Whose Land Did You Say It Was?

Yesterday's Open Letter to Congress certainly got a lot of attention ... from you, Dear Readers, not from Congress. Raquel linked to it from her own blog, I got lots of comments from Real People, and so far I have received one reply from an actual Member of Congress ... sort of. I received an automated reply from the office of Senator Jim Webb, the meat of which was this:

"Thank you for your recent electronic mail message to my office in Washington. I am pleased that because of the Internet, more than 100,000 Virginians will send their ideas directly to me this year. Please be assured that your views are very helpful to me and my staff. As the Senate addresses crucial economic, domestic and foreign policy issues facing our nation, we will be sure to keep your comments and ideas in mind."

Well, I certainly feel confident that my opinion is being heard. If I were rich and well-connected, I might have received a reply that indicated that a human being had actually read my e-mail, but I guess I'll take what I can get.

But enough of all that. Nobody in Congress is going to listen to you or I at this point, anyhow - they're all interested only in counting political coups over your bankrupt body while the well-connected and protected bank puts up the foreclosure sign in your yard.

"So be it," right, Mr Boehner?

I think it's interesting that today is the anniversary of the day in 1940 that Woody Guthrie wrote one of America's most famous and beloved folk songs, "This Land is Your Land..."

The song contains the recurring lyric, "This land was made for you and me." As long as the bank lets you stay there, of course. Oh, and the Supreme Court says your land can be seized for commercial development, so it actually isn't really yours if a developer needs it more than you do.

Sorry about that. I guess this land really isn't your land.

Think about that while the Republicans go about gutting your government of the protections you now enjoy. You didn't need clean air and water, or any of those pesky consumer protections, anyhow.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

This Book Is Worse Than That Book

Yesterday I talked about religious texts and how they contribute to our lack of respect and tolerance for one another. Today, let's talk about a related topic: banned books.

My latest copy of the AARP magazine (that's American Association of Retired Persons, for those of you too young not to worry about such things) has an interesting inside-the-back-cover article titled "Banned!", which lists 50 books that have been banned (or, at least, very strongly objected to) by authorities in various places. It's a timely article, as the annual Banned Books Week sponsored by the American Library Association is coming up later this month (September 25th to October 2nd) ... you can read the ALA's list of classic books frequently banned or challenged, and the reasons for the objection, here.

The AARP list divides 50 frequently-banned books into four groups, according to the general reason people object to them:

Too Political - Includes one of the greatest anti-war novels of all time, All Quiet on the Western Front, by Erich Maria Remarque, along with George Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984, and Boris Pasternak's Doctor Zhivago.

Too Much Sex - funny thing, I haven't read most of the books in this category. One that I have is Jaws, by Peter Benchley...which I don't remember as much for "too much sex" as for the endless description of a lady getting herself ready for the possibility of having sex ... all of which had absolutely nothing to do with giant sharks.

Irreligious - Includes Darwin's On the Origin of Species (of course) and, incredibly, J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings and J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series ... both on my personal list of all-time favorite books. Personally, I'd take the company of Gandalf the Grey and Albus Dumbledore to the company of most clerics any day.

And the largest category, Socially Offensive - which contains American classic The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne, along with Margaret Mitchell's Gone with the Wind, Anne Frank's Diary of a Young Girl, Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, Joseph Heller's Catch-22, and Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

You have to wonder what people are thinking when they object to some of these books. When I think of something that's irreligious, the death sentence imposed on Salman Rushdie by Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran over Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses comes to mind before Harry Potter. Socially offensive? Try violent and misogynistic rap music. Too much sex? I should have this problem. Too political? How long will it take for someone to object to my blog ... or yours?

Bilbo's First Law says Don't let anyone do your thinking for you. If you pay attention to things like banned book lists, you are delegating your right and responsibility to think to people who stopped thinking long ago.

Read something that's been banned. Even better, write something that makes people think enough that some would want to ban it. You'll have accomplished something.

Have a good day. Tomorrow is Cartoon Saturday - we all need it. More thoughts then.

Bilbo

Attorney Season

Driven to distraction by perversions of the legal system? Astounded by how fast the lawsuits proliferate in the wake of any accident or terrorist attack? Amazed that lawyers would be willing to touch evil terrorists with a ten-foot pole, much less defend them? Wish you could do something about it?

Write to your local delegate to support the proposed new law governing the hunting of lawyers in Virginia (where there are more lawyers than deer, and that's saying a lot). Here, as a public service, is the text of the proposed legislation:

Proposed Virginia 2010 Attorney Season Regulations

Section 1300.01 - General

1. Any person with a valid Virginia hunting license may harvest attorneys.

2. Taking of attorneys with traps or deadfalls is permitted. The use of currency as bait is prohibited.

3. Killing of attorneys with a vehicle is prohibited. If accidentally struck, remove dead attorney to roadside and proceed to nearest car wash.

4. It is unlawful to chase, herd, or harvest attorneys from a snow machine, helicopter, or aircraft.

5. It shall be unlawful to shout "whiplash," "ambulance," or "free Perrier" for the purpose of trapping attorneys.

6. It shall be unlawful to hunt attorneys within 100 yards of BMW dealerships.

7. It shall be unlawful to use cocaine, young boys, $100 bills, prostitutes, or vehicle accidents to attract attorneys.

8. It shall be unlawful to hunt attorneys within 200 yards of courtrooms, law libraries, whorehouses, health spas, ambulances, or hospitals.

9. If an attorney is elected to government office, it shall be a felony to hunt, trap, or possess it.

10. Stuffed or mounted attorneys must have a state health department inspection for rabies and vermin.

11. It shall be illegal for a hunter to disguise himself as a reporter, drug dealer, pimp, female legal clerk, sheep, accident victim, bookie, or tax accountant for the purpose of hunting attorneys.

Don't forget - let your elected reprehensives know what you think!

No, wait! They're all lawyers, anyhow.

Never mind.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Hidden Costs

We're all angry about the government bailout of the financial industry. Well, all of us except the banks, of course. Your savings may be in the toilet, but you can take heart that there's still plenty of money out there to pay huge bonuses to the folks who engineered the collapse of the economy in the first place. Yes, I know we're all responsible in part, but it's nice to have a scapegoat, isn't it?

Now I've lost my train of thought...where was I going with this rant?

Oh, yes - I remember now.

Nobody quite knows how much the bailouts of the economy will cost in the end. The only thing I know for sure is that my grandchildren - and yours - will still be paying for it. But beyond the fiscal cost of making sure that financial managers will continue to enjoy bonuses and corner offices, there's a larger cost that hasn't really been addressed up to now. I saw the first mention of it in this article yesterday on CNNMoney: Bailout's Hidden Costs, by David Goldman.

