look to games like Cyber Nations.
Jump to 2008. Myspace adds "Apps", games regress to 1995! I remember using my computer's 2400 baud modem (That slowness of yesteryear is total 'net-cred today, bay-be!) to directly connect to other computers and access their BBS's. These BBS had mostly text- interspersed with ASCII art of varying qualities- games that could be played by anyone on the Board. Limiting factors replenished daily at midnight, or whenever else the daily maintenance was scheduled. If you've played MOBSTERS, MAFIA WARS, or any of their clones (DRAGON WARS, etc) on Myspace, imagine the graphics sucked and you'd know almost EXACTLY what those old BBS games were like. Except, it must be said, several of the old BBS games were WAY better. (Red Dragon Inn, Lands of Devastation, and Trade Wars specifically).
Consider, also, Second Life, any of the main- stream MMORPGs (EQ, EQ2, WoW, DAC, UO, SWG, FF:XI, etc). There are a significant number of people playing these games, and a large amount of cash in the industry. Which is why there are games like Star Sonata, and many more, out there. It's like what Penn Jillette supposedly said: "[Y]ou'd think with 300 million people in the country, you don't even have to please 1% to be phenomenally successful." And that's the key: people.
Enter Institute for the Future and their SUPERSTRUCT GAME. I'll let the game describe itself:
What's the point?
[From the FAQ]:
The Ten Year Forecast team at the Institute for the Future will analyze the player-created game content. We'll prepare an official Superstruct Report featuring our top collective insights about the year 2019, and the best tactics for superstructing society. Highlights from the report will be emailed to all registered Superstruct players in April 2009. Meanwhile, the Superstruct site will stay live and open to the public as an immersive archive, so you can continue to show your friends, family and colleagues the future you helped invent.
In other words, nuts who think the world might actually end have co-opted MMOs to help develop solutions. Never mind that the world isn't going to end, that the current financial problems will pass, and that little or nothing will come from the game. The point is, it shows that smart (though, completely misguided) people are taking gaming- specifically MMOs- to a new level.
Charlie Stross's vision of the near future of 2018 is looking more real than ever. Read More...
Friday, October 10, 2008
My Hovercar Broke!
There's something wrong with my Space Age! I have no jet pack, no hover-car, no bionics, and no space station in L4, or L5, to go visit! This blows syphilitic donkey cocks in manure pools during a heat wave in Death Valley- not to put too fine a point on it. What happened to my future?
Technically, we still live in the SPACE AGE!, but practically the SPACE AGE! was over 36 year ago- when the last Apollo mission landed on the moon. Since then, we've stayed in relatively close-Earth orbits. We have done some very breathtaking things- like put Hubble up, then fix her, put robots on Mars, put robots near/on/in Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Mars, Venus, Mercury, Sol, the Asteroid Belt, various comets, and the moons of various planets. Not to mention the amount of satellites. Just think, less than 60 years ago nothing man-made existed in space, and today we have objects that are "more distant from the Sun than any known natural solar system object" according to the wikiGoodness. So, technically, we're still in the SPACE AGE!- because you're either in the SPACE AGE! or you're pre-SPACE AGE!; but practically we're not actually in "space". Still not convinced?
Imagine a room full of people, and a common social game starts. It's the game of one-ups-man-ship. Someone starts with "I'm originally from a country that everyone in the world learns about due to it's historical significance." Another chimes in with "I'm a professor at an illustrious college, who helps form the minds of the greatest thinkers of the next generations." Yet another adds "I'm an Oscar winning Actor, renowned for my ability to convey great emotional portent through my talent." "I'm a professional Athlete who won awards during my collegiate years." "I'm a professional Athlete who was the MVP of the most prestigious game in my sport!" The competition gets into full swing. "I am a Senator from the Great State of YaddaBlahBlah." "I am a Nobel Laureate!" "I have been President of these United States of America!" And finally, from the back comes a masculine voice with an American accent. "I have walked on the Moon."
Fewer people have walked on the moon than have been president of the USA. Twelve people, in the entire history of the human race, have ever left this planet and walked on the surface of another world. 12. Currently there are over 6,000,000,012 on the planet.
Only three countries- China, Russia, and the US- have ever put people in "space". Many other countries have had people on missions those three have conducted; but the fact remains: 3 countries of well over 100, and 12 people in more than 7 billion (this is counting everyone who has ever lived, and those alive today).
The SPACE AGE! ended when we stopped putting people on the Moon. Today, and ever since then, we've been puttering around inside our own atmosphere. We barely put anything into space itself. Sure, there are probes and satellites, observatories, telescopes, and (very few) other things; but there hasn't been people out there in a long long time.
Does that mean we need to spend the money and go to Mars, to Europa, Ganymede, Titan, Enceladus, or somewhere else? No, but I'd be beside myself if we did. I'd be happy to go back to the Moon. I'd be ecstatic if we would simply do what we last showed we were capable of in 1972! I would like to actually live in THE SPACE AGE! instead of these inter-atmospheric doldrums we've been in ever since. Read More...
