Reward for the first comedian to mock Obama

"[Incredible was] the sheer one-sidedness of the ‘unalloyed satire’ during the presidential campaign. Where was the mockery of the Democratic candidate Barack Obama? Where were the scabrous commentaries on Obama’s rather hesitant debating technique? Who was sending up the vacuity of his oratory? Or his glib Messianism?" --Tim Black on Sp!ked

Who and where indeed. It was an amazing election on so many levels, but this level -- that Obama cruised through the campaign unscathed by satire -- seems to have escaped notice. And the fact that he is still not mocked, made fun of or ridiculed (perhaps early yet for ridicule), remains a phenomenon. It's a subject that will be studied at great lengths in the future in some media and society class. For now, saying anything remotely funny about Obama is taboo. Or perhaps, as Tim Black suggests, he's seen as too perfect by the leading poo-bahs of comedy.

Where are his faults? Well first of all, you cannot mock his looks. Bush had the unfortunate luck of looking chimp-like, so that was caricatured relentlessly; nor could he "talk good" to pass elitist muster, so that was flagged, too. But Obama? In the looks and speaks department, he's the antithesis of Bush. He's a handsome guy and he has a way with words, glib and vacuous as they are. This leaves only the features that stand out, basically none save his skin. In that you'd be labeled racist. I suppose you could do his smile. But it's not that good.

I suppose once the words are parsed a bit and the national media/comedy/actors and others come down from their Obamaecstasy trip, his empty words and style will surely be mocked.... won't they please? Anyone? Anyone? He'll surely be mocked? Anyone? Bueller?

So, I will give any comedy mandarin a million dollars and a chance to appear on my show.... if they would take a little air out of the old Obaloona.

Obama's in, but let's keep kicking Sarah!

The continued onslaught on Sarah Palin now more than two weeks after the election is telling in several ways.

1. Democrats are never satisfied; their snarkiness demands that they to continue to rank on a woman who apparently don't talk good. And Dick Cavett, acting like some Japanese holdout from WWII who doesn't know or won't acknowledge that war is over, comes out with The Wild Wordsmith of Wasilla. I mean, who the fuck cares anymore? Further to this, only people who speak eloquently can be leaders?

New York Magazine also has story about Sarah (and Hillary, too). It's supposed to be a sympathetic piece and of course, Hillary gets most of it. As expected, while the author (name to be named later) discusses the media handling/bullying of Sarah, she still gets in a few zingers and ultimately says this: poor Sarah, she got beat up, but... it's her fault! There you go, a little sisterly love (I love you I hate you), sisters are doing it for themselves (and doing it to themselves and others), I am woman hear me roar (at other woman). Isn't this the attitude that woman rail against in rape trials? "Poor woman, she was raped, but...it's her fault!"

What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander, and I apologize to any geese out there who find offense in this.

2. The fact that we in the US have a habit, supported by the media, of creating, coddling, worshipping, destroying, poo-pooing, the latest media darling seems to be lost on democrats. People like her, people hate her; she sells magazines, entertainment shows, etc. What did they expect? She's news for fucksakes. It's what we do. Get over it. Get used to it. You hate her? Tough. Enough normal people seem to like her.

By the way, you don't get to be governor of state by being a complete idiot. Somewhat of an idiot, maybe. Besides, the more democrats hate her, the more republicans will like her.

All my heroes have clay feet and I am certain, many will join me in this sentiment as the Obama ship sets sail.

Now maybe they'll like us!

The argument that now the US will be better liked and more respected by the rest of the world is just so crazy. I'm not as well travelled as many people, but in my "ute" back in the 80s I did travel quite a bit. And here's what I learned: No one liked the US all that much. And judging by what I heard from others, since sometime after WWII or perhaps right around the Cold War no one ever liked us.

The french didnt like us
The Germans only tolerated us
The English? They sorta did, but loved to hate us, too
The Arab Street? Hated us, still does
Canadians? What do you think?
Latin Americans? Love us/hate us
Scandanavians? Probably hate

So now Obama's going to embark upon a Love Us road show. Go ahead. It won't work. People envy us, ergo, they hate us. Maybe it'll change now that we've been knocked down a peg by our housingbankingeconomiccrisiswithbailoutsstimuluspackagesgalore issues, but on the whole, we'll continue to be hated. OK, maybe Obama can move that up to a "Serious Dislike."