That larger cost is trust.

Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for Treasury's financial sector rescue, has reported that the bailout has several hidden costs. He points out that the government's lack of transparency about the bailout could result in "a growing distrust of the government (that) could impede its ability to enact important legislation." Mr Barofsky went on to tell CNNMoney that, "I think we are already seeing the political costs of people losing trust and faith in their government, such as the palpable anger this summer in response to health care ... It requires a certain amount of good will to support extremely important and expensive programs like bailouts."

That loss of trust and good will is the true cost of the bailouts. Americans have always had a healthy skepticism about their government, a skepticism that goes all the way back to Colonial Americans' anger at the tax policies of King George III. But that skepticism has given way to a level of anger, cynicism, and a deep mistrust of government at every level, attitudes that can paralyze the ability of our leaders to do anything ... even conduct the routine business of government, much less tackle the truly difficult problems like health care reform, tax policy, and our defense against terrorism.

My grandchildren - Marcy, Joe, Noah, and Leya - will probably still be paying taxes to pay off the bailouts of 2009 when they are my age. I can only hope that they will be able to have the level of faith and trust in their leaders that I have long lost.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Doing Things for the Right Reasons

Our local Metro transit system has taken its lumps this year, with several serious accidents (including the terrible train crash earlier this summer in which nine people were killed), pedestrians being run over by buses, a bus operator fired for kidnapping a passenger, suicides who jumped in front of oncoming trains, and the generally spotty service to which we've all become accustomed.

According to this article in yesterday's Washington Post, Metrobus drivers are taking action to improve safety: they are going to operate strictly "by the book," following every safety regulation to a tee. The article quotes a letter written by the head of the local transit workers union to union members in which she says, "Now is the time for us to protect ourselves and our jobs. . . . Don't give Metro any reason to write us up, suspend us, or fire us anymore!!!!"

I'm puzzled by this. Does it mean that adhering to proper procedures to protect bus drivers' jobs is more important than adhering to proper procedures because it keeps everyone safe?

The article goes on to state that, "Operators said they plan to observe posted speed limits" and that "Operators will be following posted speed limits in all jurisdictions."

Again, I find myself puzzled. I could have sworn that speed limits were ... well ... intended to limit speeds to safe levels on streets. Does this mean that bus operators have been encouraged to drive at unsafe speeds? Might this possibly have something to do with this year's dismal safety record?

It gets worse. Reading on in the article, we find that strict adherence to rules means that "...buses won't leave garages if there are safety-related defects, such as horns, turn signals or windshield wipers that don't work;" and that, "In anticipation of the union campaign, mechanics were working overtime early Tuesday to fix broken horns on buses at the Northern garage..."

So, is this what it takes to get Metro and the transit workers' union to take safety seriously? Mechanics are working overtime (at overtime pay rates, no doubt) to fix safety problems because the union has decided to work to the rules? Would we still be riding unsafe buses if the union hadn't been concerned about "giv(ing) Metro any reason to write us up, suspend us, or fire us anymore"? When would these safety problems have been repaired during normal work hours?

In fairness to Metro, I realize that the terrible traffic conditions in this area make it difficult to adhere to published schedules, and I'm sure that the temptation to drive too fast in order to make up schedule timing is always there. But is driving at unsafe speeds a standard policy that is only now being reconsidered?

I'm glad Metro is doing something to improve its safety record. But I'm greatly offended by the apparent cause of the union's sudden focus on safety - protection of jobs - as reflected in its letter to its members. Yes, it's tough to lose ones job, particularly in this economy. But if you're losing your job because you drive unsafely, I have no sympathy. And if you are a Metro system manager who is directing drivers and train operators to operate unsafe vehicles in an unsafe manner, perhaps you need to lose your job, too.

Prices go up, service goes down, and the people dealing with the riding public don't seem to give a rat's rear end about customer service. It would be nice if there were a safe and reliable alternative to Metro, but the only alternatives for many of us are:

1. Drive yourself to work every day, contributing to the traffic gridlock; or,

2. Move to a new residence across the street from where you work.

Neither of which is practical for most of us.

So, Metro bus and train operators: I expect you to operate safe vehicles in a safe manner. Metro system managers: I expect you to place the safety of your operators and riders first.

Is this too much to ask?

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Password Fandango

There are so many serious things I need to write about that I sometimes just have to step back and reset my internal system with something off-the-wall. Today, that would be passwords.

At work, I use five different networks, each with its own login and password. At home I have my Mac, which has a system password, and about 700 websites I visit regularly, 2/3 of which require a login and a password. Agnes's computer has its own login and password that I need to know on the rare occasions I need to use her machine.

I'm up to my pasty white backside in passwords.

The ones at work are the worst, because each network has its own standards for login (firstname dot lastname, lastname plus first and middle initial, lastname plus first intial dot six hundred random characters, lastname plus California's current budget deficit estimate, etc, etc, etc). But the passwords are worse. Each network wants its own password that can't duplicate the password used on any other network ... and then there are the other rules ... this is my latest attempt to summarize the Arcane and Mystical Rules of Password Generation:

* Each password-protected network will begin prompting you to change your password three days after you change it, and will warn you that it will soon expire ("Your password will expire in XX days. Do you want to change it now? Well? Do ya, punk? Yeah, I'm talkin' to you!").

* Each password-protected network will allow its passwords to remain valid for a different length of time - one week, 30 days, two sidereal months, etc. The validity period will change randomly each time you reset the password.

* Each password must be at least 72 characters long, at least 17% of which must be upper case, 19% lower case, 22% numeric, and the remainder “special characters.” A given number of each character type must appear in specific locations, and the required number and specific locations will randomly change each time you have to change the password.

* Your password must not duplicate any of the last 475 passwords you used.

* Your password must not include any words contained in any unabridged English, Spanish, French, German, Russian, Chinese, Urdu, Hindi, Swahili, or Xhosa dictionary.

* It must not offend anyone for any reason.

* It must be complex enough that you will lock yourself out of your account at least twice per week.

* All of your passwords will change at irregular intervals which are not synchronized with any other networks, so that at least once a week you need to remember a new password for one of the networks...and you can never remember which one.

I'm not the only one who finds the Password Fandango maddening. Yesterday in the Washington Post, John Kelly wrote this wonderful little article - "So Many Passwords, So Little Time," which pretty much summarizes my password fatigue. Check it out. Oh ... I forgot ... you may need a login and password for washingtonpost.com. Sorry about that.

