I would definitely hang out with Biden's daughter, even if we weren't doing cocaine.

Because she seems pretty cool, and, well, she's totally hot. We wouldn't even have to do any blow: she's hot. I mean, if Michael Phelps happen to drop buy with some killer stuff, that's one thing. But me and her, we'd have our own thang goin' on--no need for anything illegal. Sure, a few drinks, maybe a Car Bomb or two. She's at least part Irish, right?

In case you haven't heard, someone is trying to peddle a video to the tabloids of people snorting cocaine. We care because, apparently, one of the folks is V.P. Joe Biden's daughter, Ashley.

So, does it matter if it's really her? Of course--this kind of thing (sex, drugs, etc.) usually does. But for no more than our attention span for soft-core-poli-porn fantasies. I hope it was her, just so Biden might come off his usually-high horse about the "drug war" in this country.

But, then again, if it helps obscure further the role her father has played in their state's credit-card-haven, then maybe not. This is part of the "problem with capitalism," usury-gone-wild, that hasn't been addressed, (hopefully just not) yet. Talk about sub-prime. But unlike even a bad mortgage, there's not any equity behind the debt.

Some of the best advice I ever received, definitely the best from high school, was to avoid not only credit cards themselves--this was the mid-90's when dogs and college students started receiving competing company's cards in the mail everyday--but credit as an idea. The principle of owning without rescind comes from cash on the barrel-head.

The administration is talking tough on the world stage about lax banking regulation in Europe and elsewhere, "tax-havens" for U.S. corporations and individuals, which is great, don't get me wrong. But how about states in this country, like Biden's home state, Delaware, that let credit card company's have free reign-ge? What's good for the chicken, the state's other main output, isn't necessarily so for the debtor-industry. Care to guess who has been Biden's largest campaign contributor since the 80's? Yep.

(Whoever guesses the name of the many-time-elected Mayor of a major U.S. city, in the picture below smoking crack with a whore, wins a prize.)

Really, the only reason I wrote this post is so that I could put up the following Biden family photo. Dickie or ascot? You be the judge.

An epilogue for the down-twodden

From flavorpill.com Chi-town.

Everyone's a-Twitter these days — particularly politicians. President Obama's Twitter updates have been sporadic since the campaign ended, but John McCain reliably sends out curmudgeonly examples of "pork-barrel" spending. Claire McCaskill tweets her votes, as well as March Madness play-by-plays, and the Prime Minister of Britain even tweets from Downing Street. In Chicago, from 1st Ward Alderman Manny Flores to Cook County Commissioner Tony Peraica, local pols are slowly boarding the Twitterwagon. (Petition here for Senators Durbin and Burris to get with the program.) But I'm unconvinced that Twittering Congressmen really increase transparency and accountability for their constituents. So far, I think the most useful Chi-town government Twitter feed isn't from a news outlet or an elected official at all: it's that of sandwich-and-potato-pancake heaven Manny's Deli, the preferred cafeteria of local political figures, firefighters, and the fuzz. The folks at Manny's are tweeting their specials — for the kind of pork (and beef) spending the carnivores among us can actually support.

- Audrey Mast, Managing Editor

Let it die, man, let it die.

So much for Freedom

With the intent of making the building more marketable, developers of the space that used to be the Twin Towers have decided to "re-brand" the previously named Freedom Tower to simply, One World Trade Center. Apparently, this is in response to a Chinese company's intent to lease five floors of the un-built building. Ha. Freedom, my ass.

I guess I was right, an update.

Not too long ago, I wrote a post titled "Enemies at the Gates." In it I warned the robust loud-mouth, and his ilk, not to be too quick to hope for the worst just to have your "principles" (I can't stress those scare-quotes enough, here, people) be proven right:
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.

Okay, so I wasn't completely right--the "gates" were actually in Connecticut. And they weren't Rush's (damn). But a bunch of folks in buses did go to AIG executive's houses and made a scene. So that's pretty rad. Unfortunately, there were more reporters there than protesters. Or maybe not unfortunate: who'd you have standing in your front yard, peaceful protesters or the news media? Exactly.

(Thanks to The Economist for the above KAL cartoon of an AIG-angry mob.)