So winning the rest of world's love and affection is really a waste of time, kind of like the last 28 years, right Judith?

Echos of Year Zero

A few days ago I wrote about Judith Warner's post-Obama victory post about the past 28 years of a paucity in.... nice? Intellectualism? Right-thinking? Who knows? Here's part of it...

Tears to Remember

On Wednesday, Nov. 5, 1980, my 10th-grade American history teacher started class by unfurling The New York Times. She pointed to its triple banner headline: “Reagan Easily Beats Carter; Republicans Gain in Congress; D’Amato and Dodd are Victors.”

“Save this paper,” she told us. “This is the start of a whole new era.”

And it was. An era of unbridled deregulation, wealth-enhancing perks for the already well-off, and miserly indifference to the poor and middle class; of the recasting of greed as goodness, the equation of bellicose provincialism with patriotism, the reframing of bigotry as small-town decency. In short, it was the start of our current era. The Reagan Revolution was the formative political experience of my generation’s lifetime, like the Great Depression, the Second World War or Vietnam for those before us. And in its intellectual and moral paucity, in its eventual hegemony, these years shut down, for some of us, the ability to fully imagine another way.

This post bugged me on so many levels. So the last 28 years were a big waste? On one level it was like having your father annul a marriage after 30 years, thereby making you, the child, non-existent. On another level, a hyperbolic one I suppose, it scared me. Her post felt a bit Khmer Rouge. Because this is the type of attitude or viewpoint that Pol Pot decided to unleash on Cambodia all those years ago. "Let's get back to the way we were (and not in Babs' scattered pictures sense). We'll call it Year Zero!" Well we know the rest of that story. And wasn't it nice? Mass murder, hell on earth.

OK, I'm pretty sure Judith isn't Pol Pot; but they share a sentiment. Democrats aren't Stalin, but they share a sentiment. They have the same DNA.

Eleven, Eleven, Eleven 2008

I've always liked the Veterans Day holiday, although I am not a veteran. Even the holiday's moment is cool -- 11th hour, of the 11th day, of the 11th month. Anyway, we don't seem to do enought for vets. We give them kind of crappy post-war care and just a couple holidays. But if not for them, we wouldn't be here.

Squirrel rendition

Off the subject of the baby Jesus, who's manger crib lays empty until Jan. 20, I have a squirrel problem. I live in an old house, a Victorian, the older upper parts of which have a few holes. This is where squirrels, apparently the flying kind, are getting in.

And what a racket those little bastards make. I guess "fliers," as the trappers call them, are nocturnal (which explains why I've never seen one); in other words they're on the night shift. So at 10pm they're getting ready to go and do whatever it is they do -- munch, fly, munch, mate, fly, munch, etc. Then at about 4am, they come busting back into the house, roll nuts around, bump into stuff, dislodge old plaster from inside the walls, and occasionally chew stuff. It's a bummer. They keep me up at night not so much because of the noise but because of what I imagine they're doing up there: shitting, pissing, storing all manner of food, bringing in bugs of all kinds; all of which will eventually end up in my soup.

The funny thing is is what I have been doing to get rid of the poor regular squirrels whom I originally suspected of getting into the house. About a month ago I bought three Havahart traps and proceeded to trap about a dozen or more squirrels. I would then drive them down to Orchard Beach in the Bronx and let 'em go. It's a process that's time-consuming and comical. First, squirrels are pretty clever, so you have to make sure you're taking them several miles away so they don't make it back. Secondly, you apparently have to zig-zag a bit to confuse them so their internal homing device gets thrown off kilter.


Orchard Beach. I take the squirrels to the woods behind.
Anyway, you have me, idiot Jeremiah Johnson wannabe, and these poor squirrels who are out of their minds trying to get out of the traps. I drive around and look for a relatively empty area (hard to do anywhere in the Bronx). It has to be kind of empty because squirrel rendition might be illegal; I don't think you're allowed to transplant squirrels to other areas (although, oddly, you are allowed to euthanize them; I've hunted all sorts of animals before before but close-quarters combat is not my thing).

