Billy Bob Thornton: Cry Baby of the Month

What a tender, delicate man Billy Bob Thornton is. Such a precious, vulnerable artist. Not to mention tortured and suffering too.

Or it could be Billy Bob is just a complete, insufferable asshole. Watch this and decide for yourself.

Potato Day Rears Its Ugly Head

John Stewart wonders aloud if conservatives are confusing tyranny with losing.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Baracknophobia - Obey
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

Reds

After watching 60 Minutes the other night, I’m convinced more than ever that most people involved with Wall Street and the banking industry would sell the United States of America if it meant making an extra dollar. I really do think that. As the months have passed since the economic shit hit the fan back in September and Congress has scolded and shamed automaker CEOs and banking CEOs and the morons in charge of the SEC, I contend that all these people knew full well the harm they were doing and went ahead and did it anyway because nothing was more important to them than making money.

Nothing. Not even the short and long term health of their nation’s economy.

An interesting side effect of our country’s financial crisis is the stark light that has been shined upon the excesses of the rich and powerful. I’m the world’s leading proponent of a free market system, but even I get urges for Red revolution when I read about billion dollar CEO salaries, spa retreats, and conventions in Vegas. Communism is clearly a failed economic philosophy, but there’s just something wrong about the fact that 5% of the world’s population owns more than 75% of the world’s wealth.

For the most rich and most powerful, it begs the question “How much is enough?” One million dollars? Five million? 20 million? A hundred million? I’m not wealthy myself and so can’t speak from experience, but it’s my estimation than any salary over 2 million dollars pushes well beyond the realm of good pay for a good day’s work and into the realm of compensatory substitution for a tiny wenis. With more than 5 billion people on the planet, does anyone really have the right to half dozen mansions and a dozen sports cars? Don’t million dollar salaries far exceed the amount of risk, work, and responsibility a human being undertakes in the name of running a company? In a free market system, are there limits to how much wealth one human being can accrue?

I know I sound like a commie bastard, but I’d like to remind any detractors that I wouldn’t be thinking these thoughts if the banking industry hadn’t bled our economy into cardiac arrest. If angry mobs rise up and burn and pillage the estates of the rich and powerful, all those BMW driving, caviar munching, polo playing elitists have no one to blame but themselves for killing the golden goose and unleashing a growing sentiment of disparity and unfairness within a slumbering U.S. citizenry.

I’ll be pleasantly surprised if we come out of the economic crisis unscathed, politically speaking.

Automakers Next In Line for Taxpayer Handouts

Daniel Mitchell wrote a great op-ed piece on CNN.com entitled "Say no to the auto bailout." I find myself in complete agreement with what he writes, especially the part about rewarding bad management and inflexible labor unions. Some estimate that up to 10% of the American work force is somehow related to the auto industry and that the government has to intervene to ensure that thousands of Americans aren't suddenly thrown into unemployment.

But throwing more money at the Big Three can't be the answer. Like Mitchell advocates, Ford and GM will be better companies if the free market handles the bad management and organizational choices they've made these past decades. I mean, the federal government has long pushed American auto makers for more fuel economical models and the auto makers resisted. Instead of thinking in the long term, they continued building gas guzzlers because of high profit margins and low oil prices. But everything pointed to oil eventually shooting up in price. What was the Big Three's plan B for $150 per barrel oil? They didn't have one and now they're burning through their cash reserves and want the U.S. government to throw even more money into the fire.

I say let them fail. American companies must move away from the moral hazard that has trapped too many of them into lining up for government handouts. It's almost laughable that the shining beacon of free market economics has so suddenly plunged into overt government intervention, manipulation, and flat-out take-over. Republicans frequently accuse Democrats of being Marxist socialists, but any Republican that voted in favor of a bailout had best lower his pointing finger. I can't believe Ford and GM need the U.S. government to tell them to manufacture quality cars that get good gas mileage. They deserve to get their asses kicked by Toyota and Honda. Maybe things will get bad enough, so bad that union contracts will go down right along with the companies they've effectively hamstringed. Perhaps something new and lean could arise from that rubble.

All I know is, I don't want another insurance company, or investment bank, or corporation rescued. The buck stopped with AIG as far as I'm concerned.

Is Obama a Stealth Nerd?

In the latest issue of Time, Joel Stein wrote about Barack and the “Urkel Effect.” Joel theorizes that Obama may be cool on the surface, but that really he’s a closest nerd. He quotes another writer, Benjamin Nugent, from his book American Nerd: The Story of My People. Of Barack Obama, McCain, and Palin, Nugent writes,

“He [Obama] would be the guy the jocks didn’t choose to towel-snap, but he would kind of stand there looking disapproving while they towel-snapped. Whereas McCain would be more likely to towel-snap you, and Sarah Palin would make out with the guy who towel-snapped you.”