Aren't you glad you don't need a password to read my ramblings every day?

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

The Metro Bill Comes Due

This past Monday evening our local Metro rail system suffered the worst crash in its history when a train running on the Red Line north of town slammed at full speed into the back of another train that was stopped and waiting for a third train to clear the track ahead. Nine people were killed and at least 70 injured in the horrific accident, which was bad enough to make the international news - my in-laws called from Germany to make sure I was all right.

Any such accident is a terrible tragedy, but this one is worse because it was preventable. The train which failed to stop was made up of "Series 1000" cars, put into service between 1974 and 1978. The National Transportation Safety Board had recommended in 2006 (after a previous accident) that those cars be replaced. They weren't. The problem, of course, is money - almost a quarter of all Metro cars are Series 1000, and the cost of replacing them could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, which Metro doesn't have.

But from the Department of Shutting the Barn Door After the Horse Runs Off comes Maryland representative Stenny Hoyer, who plans to ask Congress for $3 billion to buy new cars and fund essential repairs and maintenance.

Why does it take a tragedy like this to get the powers that be to wake up and do the right thing?

In fairness to our elected reprehensives, it's not completely their fault. Everybody wants to have a world-class transit system, but nobody wants to have to pay for it. Passenger fares make up only a small part of the cost of running any transit system, but - unlike every other transit system in the country - our Metro system has no guaranteed source of funding. There are no commuter taxes, no budget lines for Metro support in the DC, Virginia, or Maryland budgets, and no routine appropriations from Congress. If you live here, you see the result all the time: station elevators and escalators that don't work, tiles on station floors that are slippery as ice when wet, and cars that are in service long past their safe service dates (how many of you are driving cars built between 1974 and 1978?).

I don't want to have to pay more than I have to for transportation any more than anyone else does. But I don't want to become a statistic, either. If it meant a safer, more reliable system, I'd be glad to pay more, either in fares or as a commuter tax. Unfortunately, irresponsible political rhetoric has driven home the message that all taxes are bad and must be opposed at all costs. Government should provide all the services we desire, but without asking us to help pay the bill.

The result is what you see.

I ride the Metro rail system every day. So far, I've been lucky.

I hope it lasts. And I hope this awful tragedy will finally serve as the wake-up call to the Federal government, our local governments, and our local citizens to do the right thing and pony up the money to fix the problem.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Flying the Unfriendly Skies - the Adventure Revisited

Most of you are well aware of my feelings about air travel. For those of you who aren't, here's a quick summary:

1. Customer service is a thing of the past;

2. The word "schedule" has a special, flexible meaning in airline language (similar to its meaning for the Fairfax Connector buses here in Northern Virginia);

3. Seats are comfortable only if you are built like Olive Oyl;

4. I can't see paying $4.00 (exact change always appreciated) for a "gourmet sandwich" consisting of a dried-out miniature roll, a single slice of mystery meat, a limp leaf of black-edged lettuce, and a sad slab of half-dry tomato; and,

5. To many travelers, "one carry-on bag and one personal item" means an upright piano and a steamer trunk, both of which they insist on putting into the overhead bin.

Just when I thought air travel couldn't get any worse, I found this article on CNN: Airport Security Bares All, Or Does It?.

Yes, my friends, according to this article, the latest thing to improve your air travel experience is the new security technology of "whole-body imaging," which is said to "perform a virtual strip search" and produce "naked" pictures of passengers. The machine is supposed to scan for objects and liquids on passengers, which is a perhaps laudable aim ... unfortunately, according to privacy rights advocates, it actually produces a relatively sharp image of whatever's under your clothes. Check the second of the sample images in the CNN article for an idea of what's visible. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

You may have seen the utterly hilarious 1980 film Airplane! (one of my all-time favorites), which took off on air disaster movies. One scene showed a line of people going through an airport security x-ray machine: attractive women showed up naked on the screen, heavily-armed people breezed through without incident...and every alarm in the place went off when a little old lady walked through (she was beaten up and hauled away by a crowd of police).

I think TSA must have found that machine in storage and decided to add it to their arsenal in the never-ending fight against terrorists, comfort, and convenience.

Now, don't get me wrong...I'm in favor of just about anything that protects me from morons who want to spread their religious beliefs by hijacking my airplane and killing me. But sadly, I'm no longer the buff stud I was a few years ago. I look a lot better with clothes on. I'd rather not have a bunch of security folks giggling at my jiggling as I wheeze my way through the security maze.

I'm just not ready to wear lead underwear to protect my dignity.

So, TSA, thanks for what you do ... but please re-think this one. Go to Netflix, check out Airplane!, and try to see things as we traveling lemmings do.

Yeah, right.

Have a good day. Travel safely. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Navy 4, Pirates 0

Before I start on this morning's post, I should note that the counter on my Blogspot home page tells me that yesterday was my 974th post. That would make this my 975th post. And that means, of course, that - barring unforeseen circumstances - sometime in the next month I should hit my one thousandth post.

Hmmm...

I didn't realize even I could pontificate that much.

Any suggestions for a topic for the approaching 1,000th post? Suitable for a PG-rated blog, of course (yes, Mike and Fiona, I'm talking to you!).

Anyhow...

Yesterday, after a four-day standoff, Navy SEALs on board a warship reduced the pirate population of the waters off Somalia by four, shooting three, capturing one, and rescuing unharmed the American ship's captain the pirates had held hostage. Navy 4, pirates 0.

Unless, of course, you count all the other ships pirates have seized and hostages they still hold.

I have mixed feelings about the whole piracy thing. On the one hand, I think I can understand the poverty and desperation that supposedly drives people of that region to commit acts of piracy. On the other hand, it doesn't appear that the many millions of dollars of ransoms paid by shipping lines and their insurance companies have turned into food for starving Somalis, housing to replace their shantytowns, medical care for their children, and so on. Instead, the money is creating an economic boom in coastal pirate havens as pirate leaders build huge mansions for themselves and stock up on guns and other supplies to seize more ships and extort still more money. In the Somali heartland, away from the pirate dens, life expectancy continues to be 46 years, a quarter of all children die before age 5, and radical Islamists enforce their paradise on earth with lashings and stonings for accused criminals (i.e., women, men without beards, etc).

The heroic pirates the coastal Somalis love, and whom women flock from the impoverished interior to marry, are conniving opportunists who traffic in violence and theft. They aren't Robin Hoods, they're just hoods. And the problem won't go away until two things happen:

1. Companies stop paying ransoms; and,

2. The various navies stop cruising majestically around the waters off Somalia turning fuel into wakes, and start actually sinking a few pirate ships instead of just watching and chasing them.