Greed isn't good. (or: The Ayn Rand/Mike Boolmberg non-exclusivity)

So says Collin Ferguson about Bernie Madaoff (see below) debacle, but specifically about the lacking in goodness of greed--despite the claims of Michael Douglas (see above).

In a rare defense of capitalism (of course, I recently gave a equally rare applause to capitalism), late night or otherwise, Ferguson reminded everyone that its guiding principle need not be greed, rather, "the money goes here, goes there," not to be hoarded up by a few. And though at first naive sounding, he's actually right.

In reality, that's exactly what usually happens. That's why trickle-down doesn't work as a stimulus--the rich are the only people that can afford to hoard monies received via tax breaks and not spend it in the economy. Middle and working class folks don't have the same luxury, they must spend.

I barely remember the banking meltdown of the late eighties; Wall St. mishigos and a housing bubble, then as now, was mostly to blame if not totally responsible for the mess. It was probably the first time I thought of a bank other than simply a place to keep money, ostensibly, safe. What I learned is that they weren't completely safe, actually.

I do remember the FDIC, and the little plastic plaques that were stuck up on the cold marble or bullet proof glass--depending on the neighborhood--that stated how individual savings accounts would be covered up to $100, 000. It seemed like a lot of money, at the time, and still does.

Of course, recently, the limit of protection has been increased to $250,000--for the rest of the year, anyway. So, if you have greater than $100, 000 and less than $250, 000, you'd better hope your bank fails by December 31st.

Wow

What great questions the President has been asked tonight:

Why didn't you come out sooner (a whopping couple of days) with your anger at AIG? I like to think about something before I talk about it.

The Homeless? The way the system's set up there's always been homeless. That's what fixing the economy can change. It's not acceptable in this country.

Has the last 64 days been color blind?

Stem cell ethics questions? (Predictably, Fox News) The science leads us.

I solemnly swear never to twitter.

Nor to tweet, to twatter, to be twoad. I promise: this blog is as far as I go.

I suppose, in the face of my last post, this dark side of the tech-force needs to be exposed for the sake of equity.




(Thanks to FREEwilliamsburg.com for the find.)

Well done, competitive markets, well done.

Possibly under the influence of the economics class I'm in, or maybe I'm just starting to feel bad for capitalism, I was thinking how cool my new phone is.

After generations of iterations of phones (really, it's only been about ten years since cell's have taken over--crazy, right?), the fruit of all the R&D by all the different cell phone makers has come to, well, fruition.

We are now at the beginning of a new epoch. In it, everyone, where industrialized, can be connected at all times (towers permitting) to each other and to all the information available, from now on, forever. Indeed, touchscreen phones will be an important part of this process.

Anyway, to the rare applause for capitalism:

It's thanks to all these corporations, trying to get even just a piece if not big ol' chunk of the market for probably the most widespread technology on the planet, that constant innovation and resultant extreme variations in phone technology. Finally, whittled down are all the ideas and designs that didn't work, at least as well, and what was left was the iPhone.

Even non-touchscreen phones, like mine, have gotten pretty cool and, more importantly, user friendly in both hard and soft-ware. Now we essentially carry around internet-connected PC's in our pockets and bags.

So, thanks capitalism.

Only what's good for the cell phone isn't always good for other things, like utilities and health care. For those two and a few others, I'd like to say, no thanks.

(Thanks to Mikila and her sister, the latter of which got banged up along with the poor iPhone above--luckily not nearly as bad. I hate to say it, but it doesn't look good for the phone.)

Kill the Pope!

Or, at least, the Catholic Church. I say, we send the un-manned drones we're using in Afghanistan/Pakistan to Vatican City for some carpet-bombing. I mean, really, what's it going to take?

On his recent trip through the continent of Africa, the Pope, in one spoken sentence, doomed millions to the ravages of HIV/AIDS. How? He said that a) condoms do not prevent the spread of HIV but helps to spread it, and b) (assuming, even if they did work, perhaps?) to use them would be sacrilege. Seriously, who else in the world could not only get away with this, but be applauded as a harbinger of peace and love? My ass. More like death and destruction.