I can imagine Obama sternly glowering at gratuitous towel-snapping and wedgie wrenching just as easily as I can Palin making out with the school’s varsity quarterback. Hell, I'd snap a dork’s ass beet red if it led to a shot at Palin.

She’s hot.

President-elect Barack Obama

I stayed up late last night watching the election results. Once it became evident that Obama won the nomination, I stayed up even longer to hear McCain give his concession speech, the president-elect his victory.

I thought McCain gave a moving, conciliatory speech when he conceded defeat. I was struck by how sincere a speaker he can be when he’s himself. In giving Obama his sympathies for the recent death of his grandmother, I witnessed a flash of the “real” John McCain. If he conducted himself as he did last night throughout his entire campaign, he might have come closer to winning. I’m always struck by the chameleon nature of our politicians; one minute they savage each other, the next they graciously vow to follow. It’s a puzzling component of American politics, but one that suffers the transition of power patriotically; differences set aside to form a unified front.

I was equally moved by Obama’s speech. I was curious what kind of chord he would strike in speaking victoriously to that massive crowd in Grant Park. Obama so effectively diminished the issue of his race while running for president, I was blindsided by the media suddenly talking about how historic his election is. I had, in these last weeks of the campaign, forgotten that Obama is black. Thousands of other hadn’t though. By the tears of joy on so many faces, I can only imagine how they feel. I share their joy, even as a 38 year old white guy.

I was relieved and inspired by what president-elect Obama said in his celebratory speech. He hinted at the history he made, but was quick to give the credit for its inception to others. I believe him when he says he will bring the two parties together to solve our nation’s problems. I think nearly all Americans are hungry for this development. We don’t just deserve a government that functions well, we desperately need it. I sense America’s power fading. Only strong leadership can reverse the trend.

I grant Americans these next few days to celebrate. But after that, it will be time for president-elect Obama to roll up his shirt sleeves and get to work. He promised much. Perhaps too much in the context of our country’s current economic climate. If President Obama does only half of what he outlined in his campaign, I’ll continue praising and supporting him. If he accomplishes little to nothing, I’ll broodingly regret voting for him. And if he flat-out bungles things, makes things even worse, I’ll despair and perhaps give up on our political system entirely.

So much rides on Obama successfully leading us. If he fails, we’re in big trouble. Not only do our problems remain unsolved, but Americans risk losing a newfound interest and energy in the political process. If he succeeds, the country will rebound stronger than ever.

And so will democracy.

Election Day

I voted this morning. It was a good feeling, mostly because I did so not purely out of civic duty, but because I felt a moral and ethic need. Our government has been badly managed this last decade. Our politicians did the damage, but we're the electorate that voted them into office. The recent financial crisis has reminded me how important it is to stay abreast of national politics, vote for candidates based on issues (rather than style or my favorite issue, "family values"), and then hold them accountable.

Immediately after voting, I went and worked out. An "I Voted" sticker clearly affixed to my jersey, the girl attending the front desk smiled at me and cheerfully asked who I voted for. When I told her Obama, her smile deflated and she responded with a quiet, "oh." I grinned back and then went about the merry business of moving heavy weights small distances in short, controlled bursts. I'm not sure why I so enjoyed crushing her informal morning polling. But I did.

I'll tell you, I voted for Obama more for what he stood for than I did as a vote against McCain or the Republican party. Too much of my voting in recent years has been a vengeful reaction to whomever was formally in power. I don't think Obama completely leveled with us about how he's going to manage $10 trillion in debt and still give 95% of Americans a tax cut. But I do think he stands a greater chance of changing things for the better in the United States than McCain. I also want our troops out of Iraq, post haste. My sense is the Iraq government has been dragging its feet in governing, instead letting our American troops perform the bulk of the work. We ought never have been there in the first place and $10 billion a month is too steep a price tag to justify our current presence there.

I didn't vote straight Democrat, however. I voted for John Culberson for the Texas seat in the House of Representatives. John voted twice against the bailout bill and I respect that immensely. He also favors scrapping or overhauling No Child Left Behind, another position I support. For U.S. Senate, I also voted for John Cornyn. I don't know much about Cornyn's positions, but I will in the coming months if he wins reelection.

Did you vote? If you did, nice work. You now have earned the right to bitch and complain about future issues. If you didn't, then take a seat and STFU. No vote, no voice. If you couldn't take the time to stand in a line (I've stood in longer movie lines), then no one has the time to listen to your unrepresented opinions.