This is a very hard problem. The area to be policed is enormous, the pirates are hard to catch in the act, and most Western nations tend to think in the legalistic terms of arresting and prosecuting pirates, rather than just turning them into chum for the nourishment of the local shark population, and their ships into small, smoldering chunks.

The pirates are now claiming they'll "retaliate" for the deaths of the scumbags that the Navy killed yesterday. No doubt they'll try, and no doubt they'll succeed, at least in part. But if we don't start letting them know that there are consequences ... that we're not going to just roll over and pay them to keep doing what they want ... innocent mariners, and not worthless pirates, will continue to suffer.

Here's what President Bilbo would do:

1. Sail a few warships into the coastal towns that harbor pirates and hail them as heroes. Shell every new mansion built by a pirate, destroy the harbor facilities, and sink every local ship.

2. Offer to stop when they do.

3. Repeat step 1 until the pirates realize we can and will remorselessly hurt them where they live, instead of just writing checks.

Good thing I'm not the President. But that's my advice.

At one time, captured pirates were hung, and their bodies were dipped in tar and hung at the entrances to harbors as a warning to others. Sometimes, heads were displayed on pikes at strategic locations.

Those were the good old days.

It's time to stop thinking of pirates as colorful characters with tricorn hats, earrings, peg legs, and squawking parrots on their shoulders as they shout "AARRGG, matey!" It's time to start treating them like the greedy, vicious criminals they are.

That's a pretty expensive Navy we're paying for, after all. And they need target practice to stay sharp.

Have a good day. More thoughts later.

Bilbo

P.S. - later this morning I'll be flying out on a business trip for the next few days. I won't have access to the Internet, so my next post won't be until Wednesday evening or Thursday morning. Don't give up - I'll be back.

B.

Cartoons, Conversations, and Common Sense

Most of my readers look forward to Cartoon Saturday for a bit of a lift from the relentless bad news of the rest of the week, and that's why I've come to do it as a regular feature of this blog. Well, that, plus it gives me a day on which I don't have to do a great deal of thinking about deeper topics.

But cartoons can have the opposite effect, too.

Look at how many people died in the explosion of "Muslim rage" over the cartoons of Mohammed published in a Danish newspaper a few years ago. And look at the outburst of self-righteous anger over the now-infamous Dead Chimp cartoon published in the New York Post this past Wednesday.

For those of you who live overseas and haven't heard about this row, and for those of you who may just be returning from vacations in the Oort Cloud, here's the Reader's Digest version of the story: a NYP cartoonist combined two stories - the difficulty in crafting an economic stimulus package, and the police shooting of a homicidal pet chimpanzee - to create a cartoon showing two police officers viewing a bullet-riddled chimp and remarking, "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."

For the record, I thought the cartoon was dumb, but I understood the point: that the stimulus bill was such a mess that it could have been put together by a bunch of chimps. Many, though, including shameless opportunists like Al Sharpton, immediately thundered that the cartoon was racist because it likened President Obama to a chimp. The NAACP has demanded that the cartoonist be fired, and CNN's commentator Roland Martin has claimed the cartoon is an insult to black persons in general.

Now, step back a moment and think about the speech delivered by Attorney General Eric Holder earlier this week in which he called the United States "a nation of cowards" because "we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race."

This is true.

To the extent that we "talk with each other" about race, the conversation generally tends to be one-sided, with each side trying to outshout and outlecture the other, and any attempt to hold to equal standards of thought and behavior immediately criticized as "racist." It's hard to hold a conversation when everyone's shouting and noone's listening.

Those who thought that former DC mayor Marion Barry ought to go to jail for tax evasion have been called racists by some, as if race trumps respect for the law, the performance of civil obligations, and setting a good example.

Sensitivity to the feelings of others is an important lesson we're all supposed to learn as we grow up. But so is moderation. As long as we are spring-loaded to perceive insult where none exists, and to react with anger to things that are patently silly, we're never going to have Mr Holder's conversation. Julian Bond, the chairman of the NAACP, said that the offending cartoon "... was an invitation to assassination of the president of the United States and anyone who was not offended by it doesn't have any sensibilities."

Well, I wasn't offended by it, and I like to think of myself as a reasonably sensitive person. I thought it was silly, but I think it's a real stretch to view it as "an invitation to assassination of the president." President Obama didn't write the stimulus bill, Congress did...although it's much easier to focus attention on one president than on 535 members of Congress riven by political differences and lacking in ability to discuss and compromise.

Are you offended by this...?

Was your first thought that it implied that all bloggers are of one race, or was it that there are a lot of dumb bloggers out there? When you hear the old saying that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually produce the collected works of Shakespeare, do view it as racist, or as a silly and meaningless analogy?

It's time to take a deep breath, sit back, and start having Mr Holder's conversation, instead of seeking opportunties for discord and harping on perceived slights for political advantage and TV coverage.

My mother was fond of saying that little things affect little minds. And we seem to have no shortage of either.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Danger - Political Rant. Keep Back 50 Feet.

As a blogger, I'm delighted that we have the sort of bloviating lunatics in Congress that we do, because it means I'll never run out of things to blog about. As a citizen with a functioning brain (no comments, please, Mike and Fiona), I'm appalled at the ludicrous antics of our elected reprehensives as they do their best to make political hay out of the worst economic crisis since the Depression.

Nobody's blameless here. Both sides have plenty to answer for, both in creating the current mess and in pointing fingers at each other for perpetuating it. But yesterday's Republican Weekly Radio Address by Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska was so far over the top I was ready to move to someplace like Zimbabwe where they understand sound financial management and cooperative relationships between political parties. You can listen to Senator Murkowski's address and read the text by using the hyperlink I provided...but unless you're a brain-dead, die-hard, bottled-in-bond, aged-in-wood, dyed-in-the-wool, head-up-and-locked, hide-bound conservative who just knows the Republican party has all the answers and all Democrats have pointed tails and are hell-bent on ruining the country, you may want to have a large-capacity bucket available to throw up into.

The first thing that astounds me is the sheer gall of taking the gently aggrieved position that those irresponsible Democrats aren't being bipartisan and taking our fiscally responsible positions into account. In point of fact, the Democratic majority isn't doing anything any different than the Republicans did when they were in the majority. Steamrolling the opposition when you are in a position of strength is a well-recognized, if despicable, Congressional tradition. The difference here is that President Obama, whatever else you may think of him, has made herculean efforts to court what in most countries would be a loyal opposition. Sadly, the only loyalty on the opposition side of the aisle seems to be to the most radical end of the Republican continuum, represented by self-important windbags like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.

