so they did

if they want more stuff from government, tell them to go vote for the other guy

mitt romney

july 11, 2012

so who's my pick for president?

i think i'm gonna write in andrew jackson.

why, you ask?  consider:

during his first term in office, he watched with increasing disgust as the second bank of the united states (the federal reserve of its day) and its member banks brazenly engaged in the sorta shenanigans in which bankers unfettered by morality and/or oversight have engaged since time immemorial.

when it came time to renew its charter, a rubber-stamp congress sent him a bill for his signature approving same, and he sent it back to 'em with a big, fat veto on it, along with a message which read, in part,

It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. 

[E]very man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society-the farmers, mechanics, and laborers-who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. 

There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles.

the bankers, panicked by the prospect of their gravy train disappearing round the bend, decided to create a little panic of their own, hoping the resulting financial chaos would be blamed on the president, and he would have no choice but to enlist their aid to fix the mess that they themselves had created.  in response to their "see?  we're too big to fail" extortion attempt, he brought 'em all together, looked 'em in the eye and, as the minutes of that meeting reflect, uttered the following words:

Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country.  

When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. 

You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out.

now, that, ladies and gentlemen, is my idea of a president.

*     *     *     *     *

late last week, the obama justice department announced that, after an extensive investigation, it had concluded that there was insufficient evidence to justify pursuing criminal charges agains any executive of goldman sachs for fraud or other wrongdoing in the events leading up to the financial crisis of 2008 and beyond--this in spite of the fact that, even though said bank had clearly issued liar loans through its subsidiaries, packaged those loans and sold the resulting junk-level mortgage-backed securities to its institutional clients as AAA even as it was secretly and massively betting against them, and its CEO had demonstrably lied to congress about same.

the investigation, curiously, apparently didn't involve a grand jury, special prosecutor or, for that matter, any actual investigators.

and now, it looks like the MF global CEO (and top obama bundler) jon corzine will escape prosecution for raiding his customer accounts of over $1 billion when his idiotic all-in bet on eurobonds went south, thus robbing thousands of hapless and innocent farmers, ranchers and other everyday types of their life savings and working capital, much of which may never be recovered.  turns out it was just one of those things that happens sometimes, or so say investigators, who are now turning their guns on a low-level MF global sacrificial lambemployee who should've caught the "mistake".

a relieved mr. corzine is said to be busy with preparations to restore his good name which has been unjustly tarnished, and--wait for it--launch a new hedge fund.

*     *     *     *     *

lest any of you think that i've been bagging excessively on the obama administration lately, make no mistake--i have no illusions that a romney administration would behave any differently; after all, they're all dependent on the same money.

and unless and until that money is removed from the political arena, all we have to look forward to is more of the same--which is why mkf has pretty much opted out.  the rest of you bitches may be content to dumb down your expectations and support these craven, bought-and-paid-for motherfuckers, but i never will again.

revenge really is a dish best served cold, ain't it?

I don't think that we ought to get into the position where we say "This is bad work. This is good work." The man who has been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold.

oh, bill, bill, bill.

you timed it perfectly:  tail-end of a hellish week for The One, in which the stock market and economic indicators tanked, his opponent not only clinched his party's nomination but came out swinging at what should've been his administration's teapot dome, and, despite his handlers' best smear efforts, the differences between his own record of public-sector failure and said opponent's "sterling business career" couldn't be more blazingly apparent.

or so i thought, until you opened your mouth on CNN yesterday and put the icing on the cake.

and the beauty part?  later, you can be all, like, "what--what'd i say?"

welcome back, baby--i've missed you.

[i know i said i was gonna stay outta this one, but when something this rich comes along, it's just too irresistible to pass up.]

postcards from the boom

.

came across the following email exchange tonight while looking for something else from that year, and it instantly took me back to those lazy, hazy, crazy days of what turned out to be the height of the california real-estate insanity:

From: [noblesavage]

To: [mkf]

Date:  Sat, 13 Aug 2005 13:28:52 -0700

Subject: Got the mail today...

...and there was a postcard from a realtor offering an 850 square foot house on Betty Way for $825,000.  I was shocked.  I went online and here it is for only $799K.  Here it is:

[link to listing]

Then I saw this 1 Bedroom 1 Bath condo on Kings Road across from Gelson's for $419K:

[link to listing]

I'm just wondering when the bubble is going to burst and just how ugly it is going to get. 

Happy Saturday.

Rob

----------------

my reply:

i've been clinching my sphincter in anticipation of the coming crash for so long that i've got the asshole of a 12-year-old again, rob. hell, the little house on portola that i (thought i) sold at the top of the market has appreciated at least $150,000 since we closed. 

i've given up prognosticating. our entire economy is a house of cards waiting to collapse; the idiot masses simply don't know it yet. america is, metaphorically, wile e. coyote pedaling madly in mid-air, right before he realizes that he's just run off the cliff.....