So get out and vote! You have the entire day today to sneak out of work and get it done. Yes, go vote! Even if it's for McCain and his VPILF! McCain is a fine man and I respect anyone who votes for him and can articulate at least one reason why they're doing so, beyond "Um, he's a Republican."

Wall Street Side Bets

Turns out that a major contributor to our nation's current economic plight is the role of Credit Default Swaps, a form of insurance someone could take out in the event an investment failed. The catch? You didn't have to actually be invested to take out the insurance. The other catch? Credit default swaps were made illegal more than a hundred years ago and were only recently re-legalized in 2000 by the U.S. Congress. Experts summarize the derivatives as nothing more than investment betting, akin to the kind of side betting Joe the Plumber might make on a sporting event.

Catch the entire explanation from 60 Minutes, required viewing for all tax-paying and voting Americans.

My Letter to My Representatives

Dear X (Culberson, Hutchison, Cornyn),

I’ve heard reports that Congress is contemplating putting together another stimulus package, potentially costing more than $100 billion. Many economists dispute the effectiveness of these packages, especially if citizens save the money or spend it on imports. With $11 trillion in national debt and more than $500 billion deficit, I can’t rationalize spending even more money that we don’t have.

So please, Congressman, vote “no” on any stimulus package that comes to the floor of the House. Instead, work with Congress in developing legislation that either invests money into our nation’s infrastructure or begins to pay off the $11 trillion national debt. Protecting the American economy and paying off that debt should be Congress’ number one priority right now.

I want you to also take a closer look at our free trade agreements with foreign countries. Nearly everyone agrees that these agreements have bled the United States of manufacturing jobs. It seems the playing field isn’t level, which in turn has turned the United States into a country that makes nothing and imports everything.

Your citizen,


Frank Thomson
http://furiouscognition.blogspot.com/

Stimulus Package

Talk currently floats around the halls of the U.S. Congress about putting together another "stimulus" package to help the floundering American economy. The idea behind such packages is that the government mails checks to citizens who then turn around and spend the money. The consumer spending supposedly invigorates the economy, which in turns increases job growth. Unfortunately, economists point out, the dynamic isn't as simple as that. If a citizen spends his stimulus check on imports, the profits benefit the exporting nation, not the United States. Also, if the citizen squirrels the money away for a rainy day, again, the money isn't being pumped into the economy. The first two stimulus packages cost billions of dollars to fund and couldn't prevent our economy from sliding into a recession. It's hard to justify a third.

I haven't heard one economists go on record saying they think this is a good idea. Nearly all of them agree that writing Americans a check for $300 won't help the economy in any long-term way. Instead, they advocate that the government should start pumping money into wide-scale infrastructure projects--roads, green energy, government buildings, etc--something that provides a permanent benefit and creates jobs. Americans don't want to hear this, but they haven't been managing their money any better than our government; if you hand Joe the Plumber a check for $300, I guarantee he's going to turn around and blow the whole wad at the nearest Hooters, which may help Joe cop a feel, but doesn't benefit the macro American economy in any significant way.

I do think our friends in Congress need to get their heads examined. The Democrats that are currently building consensus for this stimulus package still support the notion of spending even more money our government doesn't have. I think I heard Democrat Henry Reid quoted as saying that he was prepared to raise taxes to fund a new stimulus package. Um, huh? Give out free money to your citizens, turn around and tax those same citizens, and use that tax revenue to fund the stimulus package. I've got a crazy idea! How about no stimulus package at all? How about Democrats and Republicans sit down and start thinking of ways to SAVE money, not spend it?

A revolutionary idea in American politics, I know.

In many ways, our politicians remind me of the jackasses at AIG who took more than a $100 billion in bailout money from the U.S. Treasury and then spent $500,000 at a spa and another $50,000 at a English resort. Our politicians and corporate officers still don't seem to get it. Our country is $11 trillion in debt, with a more than $500 billion budget deficit. When will it dawn on them that they can't continue spending even more money none of us have? When our debt hits $15 trillion? $20 trillion? I'm thinking if we ever reach that point, the entire world monetary system could collapse. It nearly is right now.

So if you feel inclined, write your Senators and Congressmen. I recommend you tell them to vote "no" if a new stimulus bill hits the floor. Tell them to instead invest any discretionary money they think they might have into something tangible, like a green energy package advocated by Al Gore or that Pickens dude. Tell your politicians that you want to hear them start proposing legislation that is going to address our $11 trillion debt, our unfair trade balance, the issue of world free trade agreements, job creation, job retention, and energy policy. I plan on telling my representatives, Culberson, Cornyn, and Hutchinson, that addressing the national debt should now be their number one priority.