Senator Murkowski goes on to lament the cost of the stimulus package, noting that all the money will, one way or another, have to be borrowed. "All this spending adds up," she gently admonishes, "and has to be paid back -- paid back by our children and their children." Well, fancy that...I've been saying this for months, and I don't even have a radio show to whine on any more. The senator fails to mention that the standard Republican solution for all problems is tax cuts. How waving the magic wand of tax cuts, which decrease government income, will help the government to pay its bills still mystifies me, although it appears to be quite clear to the few people who still believe in trickle-down economics. One might also ask where the Republicans were when their president over the past eight years led us into a ruinously expensive war of questionable need, then paid for it off the books to hide the true cost from the American people...all the while castigating those who questioned it as weak-kneed, un-American supporters of terrorism or worse.

Senator Murkowski ended her address with these words: "...as Republicans continue to pursue policies that strengthen our economy and create jobs, we'll insist that taxpayers aren't only protected -- but also well informed. Republicans in Congress have pledged to work with the majority party. It's my hope that they take us up on our offer as we closely monitor how and where this money is spent." The clear insult she delivers to the President and the current majority party is that they do not wish to strengthen the economy and create jobs - only to spend money as recklessly as Republicans have done when they had the chance. Pork-barrel spending is not the personal trough of either party. She claims that Republicans in Congress have pledged to work with the majority party...and yet 100% - every single one - of the House Republicans voted against the economic stimulus package. And how close an accounting of government spending have they wished when they were in the majority, busily digging (with the contrivance of bone-headed Democratic policies, to be sure) the economic hole into which we have now fallen? I wish she would have delivered this address on television so I could see if she was able to keep a straight face while earnestly delivering such a load of bald-faced horse hockey.

It's been a long time since I've been so enraged by a political speech. Senator Murkowski's sincere, breathless, we-know-what's-right-but-they-refuse-to-listen-to-us hyperbole makes me sick. Political cartoonist Pat Oliphant said things about as well as I ever could...and in fewer words:

I love my country. But I often wonder how much those we elect to run it do. When they can deliver ludicrous drivel like Senator Murkowski's speech instead of thoughtful debate and principled cooperation and compromise, I have to wonder.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Bilbo, Mike, and Tag-Team Blogging. Part 1 - The Economy

Mike is on a roll this morning with his rant on Unregulated Capitalism and Other Stuff. He's starting to sound like me. I must have been a good influence on him (and heaven knows he needs one). I can see him in my mind's eye, his face red and hair standing on end, as he reaches the point in his post when he splutters, "Bilbo, take over for me here. I'm running out of verbiage."

Tag-team blogging. It's the new thing.

Okay, Mike - I've got it.

If you're one of those few remaining folks who actually believes that markets and economies will magically regulate themselves, that all will be well if we just get the government the hell out of the way and let the shower of economic pixie dust bring us endless prosperity...I wish you'd share some of that good stuff you're smoking with me.

If you can, with a straight face, tell me that government should just take a few weeks off and go fishing while the economy sorts itself out, you need to see a good brain surgeon.

If you believe that the answer to our problems is throwing vast amounts of the taxpayers' money in the general direction of huge banks, corporations and "financial institutions" and hoping they'll suddenly, magically show a level of competence, honesty, and ethical behavior that has been absent before, you need to go back to sleep.

I've spent a lot of time in this blog ranting about the economy and about the greed, dishonesty, and stupid political shenanigans that have brought us to the point where I'm not just worried about the world my grandchildren will inherit, but the world I'm living in now.

Isn't it amazing that those people who shout loudest about the sanctity of the free market and shudder at the specter of socialism are quick to accept bailouts to rescue them from the results of their actions...?

I used this cartoon a while back, but it's still as accurate as anything I've seen yet...

How many hundreds of billions of dollars have we pumped into the banks to get them moving and lending again? And how much good has it done?


Oh, yes...speaking once again of the banks that need vast amounts of bailout funds...


As usual, Frank and Ernest have a pretty clear view of how things are...


And for those of you worried about your jobs, and how your contributions are viewed by those at the top...

If you really think things are rosy, that ignorant blowhards like Rush Limbaugh have the right approach (hoping out loud that the new administration fails), you may want to look for another blog to read. If you're interested in trying things that may actually fix our problems, stick around and share your ideas.

Unlike the administration that has just been soundly repudiated by the American people, I'm interested in what you have to say.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Boobs of Another Sort

I learned a valuable lesson yesterday: in order to maximize the number of comments left in response to a post, I should write about either breasts or cute deer (14 comments each). I even found this at Jessica's blog Indexed this morning:


And so, Dear Readers, in line with the philosophy that one should reinforce success, I have decided to write this morning about...Senate confirmation of nominees for public office.

No, wait, stay!! It's interesting, I promise!

One of the interesting things about living in the National Capital Region is the intricate political kabuki dance that occurs each time the president nominates a candidate for an office which requires Senate confirmation of the nominee. Because our political system requires that all nominees for high office be of sterling character and, preferably, virgin birth, confirmation hearings provide an extra-large ring in which the Congressional circus can perform. If you want to laugh and cry (at the same time), Senate confirmation hearings are just made for you.

This article by Tom Korologos, who has assisted more than 300 presidential nominees prepare for their confirmation hearings, appeared in yesterday's Washington Post op-ed section: Obama Nominees Take Note. The article is a part tongue-in-cheek, part serious look at preparing for the confirmation process, and this is the key point:

"Remember that most of the hearing will be more about the questioners than about you."

If you've ever suffered through Senate hearings on any topic, you doubtless have noticed that Senators will frequently blather on ad nauseum until you (and the unfortunate witness) have forgotten what the original question was...if, in fact, there ever was a question. Confirmation hearings aren't about the nominee, who is required to sit with bovine placidity, wishing he (or she) were somewhere else, while a bunch of earnest-looking Senators use him (or her) as a dart board on which to score political points against the administration or advance their own agendas. Senators like to hear themselves talk. Vice President-elect Biden, who was recently (and elegantly) described in a recent magazine article as a "hair-plugged windbag," is only one example.

Here's another quote from the article:

"Accept that the hearing will not be fair. The Constitution protects you only to the hearing-room door. You have no rights, there is no provision for "objecting." Hearsay questions are allowed. A U.S. senator can ask any question he or she chooses. So be polite and deferential."