Technically, we still live in the SPACE AGE!, but practically the SPACE AGE! was over 36 year ago- when the last Apollo mission landed on the moon. Since then, we've stayed in relatively close-Earth orbits. We have done some very breathtaking things- like put Hubble up, then fix her, put robots on Mars, put robots near/on/in Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Mars, Venus, Mercury, Sol, the Asteroid Belt, various comets, and the moons of various planets. Not to mention the amount of satellites. Just think, less than 60 years ago nothing man-made existed in space, and today we have objects that are "more distant from the Sun than any known natural solar system object" according to the wikiGoodness. So, technically, we're still in the SPACE AGE!- because you're either in the SPACE AGE! or you're pre-SPACE AGE!; but practically we're not actually in "space". Still not convinced?
Imagine a room full of people, and a common social game starts. It's the game of one-ups-man-ship. Someone starts with "I'm originally from a country that everyone in the world learns about due to it's historical significance." Another chimes in with "I'm a professor at an illustrious college, who helps form the minds of the greatest thinkers of the next generations." Yet another adds "I'm an Oscar winning Actor, renowned for my ability to convey great emotional portent through my talent." "I'm a professional Athlete who won awards during my collegiate years." "I'm a professional Athlete who was the MVP of the most prestigious game in my sport!" The competition gets into full swing. "I am a Senator from the Great State of YaddaBlahBlah." "I am a Nobel Laureate!" "I have been President of these United States of America!" And finally, from the back comes a masculine voice with an American accent. "I have walked on the Moon."
Fewer people have walked on the moon than have been president of the USA. Twelve people, in the entire history of the human race, have ever left this planet and walked on the surface of another world. 12. Currently there are over 6,000,000,012 on the planet.
Only three countries- China, Russia, and the US- have ever put people in "space". Many other countries have had people on missions those three have conducted; but the fact remains: 3 countries of well over 100, and 12 people in more than 7 billion (this is counting everyone who has ever lived, and those alive today).
The SPACE AGE! ended when we stopped putting people on the Moon. Today, and ever since then, we've been puttering around inside our own atmosphere. We barely put anything into space itself. Sure, there are probes and satellites, observatories, telescopes, and (very few) other things; but there hasn't been people out there in a long long time.
Does that mean we need to spend the money and go to Mars, to Europa, Ganymede, Titan, Enceladus, or somewhere else? No, but I'd be beside myself if we did. I'd be happy to go back to the Moon. I'd be ecstatic if we would simply do what we last showed we were capable of in 1972! I would like to actually live in THE SPACE AGE! instead of these inter-atmospheric doldrums we've been in ever since. Read More...
Thursday, October 09, 2008
What's Wrong?
Finance has been in the news in a big way, lately. Listeners of This American Life will be able to point out, from various shows- (#355) Giant Pool of Money, (#363) Enforcers, and (#365) Another Frightening Show About The Economy- exactly what's happened. Anyone who follows the news- and isn't blinded by terms like Mortgage Backed Securities, Credit Default Swaps, Netting, Leverage, Speculation, Naked Short Selling, Hedging, The Commercial Paper Market- will probably also be able to list the flow of problems that have led to the current crisis. In the past few weeks, there has been more and more paper, text, and other information generated about these problems than any other story since 9/11. It's a big deal, with people in the know saying things like Great Depression, Edge of the Abyss, Train Wreck, Epidemic; and for anyone who doesn't know, or can't quiet get their head around it, I'll contribute my meta-analysis of the situation.
Background is available all over; for instance, via the This American Life shows I mentioned above. I will not be spending any time defining terminology, giving the history of scarcity economics, pointing out how Bernanke is better than the Regan-appointed Greenspan (or how he's an expert on The Great Depression), explaining how Chris Cox- the Chairman of the SEC- has failed spectacularly to do the regulatory job he was given, or weighing the pros and cons of regulation, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, whether Clinton or the Republican controlled Congress of the time were responsible for dropping the regulatory ball on the CDS market, et cetera. What I will do is explain simply how this has happened, in as general and accurate a way as possible.
How did this happen? Large Banks and other financial institutions were allowed to make undisclosed transactions among themselves. These transactions were not something the general public could participate in, and were initially used as a way of reducing the risk of investment. The transactions were not only never disclosed to the public; but were not disclosed to the other Banks and financial institutions that were participating in the transactions. In other words, Bank1 could make a transaction with Bank2, and Bank2 didn't have to tell anyone (not Bank1 nor Bank3 nor its customers nor anyone else) about what was going on, or who they (Bank2) owed/received obligations. It was determined, by members of both political parties, that these transactions were being handled by very smart people, and since the transactions couldn't be done by Joe Blow off the street the industry and the market were sufficiently regulatory.
But remember, the institutions engaged in these transactions didn't have to disclose anything to anyone else- not even the other institutions involved. The transactions were initially a means of insurance; but rapidly became a lucrative means unto themselves. How lucrative? At a time when there was roughly 5 trillion dollars in actual investment, this insurance was due to pay out 60 trillion.
The problem was, no one really knew this back in March of 2008. Some, few, people suspected; but the practice had gone on for more than a decade- a long time in an industry where fortunes could be won and lost in a matter of minutes- or even seconds. Instead of admitting that business people are- like most other people- greedy bastards, no disclosure (other than that tracking payments and payouts) was required. The transactions were profitable, and it all worked wonderfully, until it nearly fucked everyone in the turd-cutter.