Some months ago, the Pope got into minor trouble for allowing an outspoken Holocaust-revisionist to re-enter the higher ranks of the Church, after being ousted for the unseemliness. At the time, I wondered, like most of the media, how is it one of the most powerful people in the world was so out of touch as to not see this as a public-relations problem. (Well, being the Pope can be sheltering, no doubt. But, c'mon, he's from Germany.) Really, the question was asking how come he didn't get any good advice about the situation.

But, now, I think I know the answer and the more accurate question. The answer to the previous question, is that he, and his minions, don't care. Specifically, the impression of rolling-back earlier attempts at conciliation with Jews, and other "outsiders," (such as some of what came out of the Vatican II Council, in the 1960's, what many today criticize as too liberal and reformed) wasn't a mistake--because that's exactly what they were trying to do.

The better question, then?

Are we really supposed to think that one of the oldest, venerated, respected (ha!), moneyed and powerful institutions in the history of the world made a PR-snafu of this magnitude? As implied by Occam's razor, this simply can't be the case. And I doubt very much it is this time, for Africa, either. Although, perhaps most exasperating is that, as far as I've heard, no one has criticized the Pope this time as much as last.

So, that brings us to an ugly equation, representing the world's sentiment concerning the Pope's actions and words:

The lives of Jews, dead over 60 years > (for those of you math illiterate, are of greater value than) the future dead of Africans alive today... all of which = bullshit.


(The below is a graphic reminder of why the last thing Africa needs right now is this utter crap from some white dude in a silly hat.)

My ongoing belief that people's words belie the morons they are, without much help from others.

Tucker Carlson about the Stewart/Cramer skirmish:

And by the way, where was Jon Stewart when the bubble was swelling? How many shows did he do on the coming financial collapse? Why didn't he warn us?

Stewart's answer invariably is: I'm a comedian. That's not my job. But that's a dodge, and increasingly unsustainable. In fact, Stewart is a player in the national conversation. He seeks to influence politics and policy, and he succeeds. It's time for him to admit that, and be held to the same standards everyone else at his level (including Jim Cramer) lives by.

Wasn't the whole point Stewart was making was all these folks weren't doing their job, i.e., not up to the "standards everyone...(including Jim Cramer) lives by."

Media Matters take on the situation:

In the Seinfeld episode "The Comeback," George Costanza is embarrassed by his inability to think of a response to a co-worker who made fun of his overconsumption of shrimp cocktail by saying, "Hey George, the ocean called. They're running out of shrimp." George later thinks up what he believes is the ideal comeback, "Well, the Jerk Store called, and they're running out of you," and becomes obsessed with gaining an opportunity to use the line, eventually flying to Ohio in order to do so.

George's long-planned zinger falls flat, however, when the co-worker responds, "What's the difference? You're their all-time best seller." Flustered, and again unable to think of a witty response, George blurts out: "Oh yeah? Well I had sex with your wife!" -- a jibe that blows up in his face when he is told the man's wife is in a coma. The episode ends with George driving home, plotting yet another attempt to win the verbal battle.

Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson has been doing his best George Costanza impersonation for the past week, as he lashes out again and again at Jon Stewart, who humiliated Carlson on national television more than four years ago.

Out of Print

Almost 1/4 of people don't care about their city having a print, daily newspaper. I'm surprised it's not higher; I think it is. People are lying. Some just like to say they'll suffer with out print news, to seem academic and cultured, and, who knows, maybe they are.

Mourn the paper, perhaps; miss it, sure. But it's like the death of a centenarian grandmother--she had a good run; her time finally has come. By that measure, the newspaper has already had 4 lifetimes with almost no change at all (color news print for more than advertising has just recently become common). Aren't print news media to blame, as the car companies are, for not only the lack of long term vision, but ignoring the changing world of all things digital as it's gone on around them?

I don't really care, and apparently neither does PBS. Jim Lehrer just got done telling me that now I can go online to watch the News Hour any time I want. Sweet.

Here, in the Empire state, it comes down to this.

When you have various union groups rallying outside City Hall that, for the most part, are there to yell at rich people, as a group, there's a problem. No strangers to giving grief, the unions usually frame their contention as labor to business, not just the rich. For them it's usually not a class issue, only a function of who they have to deal with, capital. Unions exist for the taking to task of capital that either doesn't respect them (the unions) or, more importantly, play within the rules of the past fifty years of labor/management relations.

