What the hell is wrong with these people?

AIG ignited fresh outrage over the weekend with news that it's making $165 million in bonus payments to executives on Sunday, most of them in the unit that sold risky financial contracts that caused huge losses for AIG.

The Fed chief on Sunday's broadcast repeated his ire over the AIG bailout, saying that over the past 18 months, that was the case that angered him the most. He says he "slammed the phone more than a few times on discussing AIG." - Jeannie Aversa, AP Economics Writer

I mean, really!

Perhaps it's no surprise then: apparently, a lot of the business that AIG did was with European banks (see below). The Economist should do the stats for cocaine use of the bailout-banks. At least the U.S. is still #1 at something.

More from the "bogus 'war on the wealthy' storyline."

Excuse the excessive borrowing, but this budget is too important... If you care about reality and stuff. Again, from Media Matters:

The media's tax fraud

by Jamison Foser

Last week, President Obama unveiled a budget outline that extends the Bush tax cuts for all but the top two percent of taxpayers and makes permanent a tax credit of up to $800 for low- and middle-income workers that was included in the recent stimulus package, among other tax cuts.

On the other hand, individual taxpayers with taxable income above $200,000 ($250,000 for families) per year would pay more in taxes under Obama's plan, under which the tax rates paid on income in the top brackets would revert to their levels under President Clinton in the 1990s -- from 33 and 35 percent to 36 and 39.6 percent. Slate.com's Daniel Gross estimates that for someone with $350,000 in income, this will amount to about $1,500 a year in increased taxes...

If the expiration, on schedule, of tax cuts that were always scheduled to expire is described as a policy of raising taxes, that makes a mockery of the entire tax policy debate of the past decade. It rigs tax debates in favor of Republicans, who find it easier to argue for tax cuts for the wealthy if they can argue that the cuts won't cost very much -- by making them "temporary" -- but who then get to argue that the scheduled expiration that they included in order to make the cuts look affordable would constitute a tax increase. The GOP gets to have it both ways, describing tax cuts as temporary when it helps them, and pretending they were intended to be permanent when it helps them. It's no great surprise Republicans want to have it both ways -- but that doesn't mean the media should go along.

The actual change the Obama proposal makes to the Bush tax rates is making permanent the cuts for those who make less than $200,000. The proposal doesn't actually increase income tax rates for anyone compared to current law, and it reduces them for the vast majority of taxpayers. Yet the "increase" -- mandated by a law signed by President Bush, and scheduled to occur for nearly a decade -- has gotten all the attention, while the cuts have largely escaped notice from the major media...

You have to wonder how media stars like Blitzer and Gibson have lost touch with their viewers so badly that they think $200,000 incomes are typical.

Charlie Gibson reportedly makes $8 million a year and is paid less than his counterparts at CBS and NBC.

Might that have something to do with his lack of perspective? How could it not?

How could it not, indeed.

Journalists are doing what they can do.

With a shrug and a smirk, the woman from the LA Times response to criticism of the business media on News Hour, PBS. Great defense. Though some don't think that's enough.

Thanks, in large part to Jon Stewart, the world today (finally?) has been talking about what role the business media play in the economy and to what extent are they culpable for the mess we're in.

The breathtaking interview (more like debate... really a bitch slap) last night with Jim Cramer and Jon Stewart on the Daily Show was one of the peak moments so far in the aftermath of this money-mire. You have to give Cramer credit for diving head long into the home turf of a pissed-off Jon Stewart.

Of course, Jimmy was no match for Jon. But what got me was the attitude of disgust with which Stewart seemed possessed: he wasn't just showing Cramer as a fool, all too easy for the master, but chided him like a child who refuses to take serious his irresponsibility and lacks the gravitas of the situation.

"It's not a fucking game!"

"They burned the fucking house down, then walked away rich."

"This song ain't about you."