So, what specifically happened? Banks manage risk. Banks, also, need large amounts of money- to do things like make business loans. Primarily, Banks tend to lend to one another. Due to financial turmoil, Banks decided it was too risky to lend to one another. Credit, a major force in world wide economics (especially Capitalist Economies), dried up. Some institutions didn't have the money to pay their bills and went under. Some very big, very old, and- for a long time, up until then- very stable businesses died.
Credit Default Swaps, CDS, were insurance (but not really) on bonds- generally low risk to begin with. A CDS was an agreement, for a fee, that if you owned a bond on a company, and the company went under, you'd get your money back on the bond. Like fire insurance against your house ever burning down.
So, if you managed a Hedge Fund worth $100 million, you could sell a billion dollar CDS against Lehman Brothers, to AIG for 2% annually. Which means you make $20 mil a year, and as long as Lehman Brothers- a very old, very stable business that looked like it would never go away- never goes under, you're okay. Additionally, you double the size of your Hedge Fund in 5 years! Bad-ass, for you.
But it would take you 50 years to make the billion dollars you'd owe AIG if Lehman ever went under. That's risky- not very Risky; but there is risk involved. So, you buy a billion dollar CDS from Goldman Sachs against Lehman Brothers at 1% annually.
AIG is paying YOU 20 million a year to insure that you pay off Lehman Brother's billion dollar bond if Lehman ever dies. YOU pay Golmad SAchs 10 million a year to insure that Goldman Sachs pay off Lehman Brother's billion dollar bond if Lehman ever dies. Get it? (That's Netting, because you pass the risk along while you Net 10 million). Here's the catch- you don't have to actually own the Lehman Brother's Bond, or CDS related to it, before buying/selling CDS against it.
Huh?
Lehman looks like it's about to tank. So, you run to AIG and ask for CDS against a billion dollar Lehman Brother's Bond. Lehman Brothers looks shaky, but they've been around FOREVER, so AIG figures it will reem you for 10% annually. Three years later, you've spent $300 million, Lehman Brothers dies, and now AIG owes you a billion dollars!
You just bought Fire Insurance on a house you didn't own, and the house burnt down. But the insurance company wasn't regulated- so instead of having to keep a certain amount of Cash on-hand in case of insurance payouts, they had nothing, and pass the risk to whoever they had bought insurance from. This works so long as the Bank 20 down the line, where cousin Eddie let cousin Freddie in on a sweet deal and cousin Freddie didn't have time to pass on the risk, can pay off the billion dollars.
We let corporate big wigs, who were concerned with two things: the bottom line and their own huge salaries, do completely unregulated transactions without so much as a disclosure requirement.
I wonder what other financial transactions are happening WITHOUT Regulation, and WITHOUT Disclosure. If there are other ones, just wait, they'll be biting us in our ass sometime later- guaranteed. It's not because they were exceptionally greedy corporate bastards. It happened, and will happen int he future, because they were normal greedy people in a position to make themselves a lot of money, in a seemingly low-risk enterprise, with no way of knowing that $5 trillion worth of Bonds were insured for $60 trillion. Anyone else would have done the smae, in their shoes.
The lesson, Aesop? Don't trust people not to be greedy. Sure, you may know a guy who isn't greedy; but does that mean every other idiot who does his job isn't greedy? Does it mean every other person isn't greedy? No. Disclosure and Regulation are necessary, because the Free Market depends on openness to function properly. If consumers can't discover that they're being screwed how can they "vote with their feet" by going to another institution?
(Yeah, I know I went into all the shit I said I wouldn't.... I'm greedy).
Why? Read More...
Background is available all over; for instance, via the This American Life shows I mentioned above. I will not be spending any time defining terminology, giving the history of scarcity economics, pointing out how Bernanke is better than the Regan-appointed Greenspan (or how he's an expert on The Great Depression), explaining how Chris Cox- the Chairman of the SEC- has failed spectacularly to do the regulatory job he was given, or weighing the pros and cons of regulation, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, whether Clinton or the Republican controlled Congress of the time were responsible for dropping the regulatory ball on the CDS market, et cetera. What I will do is explain simply how this has happened, in as general and accurate a way as possible.
How did this happen? Large Banks and other financial institutions were allowed to make undisclosed transactions among themselves. These transactions were not something the general public could participate in, and were initially used as a way of reducing the risk of investment. The transactions were not only never disclosed to the public; but were not disclosed to the other Banks and financial institutions that were participating in the transactions. In other words, Bank1 could make a transaction with Bank2, and Bank2 didn't have to tell anyone (not Bank1 nor Bank3 nor its customers nor anyone else) about what was going on, or who they (Bank2) owed/received obligations. It was determined, by members of both political parties, that these transactions were being handled by very smart people, and since the transactions couldn't be done by Joe Blow off the street the industry and the market were sufficiently regulatory.
But remember, the institutions engaged in these transactions didn't have to disclose anything to anyone else- not even the other institutions involved. The transactions were initially a means of insurance; but rapidly became a lucrative means unto themselves. How lucrative? At a time when there was roughly 5 trillion dollars in actual investment, this insurance was due to pay out 60 trillion.