And so, the rich (however you define that) are just going to have to step up and appease the mob. It would have been nice if it had not come this. But, here we are. Some people, who up till now have pretty much had economic free reign, are going to have to pay a little more.

A little--what many New Yorkers consider to be a fair share, like the group Fair Share Tax Reform, who argue for a "shared sacrifice" in these bad times by those who profited during the good. Government spending and services will be cut this year, how drastically is still in question. Major cuts in jobs and services vital to all those but the rich, doesn't seem very fair to me.

The "little" part is important because politicos tend to think and talk about these things in absolute terms: innovation-starving socialism or entrepreneurial-friendly capitalism, limited (ineffectual) or big (wasteful) government, progressive (distributing wealth downward) or regressive (distributing wealth upward) taxation, and most importantly, chocolate or peanut butter.
Fortunately, much like Reese's Peanut Butter Cups lovers, you don't have to choose; you can have both or something in between. And, despite all the evidence to the contrary by temper-tantrumed TV-personalities and on bickering blogs, most people aren't as polarized either.

Most of the "rich" aren't going to move out of the state, decreasing state budget revenue, because of slight shift in the tax burden--the argument made by the conservative politicians in NY, and abroad, who rail against a so-called "Millionaires Tax," which would go a long way to mind-ing the billions of this year's budget gap.

You're telling me that some multimillionaire, nay billionaire is going to move 50 or 100 or more miles across state lines, away from friends and family and workplace, to save a few thousand dollars? Just because something is the best deal, doesn't mean it's the best deal. For those that do move: screw 'em--is that the kind of people we want as fellow state residents?

That goes for corporations, too. As when lamenting the loss of companies and jobs to lower taxes and wages in other countries, the same ballyhoo is proffered up by states for keeping corporate taxes low and the minimum-wage stagnant--the retention of businesses in the state. (A similar idea of "retention," of the "best and the brightest" by AIG, is being batted down as I write this. Though I don't think the AIG guys are an example of when a company would actually want to keep good employees--obviously they weren't.)

This diaspora-paranoia about businesses exodus from traditional sectors in America's industrial complex, from the 70's onward, isn't without basis in reality. Historically, far from it. But that's for increasingly fewer types of industry, like car manufacturing and textiles. Instead of trying to revive or keep alive old industries, we should incentivize technology (for example, alternative energy r&d) and explore new business models, such as public/private partnerships.

(It's key that historical processes, while true of a particular time and place, are not absolutes binding human behavior, that we must structure our lives and world around. Rather, in a more reciprocal relationship, as we structure society to fit our wants and needs, so too those structures influence and shape us. This is a good thing. It allows room for change and, maybe, progress.

With no disrespect to Mr. Wiesenthal, I think it takes more than simply remembering history to avoid repeating it: a contextual reading of that history is necessary. Too, an unnuanced look backward can engender the repetition of past mistakes, as recurring behavioral patterns can develop within contiguously similar contexts. How can someone be expected to stop fighting back when they keeps getting kicked in the face, even if they know their fight is futile?)

The following paragraph is from Paul Krugman this week, about what school teachers in my home town are doing to help out the school system, their workplace. It's something that's actually crossed my mind recently. But feeling foolish in its simplicity, I hesitated verbalizing the idea:

"The schoolteachers here [Montgomery County, MD], who make on average $67,000 a year, recently voted to voluntarily give up their 5 percent pay raise that was contractually agreed to for next year, saving our school system $89 million — so programs and teachers would not have to be terminated. If public schoolteachers can take one for schoolchildren and fellow teachers, A.I.G. brokers can take one for the country."

That's the sprirt--taking one for the team!

So, take a lesson Wall St.--even if it isn't the financial capital of the world anymore, or even the country, according to Ian Bremmer on WorldFoucs, a PBS program, recently. Still, they are a significant part of our tax base, and, even in these times of dwindling bonuses and expense accounts, and populist rage, they aren't people we have to run out of town.

Besides, when the alternative is a fiscally hand-tied government, with extreme cuts to health care, education, and unemployment, who could live here besides the rich?