*     *     *     *     *

what's the point of this post, you ask?  the point is, if even way back in 2005 a couple shmoes like noblesavage and myself knew where that runaway train was headed, is it really possible that all the geniuses in new york and washington completely missed what we saw so clearly?

way i've always figured it, there are two possibilities, and only two: either some or all of them were (a) so collectively and individually stupid, greedy and short-sighted that yeah, they did miss it; and/or (b) so irredeemably, recklessly evil that they totally saw the inevitable outcome of their machinations and simply didn't care, because they knew they'd get theirs.

either way, every day that anybody who was in a position of fiscal or elective power in america on the august day on which the above email exchange occurred and didn't sound the alarm (i.e., almost all of 'em) is one day too many for this country boy.

which means, among other things, that i literally can't wait to watch batshit-crazy sharron angle mop the nevada desert with the dried-out husk of harry reid come election day.

i'll be in the booth on tuesday, and i don't plan to vote for a single incumbent.  how about you?

why i hate politicians

.
[yet another in a never-ending series]



ok, so lemme make sure i have this right: today, our glorious secretary of state hillary clinton lays back and spreads her legs for mexico by agreeing with its government's contention that the out-of-control drug violence spewing from their country across our border is at least half the fault of the united states, due to (1) our "insatiable" demand for illegal drugs, and--this one i especially love--(2) our inability to stop weapons from being smuggled into mexico.

yeah.

you may or may not recall (but i certainly do) that the last time we heard from hillary on the issue of mexico was back in 2006 when, as senator, she not only fought the border-fence bill but actively pushed for "comprehensive immigration reform" (i.e., open borders) in an attempt to appease those self-same mexican government officials who were screaming back then that all of our bothersome law-enforcement at the border was impinging upon their citizens' god-given rights to enter and leave our country whenever and wherever the fuck they saw fit.

so i guess what hillary and mexico are now telling us is that the bad, bad united states must find a way to stop all the guns and drugs from indiscriminately going back and forth, while allowing the human traffic to continue unmolested. neat trick, huh?

and this story was, naturally, reported upon by the mainstream press without the slightest trace of irony, let alone scrutiny.

you know, i expect this kind of having-it-both-ways bullshit from corrupt, third-world countries that are circling the drain, but surely not from a high-level representative of the united sta--

oh, wait--for a second, i forgot.

you really wanna win in november, johnny boy?

think for a minute, my babies--what if you were john mccain, you were down in the polls, and you were suddenly presented with a god-given magic issue whose time had finally come--one which would:

• grab everybody's attention
• present a seeming answer to a seemingly intractable problem
• suck in all those republicans who up 'til now wouldn't trust you as far at they could throw you
• resonate with every middle-american voter regardless of political stripe
• positively differentiate you from obama
• reduce the democrats to impotent, sputtering rage
• provide a coattail upon which every republican congressman or senator in a shaky district could coast their way to re-election
• take nothing more than sufficient cojones to put it out there and run with it.

what, pray tell, could this magic issue possibly be?

think about it for a few minutes, and because you're my readers and are therefore smart, it'll probably come to you--but if not, tune in tomorrow (or the next day or the day after that--hell, you know me), and i'll happily tell you.

ok, time to rag on some white people

first, arnold schwarzenegger.

this hypocritical gasbag global-warming visionary was on leno last night going on and on and on about his tireless efforts to lead not only california but the nation into a new age of conservation awareness--seriously, he spent virtually his entire segment on this topic. what he failed to mention (nor, of course, did leno bring up) was the fact that, while he's urging all of us to buy fuel-efficient cars and to carpool, he chooses to make his daily commute all by himself.

on his jet.

yes, folks, since no one in their right minds could possibly expect maria and the kids to give up life in brentwood, our governor commutes from los angeles to sacramento and back every single working day via private jet--but don't worry, he buys "carbon offsets," so that makes it all ok, right?

yeah, right. i swear to god, these global-warming hypocrites just make me wanna claw my brain outta my skull everytime i see one of 'em blathering on about "sacrifice" and "saving the planet." i mean, i can only dream of ever having as lavish a carbon footprint as fucking al gore with his mansion with its $1,500-per-month utility bills (yeah, yeah, he installed some solar panels when news of his excess hit the wires--big fuckin deal).

my point is, if even the most pseudo-passionate of global-warming proponents aren't willing to walk their talk, how can they ever expect joe everyman to do it? seriously--from now on, unless you're ed begley who pedals a stationery bike for half an hour each morning in order to generate sufficient electricity to make his breakfast toast, then get outta my face already about doing my part to combat global fucking warming. because i can almost guarantee you that anybody on tv wagging their finger at me to conserve is using at least 10x our fragile planet's resources that i am.


and now, on to george w. bush

so the other day i see this headline: "white house admits fault on 'mission accomplished banner''

and i think, "well, it's about time--it's not a big one, but at least these assholes are gonna finally own up to something."

but no, we're talking about the bush administration.

what they're "admitting" is that, yeah, they did pay for the banner--but they're still insisting that

". . . the 'Mission Accomplished' phrase referred to the carrier's crew completing its 10-month mission, not the military completing its mission in Iraq.