The problem was, no one really knew this back in March of 2008. Some, few, people suspected; but the practice had gone on for more than a decade- a long time in an industry where fortunes could be won and lost in a matter of minutes- or even seconds. Instead of admitting that business people are- like most other people- greedy bastards, no disclosure (other than that tracking payments and payouts) was required. The transactions were profitable, and it all worked wonderfully, until it nearly fucked everyone in the turd-cutter.
So, what specifically happened? Banks manage risk. Banks, also, need large amounts of money- to do things like make business loans. Primarily, Banks tend to lend to one another. Due to financial turmoil, Banks decided it was too risky to lend to one another. Credit, a major force in world wide economics (especially Capitalist Economies), dried up. Some institutions didn't have the money to pay their bills and went under. Some very big, very old, and- for a long time, up until then- very stable businesses died.
Credit Default Swaps, CDS, were insurance (but not really) on bonds- generally low risk to begin with. A CDS was an agreement, for a fee, that if you owned a bond on a company, and the company went under, you'd get your money back on the bond. Like fire insurance against your house ever burning down.
So, if you managed a Hedge Fund worth $100 million, you could sell a billion dollar CDS against Lehman Brothers, to AIG for 2% annually. Which means you make $20 mil a year, and as long as Lehman Brothers- a very old, very stable business that looked like it would never go away- never goes under, you're okay. Additionally, you double the size of your Hedge Fund in 5 years! Bad-ass, for you.
But it would take you 50 years to make the billion dollars you'd owe AIG if Lehman ever went under. That's risky- not very Risky; but there is risk involved. So, you buy a billion dollar CDS from Goldman Sachs against Lehman Brothers at 1% annually.
AIG is paying YOU 20 million a year to insure that you pay off Lehman Brother's billion dollar bond if Lehman ever dies. YOU pay Golmad SAchs 10 million a year to insure that Goldman Sachs pay off Lehman Brother's billion dollar bond if Lehman ever dies. Get it? (That's Netting, because you pass the risk along while you Net 10 million). Here's the catch- you don't have to actually own the Lehman Brother's Bond, or CDS related to it, before buying/selling CDS against it.
Huh?
Lehman looks like it's about to tank. So, you run to AIG and ask for CDS against a billion dollar Lehman Brother's Bond. Lehman Brothers looks shaky, but they've been around FOREVER, so AIG figures it will reem you for 10% annually. Three years later, you've spent $300 million, Lehman Brothers dies, and now AIG owes you a billion dollars!
You just bought Fire Insurance on a house you didn't own, and the house burnt down. But the insurance company wasn't regulated- so instead of having to keep a certain amount of Cash on-hand in case of insurance payouts, they had nothing, and pass the risk to whoever they had bought insurance from. This works so long as the Bank 20 down the line, where cousin Eddie let cousin Freddie in on a sweet deal and cousin Freddie didn't have time to pass on the risk, can pay off the billion dollars.
We let corporate big wigs, who were concerned with two things: the bottom line and their own huge salaries, do completely unregulated transactions without so much as a disclosure requirement.
I wonder what other financial transactions are happening WITHOUT Regulation, and WITHOUT Disclosure. If there are other ones, just wait, they'll be biting us in our ass sometime later- guaranteed. It's not because they were exceptionally greedy corporate bastards. It happened, and will happen int he future, because they were normal greedy people in a position to make themselves a lot of money, in a seemingly low-risk enterprise, with no way of knowing that $5 trillion worth of Bonds were insured for $60 trillion. Anyone else would have done the smae, in their shoes.
The lesson, Aesop? Don't trust people not to be greedy. Sure, you may know a guy who isn't greedy; but does that mean every other idiot who does his job isn't greedy? Does it mean every other person isn't greedy? No. Disclosure and Regulation are necessary, because the Free Market depends on openness to function properly. If consumers can't discover that they're being screwed how can they "vote with their feet" by going to another institution?
(Yeah, I know I went into all the shit I said I wouldn't.... I'm greedy).
Why? Read More...
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Quickies
* Space X got Falcon into Space! So Awesome, I knew they'd get it- and still it's exciting. There's Video up on YouTube, go check it out.
* Sarah Palin- like you really needed another reason NOT to vote for McCain. See that shit with Curic? "Name me another Supreme Court Case You disagree with, besides Roe v Wade." "Yeah, well, Roe v Wade." "Name a time McCain was ever what you say he was." "Yeah, well, uhm, did I mention I'm a woman?"
* Daily Show tonight skewered Palin/McCain Awesomely. One of the best episodes in the last year, if not the best.
* Running back into my internet exile for a few more days. Changes a-comin'... Read More...
* Sarah Palin- like you really needed another reason NOT to vote for McCain. See that shit with Curic? "Name me another Supreme Court Case You disagree with, besides Roe v Wade." "Yeah, well, Roe v Wade." "Name a time McCain was ever what you say he was." "Yeah, well, uhm, did I mention I'm a woman?"
* Daily Show tonight skewered Palin/McCain Awesomely. One of the best episodes in the last year, if not the best.
* Running back into my internet exile for a few more days. Changes a-comin'... Read More...