So, I did pretty much all I could do to get rid of the little varmints. I even borrowed a ladder and went up to the roof line and filled all the holes with mesh. This all seemed to work fine for a few days. I was also finally getting some worry-free sleep (well, relatively speaking. I do have children, which is a condition that doesn't allow me much sleep no matter how old they are). But then scratch, scratch and roll. They were back again.

I finally called in the pros. They're going to take care of all of it for me, with a guarantee. But the enterprise is costly, and a few other major projects will have to wait 'til next year.
Not my house but close!
Photo thanks to someone else on the internet... godogo?

The irrational exuberance continues

Well here we are six days into the President-elect Obama transition zone. Over the weekend I enjoyed reading various views on Obama's rise, how black people feel, what can or cannot be expected. No matter how you slice it, and no matter how cynical I am about it, there is no doubt his campaign and win are historic and remarkable. And it breaks a huge barrier (who knew how huge? Only black people I guess) for the African-American community (maybe now we can get rid of the term "African American" now?). As Whoopi said, "I feel like I can put my suitcase down now." That's pretty cool.

Still, I worry. There remains a lot of exuberance. I fear it's a bubble (been a lot of those lately!)that will surely pop, and when it does, it'll be painful. What if the challenges are too overwhelming? What if Obama makes bad decisions (or follows through with some of his math-challenged policies)?

But for whom will it be painful? I have a hunch. Here is what'll happen, beyond further economic pain for the US: because of the heights to which Obama has been elevated in the mass hysterical psyche of those who voted for him, he can never fail. And if something that even remotely smells of or looks like failure, it won't be Obama's failure. It'll be the GOP's. It'll be the republicans' fault. That's the only conclusion they'll be able draw. It's not their beloved Obama that screwed up, it's his enemies on the right. The tripped him! They blocked is every exalted move! If they hadn't worked against him, then he would have succeeded!

Currently there is a lot of hand-wringing about what the GOP should do to regain the glory of the Reagan years. But perhaps more importantly and more immediate are many things the GOP should concentrate on not doing (more on this later).

In the meantime, I hope all the statues now being carved to Obama's greatness don't have clay feet.

What Obama has really wrought: unbridled nonsense

People have become unhinged over Obama. Here is something from NYT blogger Judith Warner:

Tears to Remember
On Wednesday, Nov. 5, 1980, my 10th-grade American history teacher started class by unfurling The New York Times. She pointed to its triple banner headline: “Reagan Easily Beats Carter; Republicans Gain in Congress; D’Amato and Dodd are Victors.”

“Save this paper,” she told us. “This is the start of a whole new era.”

And it was. An era of unbridled deregulation, wealth-enhancing perks for the already well-off, and miserly indifference to the poor and middle class; of the recasting of greed as goodness, the equation of bellicose provincialism with patriotism, the reframing of bigotry as small-town decency.

In short, it was the start of our current era. The Reagan Revolution was the formative political experience of my generation’s lifetime, like the Great Depression, the Second World War or Vietnam for those before us. And in its intellectual and moral paucity, in its eventual hegemony, these years shut down, for some of us, the ability to fully imagine another way.

What the hell is she talking about? The people spoke back in 1980; that's what and whom they voted for. Not to mention a Democrat was president in that era for eight years, prosperous ones, by the way. So here is classic liberal Democrat-speak: "Everybody is stupid and they always vote the wrong way." I'm telling you if they had their way, it would be dictatorship. There would be thought police running around, making sure everyone thought as they did.

Anyway, I don't understand what people don't understand about elections. Love or hate the results, the THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN. Whether there's fraud at the fringes -- doesn't matter (twas ever thus).

Sure, the Judith Warners of the world are entitled to their opinions, but if things were really as they say, they'd probably be underground, writing furtively in bunkers. I'd like to see what kind of life Judith has lived over the past 28 years.

And the drivel that people wrote in response to the piece were so cloyingly sappy and sanctimonious and over the top. Oy!

Again, I'm trying to believe. But it's hard.

Change we can believe in!

"Mr. Obama, who bested Sen. Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, has made it clear he will rely heavily on veterans of her husband's eight-year administration, the only Democratic presidency in the past 28 years." WSJ, 11/07/2008

Ah yes, pretty soon they'll be wheeling out Warren Christopher.

Why can't he just start from scratch? I understand the Rahm Emmanuel move; but going much beyond that is a mistake. He certainly ran a great campaign against the Clintons, why does he need there machine parts now?