I haven't seen Stewart like this since after 9-11, when he broke out of his normal role (a good one to start) and helped to make TV something more than entertainment or advertising or even education. He was directly linked to us, the audience--at least here, in NY. He was living in the same world, with the same things going on around him. He didn't laugh because we weren't. He got choked up because we did, too. He was confused and scared and pissed--kind of like he was last night--and so we're we.

Enemies at the Gate

Limbaugh said this week that White House officials are "targeting" him because "they need a demon to distract and divert from what their agenda is." He said Obama aides are "going after private citizens" in a manner reminiscent of Richard M. Nixon's "enemies list." He also challenged the president to a debate on his show.

- Howard Kurtz, Washington Post

Oh lord, here we go with the "agenda" again. Though not as damning as "conspiracy," the word does bring up images of sneaky, back-door, misrepresented--and that's the problem (for the right), there is no subterfuge: Obama was actually voted in to do almost exactly what he's doing; for the big ticket items like the economy, health care, and Iraq, anyway.

If, other than the current credit crisis, the long-term economic time-bomb ticking is health care, and that finally there is a real want (seems to be) for a system with everyone covered, how doesn't it make sense to attack the two together? There's no other way, they're inextricable.

Obama's inheritance is two-fold: one of incompetence, the other negligence; a failing economic system and an inefficient and morally outdated health care system. So, sure, there's an agenda. It's called "Clean Up the Mess." And, Rush, you'd better hope it works--or yours will be one of the first gated compounds overrun by the evicted, out of work and hungry.

Besides, the Administration doesn't need to target you: you're a walking, screaming bulls-eye. They're not in need of a demon; you have been giving them (the left) one for some time now.

To compare Obama to Nixon is like... well, it's just plain stupid. If you want to make the point that Rahm came after you with barred teeth, the Tricky Dick-allusion is bunk--who doesn't have an enemies list? You? Of course you do.

And one name does not an "enemies list" make.

Really, how is this coming after you? Saying that you're now the voice of the right? Wasn't that already the case for years? Maybe I've just been overly cynical before now.

Anyway, isn't that what you want to hear, Rush? Aren't you pleased? I bet you do, and know you are.

Class Matters

The paragraphs below are from one of the regular emails I receive from Media Matters, a great watchdog organization of elite media and the entrenched political and business class interests they usually speak to and for.

Yes, they are left-leaning--unapologetically so. They contend that, despite the view to the contrary of a few overweight and Irish right-wing blowhards and their hater-audiences, the news media is for the most part a mouth piece for conservative values and perspective.

---

"Warren Buffett, who knows a thing or two about wealth, has noted that because of the way the tax code is structured, he effectively pays taxes at a lower rate than the secretaries who work for him, concluding: "There's class warfare, all right. But it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

One reason they're winning is that the news media do not use the loaded phrases "class warfare" and "redistribution of wealth" to describe things like the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, or the home mortgage deduction (which favors those who are wealthy enough to buy homes over those who are not) or countless other policies that benefit wealthier Americans at the expense of those who are less fortunate. Instead, the media pretend this is a one-sided war -- as though the wealthy are being unfairly assaulted by an army of bullying waitresses and janitors and farmers and teachers.

Another reason is articles like [the] Washington Post front-pager. The Post tells us in paragraph one that Obama plans to raise taxes on the wealthy and waits until paragraph 18 to reveal that he plans to make permanent a tax credit for low- and middle-income workers. A tax increase that applies to almost nobody -- that leads the article. A tax credit that applies to much of the nation's workforce? Buried 18 paragraphs in."

New favorite thing

It's the ocean, man.

Fallen Fallon

Just finished watching the new Jimmy Fallon show. I feel dirty.

I only vaguely remember hearing something about this integrated-marketing talk show model that Fallon was supposed to be proffering up. I asked, aghast, how would that even work? I don't know, the girl who works in marketing admitted.

I don't know who the hell these people, this guy, think they are? I do know that Binaca now has an "eco-friendly" container and you can record a voice mail greeting on the iPhone (what phone can't?) and then play it back for all your friends to hear it, even though ostensibly they would have just heard you leave it and wouldn't need to again, but according to Fallon this feature, no doubt an "App" (older post) or something, "is really" cool."