I hope you agree with me and mobilize.

Fareed Zakaria Is Mr. Bright Side

In his Newsweek article entitled, "There is a Silver Lining," Fareed Zakaria describes the good that may come from the banking and mortgage collapse. He writes, "This crisis has—dramatically, vengefully—forced the United States to confront the bad habits it has developed over the past few decades."

A few sentences later, he succinctly summarizes the plight that ails us, writing, "Since the 1980s, Americans have consumed more than they produced—and they have made up the difference by borrowing."

That's the nail on the head right there. Sure, we can blame our politicians for not shutting down the party years ago. But the bottom line is that the American consumer is to blame too. We live a lifestyle on borrowed money--right alongside our state and federal governments. Plenty of Wall Street greed and stupidity played a role. But a critical opportunity will be lost if Americans don't self-reflect and acknowledge how individual citizen spending and borrowing contributed to the current crisis.

So maybe Zakaria is right. Maybe there is a bright side to all this. This bright side comes at a back-breaking cost, but we all just witnessed firsthand what happens to macro economics based on rampant consumerism fueled by indiscriminate lending. It lead us nearly to the brink. Hell, we may have unknowingly tipped over already, hurtling towards a dark abyss. Regardless, we CAN learn from this.

The question is, will we?

The Culberson Writes Back!

I received a letter from Congressman John Culberson today. In response to my electronic message, he mailed me a two page letter explaining why he voted against both bailout bills, his theory as to how the crisis began, and a summary of what he's done to protect the U.S. economy in the years preceding our current crisis.

The letter the Congressman sent me is basically a reworded version of what is currently posted on his website. A few things of note: 1) Congressman Culberson voted against both bailout bills. That's significant because the second version of the bill differed only from the first in that it had heaps of pork and tax cuts and increases in it, to the tune of $150 billion. Congressmen who voted against it the first time, but for it the second only did so out of self-interest; they weren't guided by principal or reason, only by the usual greed we've come to expect out of Washington. Culberson notes that the White House and the Treasury could not guarantee that the bailout would work. As a result, he voted against it the second time around.

2) Culberson writes the following, "The current housing crisis and subsequent credit crunch can be traced to the failed Democrat and Clinton and Bush Administration policies that prioritized low-income homeownership. For years congressional leaders pushed banks to make politically-correct loans to consumers who are incapable of paying their mortgage."

Congressman Culberson isn't the first source I've heard made mention of this. Others have also pointed out that the social engineering of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae initiated the practice of relaxing lending practices to get more people into houses. Relaxed the practices to the point that banks were putting people into homes they had no hope of ever fiscally managing. In the months to come, I think we'll here more about this origin theory of the mortgage crisis, especially as Fannie and Freddie are fully shaken down.

3) Congressman Culberson mentions that the U.S. government is going to generate the $700 billion dollar bailout by selling Treasury bills on the international bond market. Culberson maintains that the bulk of these bills will be bought by the Chinese and by Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds. Culberson thinks, "American taxpayers will borrow billions of dollars from Chinese and Middle Eastern banks to bail out Chinese and Middle Eastern banks." Is this true? I'm not sure, but I'd like to hear what other economists say about it. I've heard precious little detail from what source the U.S. Treasury is getting their $700 billion.

4) Culberson writes, "This law also raised the national debt to $11.3 trillion, doubled the deficit overnight, and saddled our children and grandchildren with at least $1 trillion in new unfunded obligations." Congressman Culberson is the first politician I've read mention our nation's debt figure. I've never heard McCain or Obama talk about our debt, let alone the actual number. For all I know, our presidential candidates may not even know we have a debt, which probably explains why both have outlined lots of new ways to spend more money.

I'm not sure who Culberson is running against this fall, but based on how he voted for the bailout bill, I will likely vote for him this November. I have no idea what his stance is on other issues, especially education or the Iraq war. Most likely, I disagree with him on both. Nevertheless, he seems to advocate the fiscal responsibility our country needs right now. He didn't vote for the second version of the bill when it delivered some juicy pork for Democrats and Republicans alike. That's not just good judgement, it's also the execution of a sound fiscal policy stand. I plan on following Culberson if he's re-elected, tracking his voting record on key economic bills, and letting him know my opinion.

I think if more of us had this kind of involvement in government, we might not be in the mess we are today. I think too many politicians think Americans too self-absorbed to pay attention to the day-to-day operations of the country. And up to three weeks ago, they'd be right. But I sense things have changed now. This economic crash was a wake up call to the nation that no one is at the tiller of our current financial course and unless we wake up, start monitoring the activities of our elected officials, and hold them accountable, we could very well sail right off the edge of the world.