Translation: the only reason for you to be here to provide an excuse for the Senators to thunder down at you from their elevated seats. If you try to point out that a particular question is stupid, unfair, or utterly unrelated to evaluating your qualifications for the post to which you have been nominated, you'll go down in flames. It's not personal...it's just how the confirmation process has turned into a bizarre circus which ensures that the most qualified persons will have no interest in pursuing public service.

This is how we end up with unqualified political hacks who draw large salaries while allowing New Orleans to be destroyed and the economy to swirl down the toilet.

Read the entire article. It's interesting, sobering, and worth your time.

And if you like boobs, you'll understand why we end up with so many of them in high office.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

It's the Economy, Stupid...or It's the Stupid Economy, I Can Never Remember Which

Can you imagine? As soon as the governments of the major economic powers got together and gave their banks almost two trillion dollars as a bribe (okay, a confidence-building measure) to get them to do something about the credit crisis, the stock markets have magically rallied - yesterday, the Dow posted its biggest one-day gain in history. See how easy it was to resolve the crisis - just throw lots of money at the people who helped cause it in the first place!

Unfortunately, it's unlikely that any of that two trillion dollars is going to help my IRA and 401(k) any time soon, but hey - someone will be helped. Maybe AIG can have another spa vacation for its execs. I'll do my part.

The other day, Miss Cellania had a great post about the effect of the economic crisis on Japanese banks:

* The Origami Bank has folded;

* Sumo Bank has gone belly up;

* Bonsai Bank announced plans to cut some branches;

* Karaoke Bank is up for sale and will likely go for a song;

* Shares in Kamikaze Bank were suspended after they nose-dived;

* Samurai Bank has had to cut its staff in half;

* Ninja Bank is reported to have taken a hit, but remains in the black;

* 500 staff at Karate Bank got the chop; and,

* Analysts report that something fishy is going on at Sushi Bank, where it is feared that staff may get a raw deal.

A good quote about economics:

Franklin D. Roosevelt: "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; now we know that it is bad economics."

And a few thoughts about economists:

George Bernard Shaw: "If all the economists in the world were laid end-to-end, they would never reach a conclusion."

From the great Roman philosopher, Anonymous:

"The economy depends upon economists as much as the weather depends on weather forecasters."

And,

"Isn't it strange? The same people who laugh at gypsy fortune tellers take economists seriously."

That's all for now...time to go to work to earn the money I can invest so that it won't be there when I retire. Sigh.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

A Few Simple Questions

As many old jokes begin, there's good news and there's bad news.

The good news is that Green Canary's dating situation appears to have dramatically improved, and I'm very happy for her and for Mr Mystery. She's my favorite virtual soap opera, and I wish her well.

The bad news is that - with all the bipartisan agreement on how dreadful our economic situation has become - CNN can run a headline that reads, "Bailout Talks Implode, Leaving Economy's Fate Unresolved." The first line of that story reads, "...high-stakes negotiations over the proposed $700 billion bailout of the nation's financial system dissolved into bickering, begging and a roiling battle between parties Thursday night."

I trust you are as shocked as I am.

I have often admitted in this space that I'm no mental giant when it comes to matters of economics. I can't even tell the difference between a "collateralized debt obligation" and a "credit default swap." I thought the Lehman Brothers lost the battle of the bands to the Jonas Brothers. I thought banks were where you went to deposit your money so you could get it back again later when you needed it. I thought insurance companies were supposed to invest your premiums and make lots of money so that they could find creative ways to deny your claims later. I thought financial institutions were bedrock structures of granite and steel bars and sober men in dark suits behind huge, polished oak desks who kept the financial heart of the nation beating.

Well, that's what I get for thinking. Unfortunately, I can't stop thinking...

In an interview quoted this morning in the CNN story linked above, presidential candidate Barack Obama said that there "...has to be a sense of urgency on the part of everybody. ... We've got to move rapidly."

Hmmm....if we really need to move that rapidly, Mike has a good plan this morning.

This leads me to a few simple questions for those who are supposedly trying to resolve the financial meltdown:

1. Why, since this mess has taken years to develop into the gravest fiscal crisis since the Great Depression (or, at least, since three days before my last payday), must it be solved in a matter of days? Go back and read what I wrote yesterday's post about paying attention to the man behind the curtain. That's what's happening. Nobody wants you to know the truth of how big the mess is, how much it will cost you, and how complicit the people we trusted are in its development.

2. (Trick Question) Where is the $700 billion to pay for the bailout (or, to use the more charitable term, "economic rescue plan") coming from? We all know the answer to that...it's coming from increased taxes paid by you and I, our children, our grandchildren, and their children. No one will tell you that, and they'll try to hide it in obscure economic terms, but you know it's true.

3. (Another Trick Question) Who is responsible for this mess? The short answer is "everyone." Much of the blame goes to the armies of MBAs who dreamed up all the exotic ways to turn debts into lucrative moneymaking schemes. A lot of it goes to those who were responsible for overseeing the economy and making sure this didn't happen, but were asleep at the switch. A contributing factor is the cost of a needless war that's being paid for off the books by emergency authorizations instead of properly-scrutinized and debated budget items. But the real answer is that much of the responsibility comes back to well-intentioned but stupid Congressional action to make home ownership possible for everyone...even those who couldn't afford it. I'll talk more about this in another post.

4. (The Third Trick Question) Who has acknowledged the least amount of blame for the mess? Don't everybody speak at once, now.

5. (Last Trick Question) How many suits will go to jail as a result of destroying the national economy? If you answered anything other than "none," you don't know much about DC politics.

And this isn't really another question, but an observation...you might be interested in this article which appeared below the fold of the front page of yesterday's Washington Post: U.S. Appeals Abroad Fall Flat as Leaders See No Crisis at Home. Yes, the nations of the world who are the first to look to the United States to save their bacon in times of dire crisis are blowing us off. I don't believe in isolationism, but I understand its appeal. Remember this the next time another "ally" or "friend" needs help and comes to Uncle Sam to open his checkbook.

And so I continue to shake my head and enjoy the good news that comes from fewer and fewer places...Green Canary's love life, Zipcode's vacation, Aaron's chance to drive an "excavator," and the new season of Dancing with the Stars.

Have a good day. Hang in there. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

Toxic Waste and Dancing with the Stars

I've been fulminating about the current economic disaster and the lack of Presidential and Congressional leadership to deal with it for a few days now, and so it's time to shift gears just a little bit. I'm so angry about the whole thing that it's probably better to back off for a day or two lest all my readers start to think that I'm obsessed or something. Even if I am.