What disturbs almost more, The Roots are his house band. I mean, make that money and all, but wtf? Shame, Questlove, shame.

Geitner opens up to Charlie

Increased taxes on top 5%: modest, 2001 size, so that gains more broadly shared--like the productive 90's.

Responsible budget. council of economic advisers, independent. careful.

Slowly: recovery period, starting this year.

Automobiles. let'em go bankrupt? half not their fault. not tenable.

Responsibility and obligation, he feels, to fix this (after all he was head of the federal reserve up here while this was all going to hell). yet they were aggressive. hm.

Capitalism's already drastically different. a cleaning out of excesses, looking forward; rules enforced fairly.

the Will to do. acting, action, keep at it.

---

Charlie was somber tonight.

New New Deal?

Apt, says Paul Krugman.
New-WPA needed, as well, for infrastructure and jobs.

FDR didn't do enough, pulled back to soon.
They had WWII, does that make our wars helpful?

Fantasy of "national unity after the election" would have had a stimulus plan sooner.
Internet,
electrical grid,
weatherproofing and greening,
public transit,
but payroll tax?

Yeah,
yeah whatever.
When pointed out
the contradiction that
while its rational to save,
we need to spend our way out.

Japan in the 90's? An FDR-sinner. Wasn't a depression, but could have.

Courage. We have nothing to fear but fear of infrastructure spending:

Rail,
energy conversation,
broadband initiative,
health care--medical records electrified.

Your Daily Dose

My apologies, for the lack thereof, on this thing. In recompense, here's a link to Flavorpill--the New York one, anyway. I recommend you sign up for the newsletter, for your respective city if available, which gives you both a weekly and Daily Dose for not only local activities, events and cultura but also happenings and goodness all over the place. I have found many a good show or book or band or movie, etc. form these folks. As well, the emails are always adorned with cool art, like Zak Smith above.

The Apocolypse in Recession (or: Cleavage for Al Qaeda)

Paris Hilton gets bumped to the Late Late Show, no longer of the just-Late Show, where she had been relegated to after briefly putting-out as prime-time queen.

Nobody's laughing or really listening. And instead of simply asking her to prattle on about here lame existence, the usual legitimization, Colin Ferguson (I'm starting to like him) cuts her off and makes fun of the aging rapidly (Christ, she's only 21 but looks like 40) vapidness in front of him; half-pissed just for having to share a stage with her.

...And who doesn't like cleavage? he posited.
Yeah, who doesn't like cleavage? she agreed.
--Al Qaeda doesn't like cleavage, he contested.
(laugh)
That's who!
(laugh)
They're trying to take our cleavage away!
(laugh)
And that's no good.
Uh-uh! she concurs.

"Peggy, that boy ain't right." -Hank Hill, from King of the Hill

Figuring out how best to assess--alright, brutalize--the boy-wonder from down under, Bobby Jindal, I found my self simply shaking my head in bewilderment; much like the fictional cartoon character quoted above talking about his son Bobby (seen above).

As for Jindal, the odd mix of brown face and good 'ol boy voice, smothered in the down home temperament of George W., made for the uneasy digestion of my dinner, to say the least.

Perhaps not so coincidentally, Jindal admits to changing his name--no surprise there--to Bobby because of another, albeit corporal, character from the TV show, The Brady Bunch. Any wonder whether or not Jindal would have been voted in sans Bobby? Me thinks not.

(Hm, makes you wonder if Barack should have changed his name? What would it have been? Tommy Obama? Kinda rolls of the tongue, no?)

Admittedly, I feel like I missed the boat on this guy--sorry folks. I had just recently decided how much I hate this guy--one of two new-brown-hopes for the Republican Party--when he goes and self-destructs before I had a clean shot at him. I mean, jeez, what's the point now? It's not as fun to kick a person when they're down. Well, not as fun. So, lets, shall we?