"President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said 'mission accomplished' for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission," White House press secretary Dana Perino said Wednesday.

remember--it took 'em five years to come up with this lame-ass bullshit. up to now, of course, they had denied any involvement in the banner, and now they're telling us they whipped it up and posed bush strategically in front of it after having him symbolically land on the carrier while posing as an actual fighting man in order to congratulate the carrier crew on the completion of its mission? i mean, good god, how stupid do they really think people are?

never mind--that was a stupid question.

thanks, adam--i needed something to smile about this weekend

way to go dems!

text
once again snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, it would seem. if this ruinous primary season has taught you nothing else, i hope it's that you have to seriously look at a winner-take-all primary system like that of the republicans, and dispense with the apportioned-delegates/superdelegates nonsense that brought you to this sorry place--and quite possibly a continuation of the last eight disastrous years for this country.

why i'm an independent

so what finally converted me from career lurker and commenter to actual blogger--even if only for one entry--was a post by scott over at bill in exile featuring atrios' blanket dismissal of political independents as not only being arrogant and stupid, but having "little understanding of how politics works."

i make it a point to read lots of stuff that conflicts with my particular world view and take almost none of it personally, but for some reason this facile characterization of independents pissed me off in a way that i haven't been pissed off in a while and i still can't figure out exactly why--maybe because i'm far from stupid, but more likely it's because the very fact that i have studied politics--and the pitfalls of concentrating unchecked power in the hands of any one group (or in this case, two)--is what made me an independent in the first place.

see, knowing what i know and seeing what i've seen, i'm all about the checks and the balances--and fuck the goddam parties.

when i was a kid i had to memorize this longfellow poem, and for some reason the old boy's metaphor for america--those first five lines--struck a chord with me. i like thinking of our country as this great ship of state making its way through perilous straits--veer too far to starboard and we'll break up on the rocks of police-state fascism; too far to port, we'll wash up on the sands of welfare-state socialism. but steer a rational middle course, and maybe we--and the world hanging breathless on our fate--will come through it all ok.

problem is, things have devolved to the point where there is no middle course for america anymore--now we've got two diametrically opposed crews yanking the helm wildly back and forth as they fight for control, to the point where it's pretty much inevitable we're gonna run aground; only questions in my mind are (a) on which shore we're gonna end up, and (b) how soon it'll happen.

so, given that context--and being handicapped as i am by my stupid, arrogant babe-in-the-woods independence--i find myself faced with the following killer dilemma come this november:

since, on the one hand, democrats will probably control not just one but both houses of congress for the foreseeable, how can i support a democrat for president, knowing as i do that after eight years of unchecked liberalism (especially with this choice of candidates) we'll end up with a bloated, initiative-killing, tax-sucking welfare/nanny state the likes of which will make johnson's great society look like rugged frontier individualism by comparison?

on the other hand--even given my conviction that maintaining tension between the executive and legislative branches is essential--how can i support a republican for president, knowing as i do the damage to the already-skewed judicial branch (and what's left of our civil liberties) that eight more years of conservative federal-level district, appellate and supreme court appointments would do?

so i'm torn.

now, i know--because i read their blogs--that there are lots of bright, articulate people out there who never lose a minute's sleep agonizing over shit like this, resting securely as they do in the knowledge that their party is the true champion of the american way--and i smile grimly to myself because the observable reality is so goddam different.

and i'm reminded that, long before eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex, a much earlier president (the first one, actually) on his way out the door warned us about getting locked into a two-party system--and damned if he didn't turn out to be right.

because it's clear to me (based on all kinds of hard, objective evidence i'll be happy to spew out if anybody asks) that the two main political parties of this country no longer give a rat's ass about the little people who keep them in power; mainly because, thanks to the straight-party-ticket mentality of which atrios and scott are so seemingly fond, they no longer have to. because when it comes right down to it, what are the minorities/middle class/union members/small-business owners/gays/seniors/feminists/evangelicals gonna do when their beloved party betrays their perceived interests--vote for the other side?

the answer, of course, is hell no--and both the dems and the gop know it. they encourage polarization--hell, they feed it--and laugh all the way to the polls, knowing that as long as they give their constituents the illusion of choice among various candidates they'll have their respective sheep pretty much tagged and penned, leaving them free to concentrate on their real priorities: increasing their power, entrenching their self-serving ideology and bartering their votes for special-interest campaign money.

tell you the truth, i wish there were more real american independents--voters ready and willing to say "fuck you--i'll either stay at home come election day or vote for the other side just to spite you" when their party screws them (or, even better, my political wet dream: a viable socially-progressive, fiscally-responsible third party--not that that's ever gonna happen, of course).

so, scott and atrios, that's my take on why there are so many independents out there--it's because lots of us know that, as somebody once said, "determining whether the republicans or democrats are best suited to run america is pretty much like trying to decide whether the gambinos or corleones should run las vegas."

i only wish i'd said it first.

* * * * *

[and yeah, i've left iraq outta the above deliberations for the following two very simple reasons: (1) fuck iraq--if the republicans win and we stay we're fucked, and if the democrats win and we bail we're equally fucked, only in a different hole; and (2) being a new blogger and all, i can only handle one sophie's choice per post, sorry.]