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Why I Hate
Why I Hate Tennessee:
Because, in recent TV ads advocating Ten as a tourist destination, they say Tennessee is responsible for the creation of the "only truly American music". They do not specify if that is Country (Grand Ol' Opry) or Blues (Memphis. Either way, it's wrong.
Why I Hate Government/Politics:
The Government does not represent me. I'm not in the majority, and I'm not a big enough Minority. All of my issues get overlooked because they won't further the careers of power-hungry retards whose only real qualifications are too much money to identify with the common man they claim to be, and the backing of the good ol' boy network (donkey or elephant). Politics isn't horrible enough, all the time, to get really truly worked up about, and that's why it's worth getting really truly pissed off about it. It's insidiously and casually fucked from beginning to end. No system will ever be perfect, and that's not a good enough reason to be happy or satisfied with this one.
ALSO, the government makes HUGE demands on NASA, while restricting the private sector's ability to fully exploit space and NOT FUNDING NASA! Take half of the average amount of money thrown to Iraq in the average month, since the war began, and that could fund NASA for the next 20 years. If that doesn't piss you off, you're one of the reasons
Why I Hate People:
They Suck. They're so independent and willful, and opinionated, and (though rarely) smart. They'd be much more enjoyable if they'd just admit my vast superiority, charm, beauty, intelligence, and creativity (just to name a few of my best points). Did I mention how I'm better than them? Also, they're stupid. It's true. Look at where really smart starts on the Bell Curve. And gullible. And both those qualities give us: religion.
Why I Hate Love:
First, it's far too easy to like love. Second, is WAY over hyped. Not that Love isn't real, or can't be as good as whatever; but it is WAY over hyped. Love won't save the day. Love won't make a bad person good. Love won't make hungry people not die from starvation. Third, I'm not certain Love isn't primarily selfish. Take any reason why Love is about the person/object/ideal loved. Now convince me it's not more about how the lover FEELS around that person/object/ideal. It's okay, take your time; and don't forget to convince yourself first. Finally, too many people think that love is one way or another. These people assign arbitrary categories to degree: loves, likes, interests, physical love, sexual love, mental love, friendly love, brotherly love, mother's love, homosexual love, what-the-fuck-ever love. People take these labels, they add their own fantasized bullshit on top of them, they don't even think about when love is bad (the abused person who loves their abuser, the junky's love for their drug, or the idiot's love of the first person to pay attention to them and not demand too much in return- except complete dominance), and they fall deeply into a morass of sugar, spice, and everything nice. That makes me want to strangle people with their own colons. Go ahead. Conceive of the effort that would take... I'll wait. See how much I hate that?
Why I Hate Hate:
It's too easy to like hate. Hate is purely subjective, but it makes you feel powerful. It's got all the same problems as love, and vice versa. The point is that they're both extremes. Normally, I advocate against extremes, and here I do the same- but I add a caveat. The psyche is a place of extremes. It's abnormal when there are no extremes, ever.
Lastly, the reason I hate love/hate so much: People expect you to care about something because they, or all their friends, or the six homeless guys they let bukkake them for $8, or the Pope, or some other worthless piece of shit, love/hate it. This is like saying something is special because a dog once peed on it. Dogs pee on anything, sometimes to mark their territory, sometimes to pee, and sometimes they're bored. Humans love/hate shit. Not only is love/hate not special, in and of itself, but the object of that love/hate isn't very special, either. Read More...
Because, in recent TV ads advocating Ten as a tourist destination, they say Tennessee is responsible for the creation of the "only truly American music". They do not specify if that is Country (Grand Ol' Opry) or Blues (Memphis. Either way, it's wrong.
Why I Hate Government/Politics:
The Government does not represent me. I'm not in the majority, and I'm not a big enough Minority. All of my issues get overlooked because they won't further the careers of power-hungry retards whose only real qualifications are too much money to identify with the common man they claim to be, and the backing of the good ol' boy network (donkey or elephant). Politics isn't horrible enough, all the time, to get really truly worked up about, and that's why it's worth getting really truly pissed off about it. It's insidiously and casually fucked from beginning to end. No system will ever be perfect, and that's not a good enough reason to be happy or satisfied with this one.
ALSO, the government makes HUGE demands on NASA, while restricting the private sector's ability to fully exploit space and NOT FUNDING NASA! Take half of the average amount of money thrown to Iraq in the average month, since the war began, and that could fund NASA for the next 20 years. If that doesn't piss you off, you're one of the reasons
Why I Hate People:
They Suck. They're so independent and willful, and opinionated, and (though rarely) smart. They'd be much more enjoyable if they'd just admit my vast superiority, charm, beauty, intelligence, and creativity (just to name a few of my best points). Did I mention how I'm better than them? Also, they're stupid. It's true. Look at where really smart starts on the Bell Curve. And gullible. And both those qualities give us: religion.