If you've watched any news in the last week, you'd be aware of the slow-speaking, seemingly, perpetually sweaty-palmed, pre-adolescent voiced governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal. Much like his fellow douche-bag from the north, who came from relative anonymity to "revitalize" the GOP in the presidential election, his bark turned out to be equally as flaccid as his bite. And like Sarah Palin before him, it didn't take long for the loud, proud swaggering of this good 'ol fashioned American to fizzle into the same old individualist, government-hating conservatism.

And though the guy seems like he might be a few IQ points higher than his female comrade (and Bush Jr. as well), he still speaks out of the same half-smirk, and with the same condescending, pedantic-while-still-trying-to-be-friends tone, rife with snarky jingoism, of his predecessor. Like: I don't really blame for listening to some guy named Hussein and wanting to believe him because you're sooo stupid; but now I'm going to tell you why he's full of shit and why I'm right.

It's to be expected that some Republican would have to rebut anything and everything that the President (that's still so cool to write) said, even if the suggestion was that the sky is blue and the grass is green. "The man must be color blind!" no doubt would be barked from the ill-fitted suit of some politico. And, indeed, that's just what happened.

Only, what usually comes next, didn't. Instead of the partisan seesaw of point/counterpoint about who was more effective or "won" spilling over into the media and blog-world, what's surprising is the evisceration, by even Fox News and the like, of his response to Obama's speech to Congress last week. He's been getting it at both ends, so to speak.

Of course, from a feckless media, focused on the drama of the political tennis match rather than content of these types of things, coverage was utterly devoid of any political analysis of Obama's speech or Jindal's rebuttal, other than the latter's image creation ala Regan-retread.

And here I was thinking there'd be no one to kick around for awhile.

But thankfully the GOP is always quick to proffer up some born-again, intelligent design-believing, anti-abortion/pro-death penalty (every life is sacred, huh?) moralist that appeals, more and more exclusively, to older white people of non-urban areas.

A slogan during an election run for Jindal was "Bubbas for Bobby." This ain't your (my) Jewish bubba, either. There's a 60 Minutes interview with Jindal and his wife in which they said they consider themselves non-Indian and tried to downplay their ethnicity. As well, he converted to Christianity from his family's Hindu background. (Wonder if the Bubbas would've accepted Jindal if his conversion was from Islam, which also is heavily represented in his parent's native India.)

But what my real ire is reserved for: the governor of Louisiana saying that a) the lesson from Katrina is that big government sucks (I can't even deal with how fucked this is in this post) and b) although he is philosophically opposed to President Obama's Stimulus plan (including the tax increase of less than 5% for only 5% of the country; really only done effectively by the expiring Bush II's tax cuts, bringing the rich back to Regan-era levels), he plans on taking almost all the money allotted to his state--all except additional unemployment benefits.

For the many thousands of newly out of work people, at no fault of their own, in his state, Jindal is unwilling to help them in this supposed economic crisis because that violates his other ideological relic from Economics 101. (Dick.) Namely, that unemployment benefits decrease the incentive to find new work, or so the theory goes. You know, much like the proverbial, Pavlovian dog. Only I don't feel that we're dogs. What we have to come to realize is that this is exactly what the neo-liberal economist thinks of human decision making.

It's as if Jindal, and others (but I'll get to them another time), went to the first class or read the first few chapters of a freshman Econ class, and then stopped (indeed, there's no lacking of these scratch-the-surface intellectuals on the left too; like only reading Marx's The Communist Manifesto and not Capital).

I have a decent perspective on this as I am currently taking a freshman Econ class, but, I've already gotten farther than that. And, although I can prove to you with graphs and curves and calculus (oh my!) why, in the perfect world of the free-market economy, the minimum-wage is actually bad for workers--that doesn't make it so in our not-so-perfect world.

Of course, to hear Jindal speak, it sounds as if he's hardly taking anything from the stimulus bill, you know, because it's sooo bad for the country. But the fact is, it will be more like + 97% what's offered to the state. Hypocritical dick.