I wonder of Governor Palin thinks the world is flat?

Party of Two, Hold the Platform

My friend the other day asked me if I consider any negative criticisms of Barack Obama. It’s an interesting question, one that reminds me how polarized our politics have become. For many people, voting for one candidate or another means you unquestioningly support everything that candidate does or represents. It means you ignore the humanity of the candidate and pretend they can do no wrong. My in-laws are excellent examples of this, as they still defend Bush to this day. Granted, they’ve mollified their support with statements like, “George Bush sure has had a rough presidency,” as if he didn’t have anything to do with events that went down under his watch. At least they stopped saying things like, “George Bush has done so much good for our country.”

Cue the nausea.

Back to my friend because he poses a worthy question (and one I could deflect right back to him regarding McCain). Do I unanimously support Obama? Not even close. In the midst of the Democratic primary, I thought him among the weakest prospects. I calculated Edwards and Biden better candidates, mostly because of their gift for public speaking and experience. I also liked other Republican candidates better than Romney, Huckabee, or even McCain. My biggest concern with Obama was his lack of experience. Now that he’s the presidential front-runner, that concern remains.

So neither of these current candidates are my first picks. Which brings up the conundrum: if you’re a Republican, do you vote for the Republican candidate no matter what? If you’re a Democratic, is it Obama or nothing? This is basically the question my friend posed to me. My answer is a resounding “no.”

Since 1992, I have ping-ponged between Democratic and Republican candidates. In ’92, I voted for Clinton. In ’96, I voted for Dole. In ‘00, I voted for Bush. In ’04, Kerry. And this year, unless something dramatic occurs between now and Nov. 4th, I’ll vote for Obama.

The bottom line is, I feel no strong party affiliation. I think both parties equally altruistic, equally corrupt, equally partisan. I chuckle to myself when a citizen or a pundit tears into an opposing political party. I’ve grown so immune to their rhetoric, I barely register what they’re saying. If I had my way, I’d disband both parties. I’d make candidates run on their own unique platform, rather than the sludge put forth by both the Democratic and Republican platforms.

Why would I do something so drastic? Because people vote according to these party platforms, but the elected candidates rarely follow them. Republicans are supposed to be, according to their own platform, fiscal conservatives. But these last eight years, Bush and the Republican Congress joined the Democrats in running up a massive tab of pork, programs, and tax cuts. The Republicans helped spend money we don’t have and they did it talking out of their asses, standing up for one thing, but doing the complete opposite. Tens of thousands of Republicans and swing voters elected George Bush in ’00 and ’04 because he said he was going to cut spending and taxes. He only actually did the latter and coupled with the deregulation of the banking industry and the mortgage lending crisis, we find our economy on the brink of complete breakdown.

Because of politicians like George Bush, I don’t really believe anything any of them say. Including Barack Obama. I don’t have any illusions that a President Obama will rush into office and fix everything that is wrong. It troubles me that he’s associated with a documented terrorist. I don’t like that his former pastor is a raving lunatic, spewing hatred of the country he lives in. I don’t like that he hasn’t even served a full term as a U.S. senator yet he’s on the verge of becoming the President of the United States. I find it highly disturbing that Obama’s campaign donates to Acorn, an organization just recently accused of registration and voter fraud.

I have grave reservations about Barack Obama. But I’m voting for him because he says he’ll pull our troops out of Iraq and reposition them where they belong, Afganistan. I’m voting for him because I think he has a better understanding of the economy; he’s certainly handled himself well during this recent crisis, unlike McCain who seemed to run around with his head cut off, scrambling to eek out some political gain. I’m voting for Obama because he’ll likely remove or alter No Child Left Behind, an unfunded educational initiative that is doing more harm than good to our nation’s schools.

Will Obama do everything he says in this campaign? No, he won’t. But none of them do. If I thought for a second that McCain would actually make some hard choices, balance our country’s balance and trade deficit and start paying off the $10 trillion we have in debt, I’d vote for him. But all I hear McCain say is “tax cuts.” As if that’s supposed to make me my froth at the mouth, lope up to him with my tongue hanging out, and pant. To me, tax cuts equate to “Here’s some money we don’t really have. Go ahead! Spend it! Tomorrow is another day.” I can’t believe any candidate would dare sell tax cuts during an election season where the National Debt Clock has to be re-fabricated to account for a tens digit in the trillions.

So yes, I’m aware of Obama’s faults. When I vote for him in November, I’ll be doing so with reservations. Even if he wins and takes office, I’m not holding my breath for him to even fulfill half of what he promised on the campaign trail. That won’t stop me from being the winning candidate's most vocal critic. Because I’m not voting for a political party or a platform or an ideology, I’m voting for a man who can get the United States back on track.