Dance with the date that brung ya: you (OK, and perhaps a few parts of the old Clinton machine, but that's it)

Obama is the new Kennedy?

President-elect Obama is being likened to Kennedy. So, I will now christen this new presidency as the Gag Me With a Spoon presidency. GMWAS, or if you're going to say it, "gemwahs." The GMWAS is kind of a step up from the awkward My Eyes Are Permanenty Rolled Up or "meapru" that I used to use....

Anyway.

Let's hope Obama's the "new and improved" Kennedy, because despite what people want to believe, the guy wasn't a great president. In fact, I bet his techniques, like say, nuclear brinksmanship with the then USSR, i.e. the Cuban Missile Crisis, would be pilloried today; Murtha, Kerry, Pelosi, the world would loathe him. The Cuban Missile Crisis has been seen as a success, but credit should be given somewhat to Kruschev for having a level head. Further to that, it appears there may have been a deal to withdraw US missles from Turkey if the USSR withdrew same from Cuba. In any case, Kennedy was seen as a hero. It was, as Schessinger wrote, "...the ripening of American leadership unsurpassed in the responsible management of power..." Gag me.

But let's explore some of Kennedy's other successes, shall we? There was the Bay of Pigs, that was a good one. How about getting us into Vietnam? Excellent! Ousting a democratically elected government in Guyana (British Guiana back then)? Great idea!

So let's hope.

I want to believe, but it's hard.

The Palin Illogic

You know, the more everybody (around here in NYC vicinity) likes to come down hard on Sarah Palin as:

1) not a woman
2) a backwoods rube
3) a panderer
4) an idiot
5) unfit/inexperienced to be president
6) a Barbie Doll
7) a bad mother for running at all
8) etc.

the more I like her. She may be any one of those things, but frankly, so are 99.9% of the people in government, including most particularly, our new president-elect (although he's Ken, not Barbie). She is the type of person who runs for office.

Why her experience was ever an issue when we just elected a complete novice is another hypocritical argument from democrats. Obama has been a senator for four years, two of which were spent campaigning. Palin has run a state, albeit small, for two years. What's the difference? And why her quality as a mother was ever an issue is beyond me -- so Obama isn't a bad father for exposing his children to the campaign trail and now the presidency? To hear this rubbish from woman is crazy.

Just goes to show, once again, how democrats think. When I do it, it's OK. When you do it, it's wrong. When I elect a black president, I'm right, when you have black cabinet members, they're just "house slaves" as I heard Powell and Rice referred to once.

Once again, with feeling: I want to believe. I really do. But it's hard.

Now that the ship is sinking, all hands on deck!

It is just unbelievable listening to the syphocant media and every-day Obama supporters carry on about the problems that Obama is inheriting and how we now have to rally around the president.

First of all, now is the time to rally around the president? This sounds to me like the media saying "let's rally around the president now that our guy is in power." Now is the time to be patriotic and sacrafice and give spread the wealth around? So we should give him more than the 15 minutes of "rallying around" we gave Bush?

Secondly, Obama is a U.S. Senator. The last time I checked, senators are part of the three branches of government; legislative I think they call it. It's part of the "checks and balances" so to speak that's supposed to make things hum. So as a senator, he's been around for several years and has had just as much time and opportunity to correct things that were problematic. In fact, he is closely associated with Fannie and Freddie (took their campaign contributions, a lot), Community Re-Investment Act, etc. Precisely the things that got us here.

So in a sense, he helped gut the economy and now people are supposed to have us "rally round" him as if he just flew in from heaven with untarnished wings.

I want to believe. But it's hard.

The shallowness of "change"

Obama is the change agent. People want change. California, overwhelmingly democrat, as expected went to Obama.

So how in the world did California's Proposition 8 pass? What kind of democrats are they? Where is the change? If it's "As goes California, so goes the nation" as so many people claim, then there really isn't going to be change.

Denying same-sex couples the right to marry is a ridiculous. It's unconstitutional on so many levels (equal rights, equal protection, etc, etc). And plain stupid from a tax revenue standpoint -- married couples pay higher taxes (although I'm not sure how much California itself would see of this).

It just goes to show how shallow this change is. People will realize it soon.

Gentleman, leave your calling cards

"Organized labor sees a historic opportunity with Tuesday's election and is counting on the incoming Obama administration to back its agenda in what promises to be a landmark battle with business." -- WSJ 11/6/2008

But at the same time....

"A bill that would make it easier for unions to organize workers ... will likely take a back seat to broader economic issues for now, Democratic operatives say." WSJ, 11/6/2008

And so it begins...

The Bush legacy

I remember once saying that Reagan (of whom I wasn't a huge fan) would be considered one of the best presidents ever. I got laughed at repeatedly. Meanwhile Clinton's legacy, which everyone thought would be great, is more or less in the shitter, although not as bad as Carter's.

And I'll echo my Reagan claim with Bush II, although with perhaps less high praise. The point is, history will redeem George W. Bush; maybe not completely but to a better degree than when he left. His biggest problem was perception. It was perceived that he "stole the election" when in fact this was not the case (if you still cling to the theory that the election was stolen, then you must also acknowledge that if Gore prevailed in court, he would have been perceived as having stolen the election, too. Bush barely won Fla. but won it he did. And if you want to say the whole vote was a fraud, then you have to apply that idea across the entire country. The whole system is a mess.). Anyway, perception. People didn't like Bush's attitude, the way he looked, the way talked, the way he was perceived by our so-called European allies. They called him names. Called him stupid, etc.

So what we've had is eight years of a democratic party hissy fit because their guy didn't win. So they took their ball and went home. And liberals do, after all, control the media. The drove that perception hard until it became almost fadish to hate Bush.

But he will be redeemed. With the exception of Katrina (a thin argument, but nonetheless, he was in charge) and his prodigious spending, he did nothing that most others in his shoes wouldn't have done (although most, like democrats for instance, would have waffled and done nothing). If anything, Bush was the victim of a long history of government do nothing-ism. Sitting on our hands for 40 or 50 years did will do that. From energy to terrorism to the economy, Bush was in the wrong place at the wrong time. But at least, being a man of action, he did something.

Bush was only in office for eight years but gets blamed for things that have been in the making for 50 years. The rickety paper house that is our dependence on foreign oil, our blind eye to Islamic terror (culture), and loose, free money economic policy that began in the Clinton years -- and pushed by democrats more recently; Fannie/Freddie, CRA, etc) -- came crashing down during Bush's administration. Could have happened to Gore or Kerry, and I shudder to think what they would have done.

And you know what? The post-Katrina problems were not only Bush's fault but the fault of a century of no accountability for all the billions the US has spent propping up (or draining) the swamp city of New Orleans. Where did all that money go for levy repair and other projects? Probably in the hands of local politicians, who had NO EMERGENCY PLAN.

Bush gets blamed for so many things that have nothing to do with being a president, it's unbelievable. How about (so-called) Global Warming? He gets blamed for that. As if 8 years made things worse (when in fact the US in terms of carbon output has reduced its footprint more than the Kyoto signers in the last decade).

I just think that in the final analysis, things that were waiting to happen, they were eventual, that previous administrations turned a blind-eye to, all suddenly happened at once. Still, was also a huge spender, and bought things (medicare spend) without the funds; for that he should be criticized.

But all this and poor George gets caught holding the bag.

Weep for the future?

Well, here we go. A President Obama. Unlike something democrats would say were it a GOP win, I hope it works out. I really do.

Still, I sort of can't wait for the national Obama hangover to begin. For all those wanna-be world-changing college students who will be sorely disappointed to see this presidency float back to earth and get in engage in the daily grind of running a country with a billion different interests. For all those union types dying to see their ranks expand only to see some of the Blue dogs and other sensible senators halt their ridiculous demands (why don't they just go away?). For all of O's far-left colleagues who will soon see their socialist dreams vaporized in the heat of a gridlocked Senate. For the coastal elites, the limo liberals, the guilt-ridden whites, who all just hated Bush for no other reason than he was Bush (he stole the election!), the disappointment will be long and deep -- and I can't wait for this. It will be delicious.

The mildest hangover will be for African Americans. While they may become disenchanted to a degree that Obama isn't the end-all be-all, there is nothing but upside with an Obama presidency. It shows that it can be done. Up to now, being governors, congress, CEOs, cabinet members, high-ranking generals and adored sports professionals, wasn't high-profile enough to convince black people that they can get to the top. Now we have a president who is proof positive that things are different. That they can achieve greatness; there are no boundries (except for poverty and a victim mentality).

For republicans, well, it's pretty obvious. They're for the most part reviled. They need to get back to the core conservative principles of small government, less spending, lower taxes. Shave the fat, but shave it judicously and don't appear stingy (a tough call). Get away from all the other noise that just doesn't resonate with the rest of America; things like gay marriage, abortion, bible-thumping, etc. Get back to the big tent. Keep attacking frivolous spending. It's ironic that democrats hated GWB so much when he was one of the biggest spenders of all time. He was a democrats dream except that "he stole the election!" and wasn't a peacenik.

And finally, for god sakes, stop being so corrupt. I know all of congress does this stuff, lining their own pockets, etc. But republicans seem to do it better. Take the Sarah Palin approach and reform.

Thoughts on a crisis

30 September, 2008

Thought this might be cathartic to get these things on paper. Forgive the rambling, typos, runons, tense changes, danglers, etc....

As we have discussed, I'm a bit of both minds on this bailout. I wish I could be the "one-armed economist" for which Harry Truman so longed (i.e. when his econ advisors would offer advice then end with "but on the one hand,")!! In any case, ON THE ONE HAND, I think the bailout is critical because it extends to every adult who has ever applied for a credit card, Sears or Mastercard or otherwise, a student loan, a car loan and or a small business loan (remember small business is the backbone of the economy). All of those people are and will be affected (because just like oil, we're addicted to credit). Borrowing has been very cheap the past decade or more. Money for nothing. Add that to the American Dream. Americans double-downed on it for the past 20 years; shoved in their faces by Hollywood, Madison Ave and the Joneses -- own a bigger home, buy a better car, pursue more happiness in whatever consumer form you can, etc. Which, by the way, I support and supported wholeheartedly! But to be populist and say, "let the Wall Street fatcats figure it out for themselves!" or "Why bailout the billionaires?" etc, etc, is like blaming your heart for having clogged arteries. Sure banks are pernicously evil with fees (to paraphrase dad, if fees had wings, we'd never see the sun), but we do need them and they need Wall Street. Yes, it's unfair if you've paid your mortgage and paid your bills on time and you played by the rules. But ultimately, this is the real trickle-down. It seems like it doesnt matter now, but soon credit card companies will tighten restrictions, penalties, and cut your borrowing. No new auto loans or higher hurdles to get them. Way more stringent mortgage lending. Possibly fewer college loans -- and what are those people going to do? Find jobs that are starting to dwindle because everyone's in the same boat? And the jobs are dwindling because no one's buying anything, so corporations will start cutting back inventories, which means fewer people to make stuff. They wont expand product lines because they cant borrow, so they cant sell any new stuff. Even if it all doesnt come to a standstill, the whole process will slow dramatically, causing recession and all the other descriptives that mean a nonfunctioning economy. And what of foreign holders of US assets (countries and companies)? We've been financed by foreign investment for ages. That will come to a halt (if it hasnt already); and what assets they do have will be worth far less, sending their economies into the void. The only bright side here is the old saying, which goes something like "If I owe you a $1 million, you own me, if I owe you $10 million, I own you!" In other words, they own way too much of us! Hooray!

BUT ON THE OTHER HAND! Why not let the market take its course? Why not let banks fail? Let's get the pain over with. As someone said on TV, let damaged firms "go through the fires of receivership" so that the bad stuff just gets burned off and healthy companies come in and buy the good stuff? Despite all the uncertainty there remains plenty of cash out there. Healthy financial companies or private equity and the like that are in good shape and willing to buy the good stuff once the bad stuff has been burned off. Or, why shouldnt we give that money, in the form of tax breaks or something, to the fiscally responsible people who played by the rules, paid their mortgages on time and didnt go overboard. Maybe if we do nothing and let the chips fall where they may or whatever other cliche you want to use, things will turn out right? And besides, where did $700 billion come from? If no one on Wall Street knows the worth of these bad assets, how does the government know? Is $700bln enough, too much, what?

The problem with both these scenarios is that no one knows the answer; there is no precedent. You dont know how long the pain will last. It seems reasonable that letting things fail now may be short pain, and dragging them out with a rescue is long pain. But it could be long no matter what. Too many unknowns. No one knows how much any of this stuff is worth, or who has it (that's why banks arent lending to each other, they dont trust each others' balance sheets). No one knows how deep the well is. Does it have a bottom? Will more banks fail? What if so many fail that there are not enough healthy banks to buy them? What if perfectly healthy banks start to see their assets continue to crumble in value and they fail? And if all these banks fail, does the FDIC have enough to ensure that every Tom, Dick and Harry get's his money back (up to$100,000)? And how long would that take?!? "Yes, you're insured up to $100,000. Just fill out Forms 11C, 12B and 101XY, and send it in to FDIC at 20018 Connecticut Ave." Great! But what do I do in the meantime? Panhandle? Sell apples? Squeegee at the stop light? And, let me be cynical for a moment, we all know how insurance works, if you had $10,000 in the bank, they'd figure out some way of giving you $6,500 back after "processing fees" with maybe a "penalty" for good measure. And congress would figure out some way of taxing the money....

And what will the government do? Taxes will go up; doesnt matter who is elected. Congress already has let lapse fixes that temporarily stopped the AMT (now it'll hit millions more people -- middle income and lower) and many other small business taxes. So what happens then? How do we pay for all the FDIC insurance? How does the US service the debt that it already has? And the government has to keep running (whether small or large); medicare, medicaid, welfare, infrastucture, defense (small compared to entitlements but still huge), and countless other things; who pays? You. Me. the Kids, the Kids' kids. Which all then hit the states, who get less from the feds, and have been getting less from local taxes (a great time to be on the Board of Ed!!). To combat this, local tax increase caps will start popping up, which is basically like bleeding someone for a cold.

So maybe we as Americans are in need of some financial humbling; to go back to the rummage sale days and the hand-me-downs, used cars, sloppy joes and leftovers. But it will be a long way back to that. At this point, it's closer to the Stone Age than the Internet Age! Much as I cherish those days personally (rummage sales at Porter Memorial, Jefferson Street, Grandma Delaney's basement, etc) I dont want to go back there or more accurately, I dont want to be forced back there.

In any case, I dont mind the fighting over what form the rescue takes. It means, at the very least, people are hammering out something. Much as I support the Paulson Plan, I didnt read it. I'm not expert enought to know if it'll work (seems plausible). I do hate the finger pointing and the politicking. The US government, past administrations, are to blame, and we are all to blame to some degree. I just want to move forward (in old or new shoes!).

A whole lot of coronatin going on

Ah the election. Or should it be the coronation. Obama is already been rammed into place by the media; and I guess we're all supposed to go along to get along, etc. In other words, if we don't vote for Obama, we're racist filth that should be "adjusted."

The whole exercise is all just another Democratic hissy fit. They are so frustrated by GWB that they cannot think straight. More blind rage that isn't going to solve anything by electing some stanger who looks good and sounds good. The Harold Hill who's selling the town band instruments and uniforms. Mindboggling really.

Democratic blind rage gave us Gore, who Democrats didn't even like. Gore was shoved out front to lead the Dem parade. But the problem was no one voted for him, they voted against Bush. Likewise in 2004, they voted against Bush instead of for Kerry.

And now in 2008, they're completely throwing caution to the wind as a vote against Bush by voting for some smooth guy who has basically the same dreams as Marx, Lenin, and Mao, and a laundry list of socialist/communist/racist mentors (who saw fit to dump after they caused him a problem).

Instead of this whole, "we're going to take back" the White House, Democrats are actually taking it and giving it to a guy who is in my opinion is going to completely deconstruct the concept of what America is and what it stands for (which adminttedly is muddled these days).

I hope it all works out. Unlike most democrats I know and read about, I don't want the US to suffer so I can say "I told you so," etc. But I do think Obama is in for a whole lot of trouble when he takes office. There are so many parties with so many differing agendas, who see Obama as a "blank slate" that can champion their cause. He'll spend most of his time bogged down in deciding which issues need addressing. It's going to be chaotic and could be a disaster if not handled properly.

And then there will come the inevitable letdown. I mean, the guy is a god as far as many people are concerned. The disillusion will hurt.

The great Disenchantment... as Dr. Smith says, "Oh the pain, the pain!"