Why I Hate Love:
First, it's far too easy to like love. Second, is WAY over hyped. Not that Love isn't real, or can't be as good as whatever; but it is WAY over hyped. Love won't save the day. Love won't make a bad person good. Love won't make hungry people not die from starvation. Third, I'm not certain Love isn't primarily selfish. Take any reason why Love is about the person/object/ideal loved. Now convince me it's not more about how the lover FEELS around that person/object/ideal. It's okay, take your time; and don't forget to convince yourself first. Finally, too many people think that love is one way or another. These people assign arbitrary categories to degree: loves, likes, interests, physical love, sexual love, mental love, friendly love, brotherly love, mother's love, homosexual love, what-the-fuck-ever love. People take these labels, they add their own fantasized bullshit on top of them, they don't even think about when love is bad (the abused person who loves their abuser, the junky's love for their drug, or the idiot's love of the first person to pay attention to them and not demand too much in return- except complete dominance), and they fall deeply into a morass of sugar, spice, and everything nice. That makes me want to strangle people with their own colons. Go ahead. Conceive of the effort that would take... I'll wait. See how much I hate that?
Why I Hate Hate:
It's too easy to like hate. Hate is purely subjective, but it makes you feel powerful. It's got all the same problems as love, and vice versa. The point is that they're both extremes. Normally, I advocate against extremes, and here I do the same- but I add a caveat. The psyche is a place of extremes. It's abnormal when there are no extremes, ever.
Lastly, the reason I hate love/hate so much: People expect you to care about something because they, or all their friends, or the six homeless guys they let bukkake them for $8, or the Pope, or some other worthless piece of shit, love/hate it. This is like saying something is special because a dog once peed on it. Dogs pee on anything, sometimes to mark their territory, sometimes to pee, and sometimes they're bored. Humans love/hate shit. Not only is love/hate not special, in and of itself, but the object of that love/hate isn't very special, either. Read More...
Monday, September 08, 2008
The Liberal Media and Presidential Campaigning
We're into it now. One of the most important elections in recent memory is currently taking place in the US; and the republican machine is out in force. Sure, every election is the most important- at least, since the last; but this one is a bit different (like all the others). The US is in economic doldrums- to say the least- and there will likely be another Supreme Court nominee during the next four years. The housing market is shit, over all, and oil is steady at three times the price it was just a handful of years ago. The appointees that this president will make are going to affect the political, social, and economic landscape for years to come.
Enter the op-ed. The local newspaper here in Huntsville, Alabama, is the Huntsville Times; and is a part of the regional Times operations. In other words, it's a local out-branch of the NY Times. Though the newspaper itself would like its readers to believe in is neutral, no one does- and for good reason. Look at the opinion pieces, and how they lean politically, and it's easy to see that the Times is catering to a readership that is primarily Republican. In the September 7th, Sunday, edition there was a piece about how the recent conventions effected campaign strategy, one extolling the merits of Senator Lieberman, one saying that if age is a factor for Obama it's also a factor for McCain, and various others.
The convention piece started off talking about the Democrats and Obama. It was a short portion of the overall article and though not exceptionally negative, was certainly not positive. Then, the article continued into the Republican convention. The apologetic acrobatics included dismissing the notion that the Palin-as-VP move was an obvious pander to disaffected Clinton supporters; that McCain wasn't simply "Not Obama"; and touting a "reformer" aspect to the McCain ticket that virtually dripped with pandering to independents via McCain's, and Palin's, fighting "dirty", "corrupt", Republican establishment in Washington.
The piece on Lieberman was written by Joe-ie's old chief of staff. Why? I'd bet it had more than a little to do with Lieberman pissing off most of the Democratic party in the last year or two (at least). The HBO movie Recount, about the misadventures of the 2000 election's polling in Florida, basically said that Lieberman lost the election for Gore due to stupid phrasing of answers during public appearances. Worse, after pandering to his Democratic base about sticking with his party despite being elected as an Independent in 2006, he's gone off the reservation a couple times. Even worse than that, he spoke in endorsement of John McCain- at the Republican National Convention! The former Democratic Nominee for VP, who helped win the popular vote, was endorsing a Republican! Of course his former chief of staff was writing a praise-piece: Joe doesn't want to have to work for a living! The piece made sure to point out that Joe-L was the VP on that popular ticket; that he was married to the daughter of Holocaust survivors; that he was an historic VP nominee; that he won an election despite not being nominated by his own party; and other smaller "praise worthy" tidbits. I think it was Roosevelt or Truman who kicked the last of the Southern "Democrats", who were Republicans by another name, out of his party by saying something like: "It's time for those people in my party who never go along with the rest of the party but who hide under the mantle of a name and so-called 'tradition', to get in line or get out!" Lieberman has distinguished himself, in the last eight years, as a douchebag- from the Democratic prospective. The article was an attempt to give him credibility to independents. He was called, in so many words, a reformer.
Let's be very very clear on John McCain, for a second. He's been two things in his entire life: a pilot- who was shot down and held as a POW- and a politician. McCain deserves vast amounts of respect for his Naval career, and whenever that man talks about torture everyone else should shut the fuck up and take notes. However, he is not a reformer. He is, however, a pandering jackass without strong convictions- other than a junkie-like need to be president. He changed his religion for this campaign- to better please the Republican Base. He's changed his stance on abortion, gay rights, and several other key conservative issues for this campaign- to better please the Republican Base. He has done everything in his power to distance himself from George W. Bush for this campaign- to appeal to the coveted independents, undecideds, swing-voters, and fence-sitters. He's a shill. No one gets to sit in Washington for twenty-five years, having failed his last attempt to run for president by not getting his party's nomination, and call themselves a reformer. He's been planning this campaign for eight years; and it's not going well (though, it's not going horribly wrong, either).