These days, I don’t have much faith that such a man exists.

You Can't See the Fire or Smell the Smoke . . . Yet

File this under: I couldn’t make this up if I tried.

Just weeks ago, the federal treasury gave AIG, the insurance conglomerate, some $85 billion to help shore up the tidal wave of security claims the company found itself obligated pay. People wanted their money, AIG didn’t have the assets on hand, so the government stepped in to shore them up. What did AIG do with that $85 billion they were given on behalf of the American taxpayer? They turned around and threw a We-screwed-over-the-government-and-taxpayers party! AIG executives took some of their highest performing insurance agents to a weekend spa where the company spent $500,000 on hotel rooms, booze, massages, and manicures.

I. Shit. You. Not.

Yes, after running their company into the ground from their own greed and stupidity, AIG turned around, took $85 billion of taxpayer money from the U.S. treasury, and spent a half million dollars of it to live it up at a high-priced resort.

It gets better though! Just yesterday, the treasury just gave AIG another $35 billion. Yup, that’s right. Even though a congressional hearing just got done grilling a pair of AIG executives about their high class retreat, the same government turned around and gave them even more money.

I just don’t know what to write here. I am at an utter loss in the face of AIG’s unmitigated gall, bald-faced nerve, metal-solid balls of steel. But I’m equally amazed by the blinding stupidity of our very own government. This isn’t rocket science! These people are ripping us off! Why is Henry Paulsen giving a corrupt company MORE goddamn money on the heels of such blatant disregard for their own financial plight? We shouldn’t be giving them more money! We should be taking away the $85 billion we gave them in the first place. They obviously learned nothing from their collapse, as evidenced by the party they threw themselves celebrating the congressional sellout. Throwing a half million dollar party? For failing? Really?

Right now, I think I’m content with seeing AIG crash and burn into insolvency. Even if it pulls the American economy down with it. I think that’s the only way anyone will learn. When a company uses bailout money to fund more of its previous lifestyle and our government continues to give them more money upon disclosure, it seems only a total economic meltdown will get any of their attention. America is led by men concerned only with getting themselves reelected and lining their pockets. Our companies are led by men content to see their country destroyed if that’s what it takes to make them rich.

I despair the United States is bankrupt of genuine leadership. We all have grown fat and complacent and bored with our democracy and our power and our wealth. Our lethargy is reflected in the people we send to Washington to represent us and run things. We’re an ailing empire. A declining power.

Rome is burning.

"That One" Right about Iraq

I watched the debate last night. Except for the time that McCain referred to Obama as “that one,” there wasn’t any really memorable event of the night.

Except when McCain said Obama “didn’t understand the Iraq war.”

Apparently, McCain used the same phrase in the last debate, except this time Obama was poised to pounce. On his turn to respond, Obama said something to the effect, “McCain is right, I don’t understand why we invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and didn’t have WMD.”

Zing.

Even before our economy tanked, I had decided to vote for Obama, mostly because of Iraq. It pisses me off that we invaded after being told Hussein helped the 9/11 terrorists, possessed WMD, and was imminently ready to strike the United States again. None of that was true. In fact, it wasn’t even close. Hussein had in fact shut down his WMD program years earlier. And it was later proved that Hussein’s association with Al Qaeda was tenuous at best and that he played no role in the 9/11 attack. How could our government not know these things? If they did know, they either didn’t tell Bush or they did tell the president and he ignored them. Or they just plain didn’t know which means my seven year old daughter is as good at intelligence gathering as they are.

Either scenario makes our government look like a bunch of amateur clowns.

So I decided long ago, even before the Democratic and Republican primaries, I want our country out of Iraq. We never should have invaded, we shouldn’t be there now. I want our army out. Now. Obama vows to do that, McCain promises to keep the troops there indefinitely. McCain, Bush, Cheney, they all promised that not only would the United States Army be greeted as liberators, Iraq’s oil revenues would fund the war effort. Iraq currently holds a $50 billion surplus in its banks, while the American taxpayer is paying a $10 billion monthly bill to keep troops in Iraq. Nothing they said about Iraq was true.

Let’s not forget that unlike Iraq, we’ve got a $10 trillion national debt, a $1 trillion deficit. We can’t afford to wage this war. We can’t continue funding a war rooted in false testimony, phony intel, and creative political maneuvering.

So “that one” has it right: pull out of Iraq, shift some troops back to Afganistan, hunt down (again) the Taliban and Bin Laden, and reconsolidate our military so that we can prepare for the next international challenge. And deploy our army when it really matters and based on solid information. If we invade one more country on false pretense, we deserve to be invaded ourselves.

