If not this, then what?

While on some level, OK, most levels, I agree that rampant consumerism is not the most desirable way to live, I'm often left wondering what that means. What would happen if we all just stopped buying shit? Of course, we're getting a taste of that right now with the a worldwide recession. But what's bad about it? I think from an earth perspective, it's bad. We can't keep growing and consuming indefinitely and not expect the earth to suffer. But I never hear that argument. It's always just a general lament that we buy and buy and buy.

When people criticize our consumer nature (and usually those critics don't have the means to buy buy buy) what are they striving for? It's easy to say, "We buy too much crap as Americans and using consumerism to offset terrorism was really shallow." But what else? What would take consumerisms place? Are we trying to get back to some ideal time? Are we going after some Pol Pot-esque "Year Zero"? Go agrarian? Go "Leave It to Beaver"? Some mystical days of yore?

I think if we can create sustainable consumerism, fine. If we can make cars that use a fraction of the fuel (petroleum or otherwise), if we can do away with plastice or drastically lower its use, stop littering and polluting, recycling, we'd be far better off.

Who wants? Who needs?

Working hard and earning money are no longer acceptable. Americans are on their way to asking of their government: give me-get me-buy me.

And once again, we have a utterly feckless president whose penchant for listening with tin ears is incredible. This time he tells "60 Minutes" that Wall Street execs need to get out of NYC so they can see what it's like in the rest of the country and really see how much money they really make (compared to to apparent peons in East Bumfuck).

Obama is losing it. His leadership "skill" is a myth. He doesn't know what he's doing. People thought Sarah Palin was pandering to the lowest common denomintor in trying to punch up class divide on the campaign trail? Well, if you thought that back then, what do you make of Obama now? Palin's got nothing on Obama when it comes to creating that divide.

In any case, if I were a foreign government (and likely an investor in US debt) I'd be nervous right now. I'd start selling US assets, slowly, and if possible, secretly, because Obama's creating a welfare state at the very least and fomenting civil strife at the very worse; eitheer of which is going to cost a lot of money that we don't have.

The Low Bidders

The ecomic crisis has brought out the worst in Americans. People are going crazy. And we have a Congress and a president bent on fanning the flames of all the rage.

What the hell is happening? What have we become? Whiners, wailers, blamers, panderers, and finger pointers.

Washington leadership is in a shambles. And the one guy who looked like he could solve it all, Obama, turns out to be just as bad as the all the mismanagers in Congress. But wait, he was a Congressman!!! What should we have expected?

Americans, particularly our government, don't seem to realize that in killing a few banks and their executives' reputations and fortunes, they're making the problem worse.

In the immediate term, highly competent people are going to exit AIG faster than you can say "tax all bonuses 90%!" And then who'll be left to manage a giant, complex corporation out of its death spiral? Not the best and the brightest, that's for sure. It makes me think of that quote from Apollo 14 astronaut Alan Shepard's reply when asked what he was thinking as he lifted off, that "every part of this ship was made by the low bidder." That's in essence who will now run AIG and all the other financial institutions that took government money (often forced to take the money), the low bidders, the second tier, the not as talented.

Longer term, what's going to happen to the structure of our financial system? As it stands, it's more like it's going to be just another government agency -- been to a government agencey lately? How about the Social Security office in nearby New Rochelle, NY? The people that work there are like the guys stranded upriver in Apocolypse Now. It's hell! It's run badly and the people who run it are unpleasant, probably aren't allowed any leeway to be creative, and pretty much rubber-stamp shit. This is the model for our banking system.

So in fact the pitch-fork toters are cutting their noses. They are breaking the system. Just yesterday, the House passed a bill taxing 90% of bonuses to anyone who works at a bank that received TARP money. It's a very vindictive bill. And it shows that Congress, the ones who approved of the TARP and who ostensibly bought some of these banks for the US taxpayer, really don't know what the hell they are doing. It's embarrassing. I would say that banks brought it upon themselves. But, they did so at the prompting of the federal government, the same government that's bungling the fix.

Lost in all this is that New York (and Connecticut/New Jersey) have sent trillions of dollars to the rest of the country in the way of tax receipts -- generated mostly by Wall Street Inc. and its support industries, etc. And yet now when Wall Street needs some help, it gets it in the neck instead. What's particularly galling is one of New York's own Senators, Charles Tax Cheat Rangel, leading the charge. What an IDIOT! That would be like Chuck Grassley trashing the corn industry. And what are these places out in middle America going to do when the revenues dry? (Well, they actually won't with the Fed printing money.)

A revoltin' development indeed.

Prestidigitation or Sucker Punch?

A perfect example of Obama's unbelievable hubris in saying one thing and doing another:

Just last week, March 13, I believe, Obama renewed the US's Iran sanctions for another year. Now yesterday, a week later, he "offers an open hand" to the Iranians with a Happy Norouz speech saying he would welcome better relations. What gives? Is Obama's other hand a clenched fist behind his back?

To paraphrase John Marston: His diplomacy is glibbery, there's no hold on't, wench!

Why I oughta....

It seems lately that the US Congress has suddenly awaken to find that the United States is actually a capitalist society, a free market where people make lots of money. And now startling like a mustang, Congress is gasping a collective, "What the...???!!!"

Yes, Congress, there is an economy.

And we out here in that economy pay productive people for their toil. And, yes, there are people who do seem like they get more than they deserve (way more!). But really, you had to have known. Rich mainly, but poor and middle-pikers' taxes, too, actually pay your salaries and sweet-for-life benefits (talk about people getting more than they deserve!).