The McCain-Feingold "Campaign Finance Reform" Act is a joke. It did nothing that it didn't also undo by means of opening new loopholes. It didn't? Fuck no! If you were in a position to vote on how easy it would be for you to retain your cozy job, with it's cushy salary, and huge social/political status; would you (1) Try to make it harder to get money that would ensure your ability to stay employed (2) Try to make it easier to get money that would ensure your ability to stay employed (3) Try to fool people into thinking you've done something to protect their interests at personal expense, while effectively doing nothing to the money that would ensure your ability to stay employed? Cause I'm taking option 3 every time. That's what McCain did. His huge reform did nothing, except add new laws onto the books that made things restructure, without any change for the better. In fact, a quick search will reveal that some political analysts think the McCain-Feingold Act hurt campaign finance reform FAR more than it may have helped.
Palin.... Palin.... Palin... Obama has said he doesn't want Palin's daughter's pregnancy to be an issue. Good for him, taking the high road- especially because he knows a lot of people are going to ignore him and take the low road anyway. That is smart. Fuck him, too. There is a HUGE issue here, and it's not just that Palin is an evangelical hypocritical shitbag. Palin is all about some abstinence-only education. Every study that's worth a shit says abstinence only education leads to MORE Sexually Transmitted infections and Teen Pregnancies. That is the only thing that really needs to be said about her daughter. Palin herself is a reformer from Alaska with 12 years political experience- and that's counting her terms as Mayor of Po-dunk-bakwards-ville (population: 8). She's a mulit-whammy pander: (1) to women, especially after some have become estranged with Democrats over Hillary Clinton's loss, (2) She's extremely conservative, favoring abstinence-only sex ed, school prayer, teaching creationism, pro-life, etc (3) She's "young" and "pretty" and a "reformer" who fought the "corrupt Republican establishment" in Alaska... for about 15 minutes. 'Cause being governor of Alaska, with it's hundreds of thousands of people is impressive enough to make someone qualified to run a whole country.....
Seriously, there aren't even 700,000 people in the whole fucking state. It's got the 5th highest average personal income, and the highest cost of living, in the nation. Palin is a shit choice, made to appease as many people as possible; but for that she was really good. Biden was the same thing for Obama; but look at how much Biden helps Big-O versus how much Palin helps Johnnie-Mac. If Palin had run a state with, I dunno, let's say the 5th biggest economy IN THE WORLD [California, anyone?], for more than half of a term, I'd focus on her stupid ass policies. Instead, I like to point out that anyone who dislikes Obama's "inexperience" better shut the fuck up now that McCain pandered-out with Palin. It's McCain's fault that the "inexperienced" tag is hypocritical now- and that's probably because it hasn't been working very well for him, so far. Glad to see the old bastard can still pander with the best of 'em!
The Media isn't liberal- many studies suggest that it is actually conservative. The campaigns for president all have their weaknesses; but one side is "soft" lying, while the other is "hard" lying. Soft lying is where someone speaks of intangibles like "change" and "hope", relative terms that can be spun easily after the election. The other side is blatantly not telling the truth- an easy case to prove is McCain was Episcopalian until this campaign, when he has said he's always been Baptist. Guess what? Politicians lie. The best ones do it with charm, flair, and ease- see Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky bullshit, or all of Ronnie Reagan's presidency. The worst ones call themselves reformers and pander to everyone they can. Read More...
Enter the op-ed. The local newspaper here in Huntsville, Alabama, is the Huntsville Times; and is a part of the regional Times operations. In other words, it's a local out-branch of the NY Times. Though the newspaper itself would like its readers to believe in is neutral, no one does- and for good reason. Look at the opinion pieces, and how they lean politically, and it's easy to see that the Times is catering to a readership that is primarily Republican. In the September 7th, Sunday, edition there was a piece about how the recent conventions effected campaign strategy, one extolling the merits of Senator Lieberman, one saying that if age is a factor for Obama it's also a factor for McCain, and various others.
The convention piece started off talking about the Democrats and Obama. It was a short portion of the overall article and though not exceptionally negative, was certainly not positive. Then, the article continued into the Republican convention. The apologetic acrobatics included dismissing the notion that the Palin-as-VP move was an obvious pander to disaffected Clinton supporters; that McCain wasn't simply "Not Obama"; and touting a "reformer" aspect to the McCain ticket that virtually dripped with pandering to independents via McCain's, and Palin's, fighting "dirty", "corrupt", Republican establishment in Washington.