You hear that Canada and Mexico? Swarm your armies to the borders, you’re going in!

Oink, Oink, Oink

Remember when the Music Industry was zealously going about the business of suing individuals for the online sharing of ripped CD tracks? That feels like a long time ago, but it wasn’t. I guess it feels like a long time to me because technology has so drastically changed how consumers get their music. Itunes sells millions of tracks a year. At a $1 a pop, their profits must linger not far behind. Rock Band and Guitar Hero have also dramatically changed the landscape. I don’t know what their sales figures are, but they must be strong.

I find all the recent innovations not just interesting, but downright hilarious because the Music Industry, just a few short years ago, wailed so earnestly that consumers should be forced to buy entire CDs. Sales of singles, especially online, would minimize their current business model and likely cripple their sales they cried to anyone who would listen.

Which it did. Of CD sales.

Online sales, of course, took off spectacularly. As more and more Americans bought Ipods, more and more of them wanted their songs delivered straight to that device, in digital form. That bode ill for the Music Industry. They had long fought such a format, to the point of suing their very own customers. If they wielded the same kind of power as the American oil companies, I’m sure they would have done all they could to sabotage the technical development of Ipod devices and the online services that streamed to them.

Which brings me to the free market and the force it can exert on both business and consumers. In the case of online music, both business and consumers won. A business created a device that masses of people love, a market developed to serve that device, and a facet of the larger model was rendered obsolete. In Jurassic Park, Jeff Goldblum’s chaos-theorist says, “Life always finds a way.” So does innovation.

The Music Industry didn’t anticipate the Ipod and online sales of music. Neither could they predict Guitar Hero and Rock Band. In the midst of their whining and complaining, they were so consumed with holding on to CD sales, they never pursued the future of music sales. In other words, they were lazy. Like piglets at the teats, they didn’t want to move themselves past the sure and easy sales of CDs. It was much easier to immobilize the teats, get them to stay put, so the suckling could continue indefinitely.

Which would have been a great plan except Mama Pig decided to get up and wander away.

Games like Rock Band prove that innovation can create an entirely new revenue source for music sales. And I’m not just talking about the initial sale of the game. Rock Band offers weekly downloads of new music. The sweetest part of the deal for the Music Industry and the artists? A consumer can only play a song if they pay for the song. Piracy almost completely disappears as thousands of fans buy those tracks they most want to play in the Rock Band store. Once upon a time the Music Industry quivered and wet itself before the might of technological innovation, gnashing their teeth and pulling their hair out when CD tracks morphed into MP3 files and then traveled seamlessly via all kinds of gadgets. Now, however, the Music Industry rejoices and celebrates that same technology.

It’s amazing what can happen when you don’t cram a failed business model down the throats of consumers who have already moved on.

Would You Do It for a Cookie? Huh? Would You Sweet Pea?

The House passed the bailout bill (now dubbed “rescue bill.”) The bill started in the Senate this time and is admittedly the same exact bill as Monday’s, except now it’s riddled with pork and tax cuts to lure all those reluctant politicians that voted against it the first time.

How are these people any different than little kids? You tell them to clean their room. They refuse. You slip them a piece of candy and they reluctantly begin picking their streak-marked underwear off the floor.

Monarchy anyone?

Hockey Mom Representation

I didn’t watch the first half of the vice-presidential debate last night. I couldn’t bring myself to watch Sarah Palin torture and contort perfectly good sentences and thoughts. I instead resolved to watch immediately after the debate a summarization of the train wreck.

My resolve broke and I tuned in with a half hour left. Of that half hour, I witnessed no gaffes from either candidate. In fact, Palin seemed to be assembling cogent sentences into recognizable responses to specific questions. Republicans must have swooned over and over again as Palin repeatedly mentioned “tax cuts” and “Ronald Reagan;” at least she wasn’t babbling like she was in those Curic interviews.

Which leads me to believe that McCain has badly handled Palin. After she gave that first speech announcing her candidacy, they not only squirreled her away out of sight, I believe they also attempted to “train” her in how to respond to vice-presidential questions. The result: a candidate no longer confident in herself enough to intelligently answer questions related to the job she’s running for.

Biden is the polar opposite. He’s been shooting his mouth off his entire career. The guy oozes confidence, which most people will say leads him into an entirely different realm of trouble, loquaciousness and foot-in-mouth disease. I suppose Obama could try and handle his running mate, but I doubt he’d get far. Biden has almost as much political experience as Obama has years of life. Obama knows that, which is probably one of many reasons he picked Biden in the first place.

I know why McCain picked Palin: she’s a woman and she’s ultra-conservative. A good chunk of the Republican Party doesn’t particularly care for McCain. Palin was calculated to appeal to them. And appeal to Hilary Clinton voters still angered that Obama won the Democratic primary.

So McCain picked a good candidate to help him get elected, but he didn’t necessarily pick a good candidate to help lead the country through the mind-bottling problems that face us. We don’t need another Joe Six Pack. We don’t need folksy, down-home, country bumpkin goodness. We don’t need Hockey Moms adequately represented in the White House. What we do need are smart, smart people. I’m not saying Palin isn’t smart because I think she is. She rose to governor of a U.S. state and that’s nothing to sneeze at. I just don’t think her particular skills and presentation fit with what our country needs right now.

In the end though, all the Veep attention is much ado about nothing. Hardly anyone votes by VP (except me on the religion thing). Palin has garnered inordinate attention for all the obvious reasons. But this ultimately will come down to McCain and Obama.

A Call to Arms

My fellow countrymen, please visit this website: http://www.house.gov/Welcome.shtml. Here, you can look up your U.S. Congressman or Congresswoman, if you don't already know who they are.

Next, visit your Congressman's website. It turns out mine is John Culberson (R).

Who knew?

Here's his website, including his summary of why he voted against today's bailout bill. In his summary, he said he couldn't vote for a bill that put so much taxpayer money on the line. He counterproposed the following:

"The best solution to this crisis is to suspend mark-to-market accounting rules, establish a mandatory insurance/guarantee program to cover the banks’ losses at no expense to taxpayers, cut the capital gains rate to zero, cut taxes for offshore dollars repatriated back into the U.S., and slash corporate tax rates to encourage investment and lending. Changing the mark to market accounting rule alone will solve a huge part of the problem by allowing banks to keep non-performing assets on their books until they recover their value."

I've said many times that I am not an economist, so I fully admit that much of the nuance of his solution goes right over my head. That being said, I wrote Congressman Culberson the following email message which I just got done sending:

Congressman Culberson,

I read your website summarizing why you voted against the September 28th, 2008 bailout bill. I don't, however, understand how your counterproposal would help alleviate the credit crunch. I see a lot of tax cut proposals, but those strike me as benefiting only the wealthy. I see an insurance program paid for by the banks, but how does that alleviate the immediate crisis? Please explain how your proposals will loosen the credit crunch and free up banks to begin lending money again. And explain how your plan benefits the majority of Americans and not just a wealthy few.

Congressman, let me be clear. I want this situation resolved. I want you to work closely with your peer Democrats. I could care less about Democratic or Republican partisan politics and their ever shifting platforms. The parties can burn for all I care. But my country cannot.

Get the job done. Protect average Americans. Punish CEO and executives that allowed this to happen. Legislate oversight and regulation that will prevent this in the future. Nothing, I mean, nothing is more important than a strong American economy. The future of all other issues rests firmly upon it.

Get the job done.

Your citizen,


James Thomson
http://furiouscognition.blogspot.com/

Friends, I urgently encourage you all to find out how your Congressman voted the bailout bill, read their position, and then question them. I don't care if they voted for it or against it. Send them a letter, tell them what YOU think. The truth of the matter is that our politicians are likely operating on less background and information than we are. Additionally, we need to make our representatives defend their positions. It's not enough that Culberson wants to cut capital gains taxes. He must explain to me, to us, how that's going to HELP the situation and not just enrich some of his most important donors.

This bailout bill may not be the solution to our current economic crisis. We consulted too few true experts on the matter. There are economists out there that disagree with Paulsen and think we ought not give the money to Wall Street, but that instead we should be lending it to them. So who's right?

Who the hell knows?

That's why we need dialogue. We needs information. We need explanations. We need guidance. A good first step is to find out who your U.S. Rep is, find out out how and why they voted the way they did, and then get some answers from THEM. In the process of them telling us the whys and the hows, they might just start begin listening to us.

If that's not democray, I don't know what is.

To Hell with All of Them

The bill failed in the House 228 to 205. CNN estimates around 60% of Democrats voted for the bill, only 30% of Republicans. It's interesting that more Democrats are supporting a bill put forth by the President than the Republicans.

Republicans blame Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi for giving a "partisan" speech condemning Bush and his "failed economic policies" that they claim drove away some conservatives who would have otherwise voted in favor of the bill.

Meanwhile, the Dow plunged more than 700 points at the time I am writing this. There is talk of reintroducing the bill, but no earlier than Wednesday.

I am so sick of these people, these "representatives" and the partisan war they so relish waging. If they exerted half the effort they do in tearing each other apart into protecting our country, we'd likely not be in the mess we are today.

To hell with all of them.