So please, Congress, don't act like Capt. Renault and act shocked, shocked, shocked! that this was going on. That bonuses are paid on Wall Street, even when the overall entity is not doing well. As a matter of fact, you seem to get more than you deserve. Like freedom from jail, where many of your members should be housed for while (Barney Frank, Chris Dodd?). Or how about when we're in a recession, YOU take a buck a year?

And talk about a diversion! Who cares about $165 million in bonuses at AIG when BILLIONS passed through the company on its way out of the country and to other entities? We should have let the company go and taken the shock. Instead we have populist outrage that Obama I think is losing control of. We need a Chapter 11.5 or something. I don't know bankruptcy law, but there should be some sort of hybrid.

I don't know contract law either, but I do think contracts should be respected. We've already been tinkering with mortgages. Messing with contracts (of those legally paid bonuses at AIG) opens up the proverbial can of worms; although being a can worms itself, Congress may be in familiar territory.

Quote of the day

"The power to tax involves the power to destroy" Chief Justice John Marshall

Finally something positive

Obama has finally done something useful: a plan for small bus businesses -- the true backbone of the US economy. Obama plans to help free up credit for small businesses, a group that has been hit hard by the fallout of tighter credit. Otherwise, I have not really studied the effort, so their may be some unpalatable aspect embedded within -- a nod to unions that they can work their profit-killing magic?

But at least it's something. Jesus h.

Of course, here's some criticism from a WSJ article. As usual the program is geared for old battles the small-biz world and not for its more modern parts:

"The Obama administration's new plan, small-business experts say, should help companies that rely on the SBA for funds and generally qualify for bank loans. But many small businesses never apply for an SBA loan. That's particularly true for high-growth technology companies that may start out with little in the way of tangible assets to use as collateral. Those companies contend that lower taxes, incentives for hiring employees and encouraging private-equity investment are a better way to spur growth."

I am legend: the Jon Stewart Show

Because I lean Republican, I've always had a problem with Jon Stewart. He is funny, though, and I always loved him on TalkSoup.

But when he got his own show, he just became part of the giant left-wing comedy maw. Actually, he's more like its titular (love that word) head with Tina Fey as the queen or co-head... and Will Farrell is the jester...etc.

Now, let me first state that the left has a major head start when it comes to comedy. Let's face it, conservatives are easy marks. And over the years, Hollywood has made them out to be scoundrels.

But liberaldom can be equally mined for funny bits. We can even start with the head liberal, Obama. Can't anyone make fun of the guy's imperious speaking style? Or the fact that he really doesn't follow through on his words? Is profoundly insincere in his actions? I see funny skit all over it, but I guess it's too sacred; one mustn't disparage the Obama.

Anyway, back to Stewart. I remember a couple years ago when he jumped all over Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala and accused them of hurting America, or something like that. I agreed with the guy to an extent that partisan celebuwonks were poisoning things and creating the environment where, by the way, they thrive. But at the same time, Stewart was one to talk. Wasn't he hurting America? Wasn't his brand of cynicism and black and white distillation of topical events down to a laugh just as bad as cynical partisans? I think so. I don't watch his show regularly but I've never seen him take on Barney Frank or other Democrats.

And his recent tirade against CNBC? What is that? He might have a point, but no one could have predicted the current meltdown. I mean, Stewart really should be taking Congress to task, not CNBC. Again, how about a few barbs toward Barney?

And, if I may inject a little conspiracy theory here, do you think this is Viacom coming after fellow Obama-loving NBC Universal for not toeing the line in its love for Obama? I mean, after a few weeks of trashing Obama's plans (which deserve it, they stink), the Obamaphiles are coming to the rescue. And Viacom is sort of threatening its rival, saying, "Hey NBC, there's someone in your house that doesn't seem to be "behind the effort," know what I'm sayin'? Time to clean house."

In a sense, Viacom is eating NBC's lunch.

The masters of the universe

Are now dead

We're now at least 12 years

O'er-fed

'Member the time

The last bubble's pop?

Misery reigned

Jobs'r a crop

Clay feet disolved

N'embers went ash

An'a fix just created

A deeper, darker crash

"Mr. Obama's directive [to review signing statements], released by the White House on Monday afternoon, was the latest rebuke of his predecessor. Earlier in the day, Mr. Obama reversed Mr. Bush's ban on federally funded embryonic stem cell research, and during his first seven weeks in office he has overturned many of Mr. Bush's executive orders."

OK, what's with making a big deal of "the latest rebuke" of Bush's policies? Why is this news? Who cares? Isn't a new president, king, poobah, etc supposed to put his imprimatur on his new office? Wouldn't we expect in 4 or 8 years that whomever replaces the previous person would repudiate, to some degree, his predecessor's policies?

And it seems to me the fact that there is a repudiation of Bush's stem cell research policy misses the point. It's not about whether stem cell research can be conducted, it's about whether we should be using taxpayer dollars to do it. Personally, whatever money can be thrown at research that most people think will help mankind is fine by me. Nor do I mind my tax dollar going toward it. But that's just me.

However, I don't speak for everyone in the US. There may be, and by all accounts are, people who don't feel the same way I do about stem cells, or for that matter, abortion or war. If I'm against war, but for stem cell research, or for war and against stem cell research, is there a difference? Is one cause better than the other? Apparently so. One is correct and the other is not, according to whomever thinks they have the morally correct imperative.

In terms of government spending they're the same. Either we spend it on everything, or spend it on nothing.

[Apparently and unfortunately we're entering a spending on everything phase, most of it unproductive nor self-sustaining.]