Like many of you, I like to follow the statistics of visits to my blog. According to MyBlogLog, I have learned that my two most-read posts are "Don't Dig Here!" (1,951 hits) and "Helio Castroneves Wins Dancing with the Stars" (3,351 hits). "Don't Dig Here!" discussed the problem of how to craft warnings about toxic waste dump sites to civilizations tens of thousands of years in the future; the other, of course, was my summary of the last season of "Dancing with the Stars."

Speaking of toxic waste, and considering the speech presented by President Bush last night, you may enjoy this great editorial cartoon from Tom Toles of the Washington Post earlier this week:

Yucca Mountain, of course, is the yet-to-be-opened storage site for nuclear waste in the remote Nevada desert.

Speaking of "Dancing with the Stars," like most ballroom dancers I'm of two minds about the show. My friend lacegem, commenting on yesterday's post, said she'd stopped watching the show because "...Most of America only votes for the cute couple or the hot looking star or dancer & not necessarily the best dancer," and notes that she'd rather watch "real ballroom dancing on PBS." In one way, I agree with her. It's very frustrating to watch people with real talent like Sabrina Bryan
and Melanie Brown

get voted off while talentless losers like "Master P"

and talentless but entertaining losers like George Hamilton

and, this season, Cloris Leachman

keep coming back.

But nevertheless, I keep watching...it's sort of like the fascination that makes one want to gawk at a ghastly wreck on the highway. And who knows? It may be tacky and puffed up with Hollywood kitsch and fluff, but Dancing with the Stars is better than no dancing at all.

And someday, I will have my waltz with Edyta Sliwinska.


Have a good day. Hold on to your wallets...Congress is still working on the plan to save its favorite campaign contributors.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

P.S. - If you have MS-Office installed on your computer, and would like to see a great (if somewhat crude) PowerPoint explanation of the subprime mortgage mess, e-mail me at bilbo_the_blogger (at) yahoo dot com and I'll send you a copy. You'll love it. Mike, I already sent it to you.

B.

The Missing Link

Here is the link to the Bloomberg.com article referenced in my earlier post this morning. Now you can read the whole thing and not just my excerpts.

B.

Someone Else's Fault

One of the most amazing things about our current situation is the utter unwillingness of anyone in a position of political, business, or economic authority to take any responsibility for the smoking crater that used to be a thriving economy. If you listen to the Republicans, it's the liberal-tax-and-spend-dopesmoking-treehugging Democrats who are 100% responsible for the whole mess; if you listen to the Democrats, it's the greedy, heartless, warmongering, hug-Wall Street-screw-Main Street Republicans who all on their own dragged us over the fiscal event horizon into the biggest economic black hole since 1929.

Where I come from, we call this a self-serving crock of caca.

My friend Jake, who always knows which buttons to push to send me into a towering blograge, yesterday sent me a link to an article on Bloomberg.com, with the comment that it was "Bloomberg's take on when and how the stock market meltdown became inevitable." I don't have the link here at home (it didn't carry over when I forwarded our e-mail exchange to my home account), but I'll post it later when I get to the office so you can read the full article. In the meantime, here is the text of the broadside I launched in response...

QUOTE

Jake,

It would be considerably easier for a thinking person to accept this blatantly biased screed if the author had spent a bit more time on context and analysis and a bit less on partisan spite.

For instance, consider the sentence, "But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years." I very seriously doubt that only these three high-profile Democrats received largesse from Fannie and Freddie over the years...and yet no lesser Democrats, and certainly no Republicans, are mentioned. I would be absolutely amazed if there were no Republican feeders at the trough as well. In fairness, had this article been written by a Democrat, I'm sure the reverse would have been true...Republicans castigated, but no Democrats.

The article also takes a fairly superficial look at the history. Referring to the Fannie and Freddie reform bill (not specified by name or number), the article claims that "...the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter." This might be easier to swallow if there were some context. Why did the craven Democrats oppose it? What efforts were made by the righteous and incorruptible Republicans to identify the Democrats' problems and negotiate a mutually agreeable solution? We are gathering the harvest of the I'm-right-screw-you style of politics that makes Independents like me sick.

This ridiculous balderdash continues: "That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: 'It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''' Here we have one group accusing another of an "obscene" and "reckless" stand, and the bald statement that those opposing a particular issue "...could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing." How many in Congress understood what Fannie and Freddie were doing? Where were the leaders of either party who took the time and effort to explain to their constituents what was at stake, why, and why their proposed way ahead was better...instead of just demonizing the other side of the aisle? The level of arrogant stupidity and avoidance of responsibility here is beyond belief.

Articles like this are a horrendous disservice to the public. They offer nothing but finger pointing and self-righteous accusation while avoiding any hint of responsibility for the mess that both parties have created by rolling over for the monied interests who own Congress.

And don't bring up Greenspan, either. If he had spent more time speaking in clear English so that everyone from "Main Street to Wall Street" could have understood, he might have done us some good. Instead, he spent years making an opaque mess even more opaque.

We're being asked to put up hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out the bastards whose greed has brought us to this point, and we're being told it has to be done because they're "too big to fail." We, of course, are too small to matter.

I'm not interested in hearing anything that says everything is the fault of either the Democrats or the Republicans. They've both been asleep at the switch. Stop all this ******** about how either the Liberals or the Conservatives are the devil incarnate."

END QUOTE

Here's another wonderful example of lack of responsibility and leadership, and the prevelance of the greed and hypocrisy that brought us to this point. In describing Congress's efforts to construct a "rescue plan" to salvage something from the crisis, the article says that "financial institutions are weighing in with what they want in the bill...the Financial Services Roundtable - a lobbying group representing the nation's banks - called on Congress to make the plan 'broad enough to include different types of assets' (the emphasis is mine)."

Did you understand that? The financial wizards who dreamed up all the "assets" that turned out to be worthless are now demanding that Congress protect them from the fruits of their greed. If you aren't disgusted, you're not quite awake yet.

I could go on, but here's the bottom line of my rant: there's no leadership. No one is standing tall and saying that he/she really screwed up and is working hard to help fix the problem. No one - especially any of the reinforced armies of MBAs who dreamed up all the fiscal shenanigans that brought us to this mess - is accepting any responsibility...they're all sitting at the trough, whining that someone needs to save them from this debacle that's someone else's fault.

There's no leadership. No one is standing up and explaining exactly what happened, why it happened, who was responsible, and what needs to be done to fix the disaster. President Roosevelt would have had a Fireside Chat to explain it all in terms a farmer or factory worker could understand. President Bush just fires salvos of sound bites that blame the Democrats.