The piece on Lieberman was written by Joe-ie's old chief of staff. Why? I'd bet it had more than a little to do with Lieberman pissing off most of the Democratic party in the last year or two (at least). The HBO movie Recount, about the misadventures of the 2000 election's polling in Florida, basically said that Lieberman lost the election for Gore due to stupid phrasing of answers during public appearances. Worse, after pandering to his Democratic base about sticking with his party despite being elected as an Independent in 2006, he's gone off the reservation a couple times. Even worse than that, he spoke in endorsement of John McCain- at the Republican National Convention! The former Democratic Nominee for VP, who helped win the popular vote, was endorsing a Republican! Of course his former chief of staff was writing a praise-piece: Joe doesn't want to have to work for a living! The piece made sure to point out that Joe-L was the VP on that popular ticket; that he was married to the daughter of Holocaust survivors; that he was an historic VP nominee; that he won an election despite not being nominated by his own party; and other smaller "praise worthy" tidbits. I think it was Roosevelt or Truman who kicked the last of the Southern "Democrats", who were Republicans by another name, out of his party by saying something like: "It's time for those people in my party who never go along with the rest of the party but who hide under the mantle of a name and so-called 'tradition', to get in line or get out!" Lieberman has distinguished himself, in the last eight years, as a douchebag- from the Democratic prospective. The article was an attempt to give him credibility to independents. He was called, in so many words, a reformer.
Let's be very very clear on John McCain, for a second. He's been two things in his entire life: a pilot- who was shot down and held as a POW- and a politician. McCain deserves vast amounts of respect for his Naval career, and whenever that man talks about torture everyone else should shut the fuck up and take notes. However, he is not a reformer. He is, however, a pandering jackass without strong convictions- other than a junkie-like need to be president. He changed his religion for this campaign- to better please the Republican Base. He's changed his stance on abortion, gay rights, and several other key conservative issues for this campaign- to better please the Republican Base. He has done everything in his power to distance himself from George W. Bush for this campaign- to appeal to the coveted independents, undecideds, swing-voters, and fence-sitters. He's a shill. No one gets to sit in Washington for twenty-five years, having failed his last attempt to run for president by not getting his party's nomination, and call themselves a reformer. He's been planning this campaign for eight years; and it's not going well (though, it's not going horribly wrong, either).
The McCain-Feingold "Campaign Finance Reform" Act is a joke. It did nothing that it didn't also undo by means of opening new loopholes. It didn't? Fuck no! If you were in a position to vote on how easy it would be for you to retain your cozy job, with it's cushy salary, and huge social/political status; would you (1) Try to make it harder to get money that would ensure your ability to stay employed (2) Try to make it easier to get money that would ensure your ability to stay employed (3) Try to fool people into thinking you've done something to protect their interests at personal expense, while effectively doing nothing to the money that would ensure your ability to stay employed? Cause I'm taking option 3 every time. That's what McCain did. His huge reform did nothing, except add new laws onto the books that made things restructure, without any change for the better. In fact, a quick search will reveal that some political analysts think the McCain-Feingold Act hurt campaign finance reform FAR more than it may have helped.
Palin.... Palin.... Palin... Obama has said he doesn't want Palin's daughter's pregnancy to be an issue. Good for him, taking the high road- especially because he knows a lot of people are going to ignore him and take the low road anyway. That is smart. Fuck him, too. There is a HUGE issue here, and it's not just that Palin is an evangelical hypocritical shitbag. Palin is all about some abstinence-only education. Every study that's worth a shit says abstinence only education leads to MORE Sexually Transmitted infections and Teen Pregnancies. That is the only thing that really needs to be said about her daughter. Palin herself is a reformer from Alaska with 12 years political experience- and that's counting her terms as Mayor of Po-dunk-bakwards-ville (population: 8). She's a mulit-whammy pander: (1) to women, especially after some have become estranged with Democrats over Hillary Clinton's loss, (2) She's extremely conservative, favoring abstinence-only sex ed, school prayer, teaching creationism, pro-life, etc (3) She's "young" and "pretty" and a "reformer" who fought the "corrupt Republican establishment" in Alaska... for about 15 minutes. 'Cause being governor of Alaska, with it's hundreds of thousands of people is impressive enough to make someone qualified to run a whole country.....
Seriously, there aren't even 700,000 people in the whole fucking state. It's got the 5th highest average personal income, and the highest cost of living, in the nation. Palin is a shit choice, made to appease as many people as possible; but for that she was really good. Biden was the same thing for Obama; but look at how much Biden helps Big-O versus how much Palin helps Johnnie-Mac. If Palin had run a state with, I dunno, let's say the 5th biggest economy IN THE WORLD [California, anyone?], for more than half of a term, I'd focus on her stupid ass policies. Instead, I like to point out that anyone who dislikes Obama's "inexperience" better shut the fuck up now that McCain pandered-out with Palin. It's McCain's fault that the "inexperienced" tag is hypocritical now- and that's probably because it hasn't been working very well for him, so far. Glad to see the old bastard can still pander with the best of 'em!
The Media isn't liberal- many studies suggest that it is actually conservative. The campaigns for president all have their weaknesses; but one side is "soft" lying, while the other is "hard" lying. Soft lying is where someone speaks of intangibles like "change" and "hope", relative terms that can be spun easily after the election. The other side is blatantly not telling the truth- an easy case to prove is McCain was Episcopalian until this campaign, when he has said he's always been Baptist. Guess what? Politicians lie. The best ones do it with charm, flair, and ease- see Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky bullshit, or all of Ronnie Reagan's presidency. The worst ones call themselves reformers and pander to everyone they can. Read More...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