At a time when we need real, inspiring, confidence-building leadership, we have a bunch of finger-pointing, responsibility-avoiding fools who have not only presided over the wreckage of the present, but see no problem with sticking you and I, our children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren with the bill.

Think about that when you cast your vote in November.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

P.S. - on a happier note, the new season of Dancing with the Stars started last night, and was most entertaining. Models Brooke Burke and Kim Kardashian, and Olympic gold medal beach volleyball player Misty Mae-Traenor seem to be possible standouts among the ladies; while champion sprinter Maurice Green and Super Bowl hero Warren Sapp did a surprisingly good job for the men. The best part, though, was the performance of 82-year-0ld Cloris Leachman during her receipt of the judges' comments...by my count, she was bleeped out at least four times, not to mention shamelessly vamping at all the judges.

It'll be an interesting season...

B.

My New Retirement Plan, and Accompanying Economic Rant

My new retirement plan is very simple. My 401k and IRA are in the toilet, and I'm too small for the Feds to worry about bailing out, so I'm going to take my last assets and start up my own investment bank, run it into the ground, and then ask for a bailout. It can't miss.

Given the marvelous economic news of the last few months, my current retirement plan involves looking for a nice, big refrigerator box to live in. I may as well just sign everything over to rich investment bankers now rather than wait for the government to do it later.

That's how it works, of course. They're too big to fail, but you and I are too small to matter.

I thought there was hope today when the government decided not to bail out Lehman Brothers, but then I realized that Lehman Brothers was in the same boat the rest of us are - they weren't too big to fail, so the feds cut them loose.

And just so you can feel better about the Fat Cats' raids on your savings, here's a quote from the CNN Money article about the Lehman Brothers collapse:

"The Federal Reserve announced a series of steps to support the financial markets. The Fed said it would expand its short-term lending to banks by starting to take all investment-grade debt as collateral - instead of just Treasurys and other high-grade securities."

The emphasis is mine.

Now let's be sure I understand this...the Fed is going to lend to banks which have already demonstrated their irresponsibility and greed by accepting "all investment-grade debt" as collateral. What's "investment-grade debt?" Isn't that what got all these greedy bastards into trouble in the first place?

I really wish I knew more about economics. No, actually, I don't. If I really understood the depth of the greed of the "financial institutions" and the level of smug arrogance that leads white-collar thieves to assume they can get the government to crush us to save themselves, I'd probably either kill myself or want to declare open season on "investment bankers."

Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein wrote an article last week titled "Don't Like Bailouts? Consider the Alternatives" that spun me up in several ways:

First was his assertion that "History shows that rather than costing taxpayers, the rescues have often wound up making money." He then listed bailouts he claimed actually benefited the government, concluding that "...if (the government) is willing to wait until housing markets finally recover, there's a good chance the government will recoup most of its investment, along with a 10 percent annual dividend and a hefty guarantee fee." I find that very comforting as I look at the wreckage of my retirement accounts. Even if this long-term fairy tale is true, it will do nothing toward helping those of us who have been fleeced first by the crooks, and then by the government that helps them out.

Second was Mr Pearlstein's tossoff of "moral hazard" (the argument that those who abuse their trust must bear the consequences) by suggesting that "...using moral hazard to argue against the carefully structured rescues of Bear Stearns or Fannie and Freddie is a bit likely arguing that any sentence short of capital punishment is insufficient to deter bank robbery."

And then was this statement: "Remember that even with the rescues, top executives at Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac lost their jobs, their reputations, and most of their net worth, while long-term investors lost all but a tiny fraction of their money." You may recall my discussion a few days ago about the severance packages of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac CEOs...if I lose my job, I doubt that I'll get a severance package valued in the millions to cushion the supposed loss of my reputation. And I may be wrong, but I believe the losses those long-term investors suffered ("all but a tiny fraction of their money") are the losses you and I are being expected to make up through our hard work and taxes.

Was the cost of the alternative worse than the vast cost of bailing out these greedy fools? Perhaps. But unless we make some real, fundamental structural changes to how the financial markets are operated and regulated, we'll just keep riding this same old fiscal merry-go-round to a future of continuing financial chaos.

And you and I will keep buying the tokens to pay for the big guys to ride.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

P.S. - Agnes's parents arrive this afternoon for a two-week visit, and so my posts may be a little irregular as we spend time with them. Bear with me. I'm still out here.

B.

We Interrupt This Program to Bring You a Rant...

There are still several posts coming in the series documenting my Reformed Republicratic Party Platform, but I'm getting down to the hard stuff now, and have some more research and writing to do before they're ready. Fortunately, though, there is sufficient buffoonery going on in the news to give me plenty to write about while I finish off the other posts.

1. Between them, the fired CEO's of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will receive $23.9 million in salary payments. You can read the story here. The best part of the story is this: "Syron's (Freddie Mac's former CEO) package, Schmidt (an 'executive compensation consultant') said, is 'very unusual' because it allows him to receive $8.8 million in cash to replace stock grants and options that are now worth little or nothing. Representatives of Fannie and Freddie declined to comment." (Added emphasis is mine).

Now, let's make sure we all heard this correctly...the man fired for running Freddie Mac into the ground and sticking the U.S. taxpayer with an enormous debt is eligible for $8.8 million in cash because his stock grants and options are in the tank. And what about all the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae stock that was in my 401k? I'll just bet that I'm in line to get my $8.8 million. I'm glad I still believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and a government that cares about its citizens...at least, the ones that are already rich and powerful.

2. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts that the budget deficit will grow to $407 billion this year, a jump of $246 billion from 2007. Read about it here. The story attributes the huge jump in the deficit to "a substantial increase in spending and a halt in the growth of tax revenues." Wow. What a surprise.

Yes, if you are running the government, you can cut taxes on the wealthy, spend countless billions on a useless war in Iraq, dismantle the regulatory structures that used to protect the citizens from outrageous economic activity, and rescue the greedy bastards who have ruined the economy...and still maintain the fiction that all is well. As Mel Brooks so well said in The History of the World, Part I: "It's good to be the king!"

If you're not mad as hell, there's something wrong with you. If you aren't letting your elected reprehensives know you're mad as hell, they'll keep right on ignoring the problems of the average American and running the country into the ground.

Do you have any idea what we could do with 407 billion dollars? What we could do with the 23.9 million dollars the disgraced CEO's of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are getting? The crumbling infrastructure we could repair? The schools we could adequately fund? The essential regulatory structures we could replace? The Social Security system we could keep solvent?

If you're not voting for Bilbo's Reformed Republicratic Party, vote for Nobody. Nobody is the real candidate this year.

Have a good day. Get mad. Really mad.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo