just when i thought the hysteria surrounding the cult of obama had reached its peak, here comes gary hart to prove me wrong--if you can get through this without throwing up, you're a better man than me.
i'm sorry, i just don't get humanity sometimes--apparently, looks, charisma and a good line are really all it takes to be anointed leader of the free world. don't get me wrong, i'll probably end up voting for the guy too, but only because i see him as the lesser of two evils--far as i'm concerned, a vote for this untested, untried greenhorn with more than a couple of questionable connections in his background (more about that later) is nothing more or less than a blind roll of the dice.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
oh, and while i'm at it
let's talk about a very interesting thing that barack obaby said recently: he was speculating about where we'd be if we'd taken the two trillion dollars that this idiotic war might ultimately end up costing (i'm not sure exactly where he got that figure but hey, let's go with it) and applied it to all the domestic problems we're facing here at home--and he concluded that for that kinda coin we could fix every highway and bridge in the country, update every school, secure our borders, ports, airports and chemical plants against terrorist attacks and i don't remember what all else.
that got me to thinking, and after pondering for awhile the magnitude of the squandered opportunities of which the good senator spoke, i decided to do a little rough math, as follows:
that's right, folks--if you wanna operate under the assumption that we as americans are individually and collectively responsible for the debts run up by our leaders on our behalf, then if the bill for this sorry war became due and payable tomorrow (a scenario not as far-fetched as you might think, btw), each and every citizen of this country would effectively be on the hook for an amount somewhere in the neighborhood of 7 fucking grand.
now, i've long maintained that if we'd had to conduct this war on a pay-as-you-go basis (or for that matter even had to experience the level of sacrifice endured by americans at home during the second world war), this war would've been a non-starter--and the neocons knew this as well. so they cleverly structured its financing in such a way that payment wouldn't come due for years after they themselves were long gone--i mean, it's easy to generate support for a war among the faithful if it's seemingly not costing 'em anything, right?
the problem is, that's not only an illusion, it's financial malfeasance verging on treason; the bush administration has sold our future down the river for nothing--hell, worse than nothing.
so the next time you come across a war supporter, forget all the usual (i.e., rational) arguments to which the kool-aid drinkers seem oblivious--instead, do the math for them and ask them if they would still feel the same patriotic fervor for "operation iraqi freedom" if they had to cough up their (and their spouse's and kids') share of its cost today.
and then laugh in their face when they lie.
that got me to thinking, and after pondering for awhile the magnitude of the squandered opportunities of which the good senator spoke, i decided to do a little rough math, as follows:
$2,000,000,000,000 (cost of war) / 3,000,000,000 (americans) = $6,666.67
that's right, folks--if you wanna operate under the assumption that we as americans are individually and collectively responsible for the debts run up by our leaders on our behalf, then if the bill for this sorry war became due and payable tomorrow (a scenario not as far-fetched as you might think, btw), each and every citizen of this country would effectively be on the hook for an amount somewhere in the neighborhood of 7 fucking grand.
now, i've long maintained that if we'd had to conduct this war on a pay-as-you-go basis (or for that matter even had to experience the level of sacrifice endured by americans at home during the second world war), this war would've been a non-starter--and the neocons knew this as well. so they cleverly structured its financing in such a way that payment wouldn't come due for years after they themselves were long gone--i mean, it's easy to generate support for a war among the faithful if it's seemingly not costing 'em anything, right?
the problem is, that's not only an illusion, it's financial malfeasance verging on treason; the bush administration has sold our future down the river for nothing--hell, worse than nothing.
so the next time you come across a war supporter, forget all the usual (i.e., rational) arguments to which the kool-aid drinkers seem oblivious--instead, do the math for them and ask them if they would still feel the same patriotic fervor for "operation iraqi freedom" if they had to cough up their (and their spouse's and kids') share of its cost today.
and then laugh in their face when they lie.
the "economic stimulus" package revisited
had another conversation recently with someone who just doesn't get why the government handing out a lot of money isn't a good way to stimulate the economy and, as i've had to have this conversation a lot lately (which surprises me although i guess it shouldn't), i've decided to spell it out for anybody who might happen to come by these parts:
1. you don't alleviate a debt crisis by increasing debt. see, if the u.s. were running surpluses right now (i.e., as we were before this president and his cronies got hold of the reins of power), it might make sense to rebate a portion of those excess funds to the people; but the point is, we're not running surpluses--we're broke as shit. so the only way the government can come up with the $150 billion to fund this package is to either (a) go out and borrow it, thus increasing our debt, or (b) go down in the basement and print more money. this is literally like charging a new outfit on a maxed-out credit card in order to make yourself feel better about being way over your head in debt.
2. this will ultimately hurt the very people it's supposed to help. Let’s take some poor schlub with an after-tax income of $20,000; we'll give him a rebate of $600--hooray! however, if inflation increases by 5% because of all the interest rate reductions, increase in national debt and injection of all those new dollars into the system, what said shlub doesn't realize is, he loses $1,030 in purchasing power. but all the shlub will remember come election time is all those nice politicians who gave him "free" money (or at least that's what they hope--this is, of course, why the democrats in the senate wanted to run up even more debt by extending the handout to non-taxpaying poor and old people--i.e., their voters--and why the republicans, realizing there was nothing in that for them, said "no way").
this isn't the way you stimulate the economy, folks--you stimulate the economy by encouraging savings and investment, which leads to job and wealth creation. if you focus on consumption, as our idiot leaders have chosen to do, you're gonna get nothing but currency debasement and creeping socialism.
1. you don't alleviate a debt crisis by increasing debt. see, if the u.s. were running surpluses right now (i.e., as we were before this president and his cronies got hold of the reins of power), it might make sense to rebate a portion of those excess funds to the people; but the point is, we're not running surpluses--we're broke as shit. so the only way the government can come up with the $150 billion to fund this package is to either (a) go out and borrow it, thus increasing our debt, or (b) go down in the basement and print more money. this is literally like charging a new outfit on a maxed-out credit card in order to make yourself feel better about being way over your head in debt.
2. this will ultimately hurt the very people it's supposed to help. Let’s take some poor schlub with an after-tax income of $20,000; we'll give him a rebate of $600--hooray! however, if inflation increases by 5% because of all the interest rate reductions, increase in national debt and injection of all those new dollars into the system, what said shlub doesn't realize is, he loses $1,030 in purchasing power. but all the shlub will remember come election time is all those nice politicians who gave him "free" money (or at least that's what they hope--this is, of course, why the democrats in the senate wanted to run up even more debt by extending the handout to non-taxpaying poor and old people--i.e., their voters--and why the republicans, realizing there was nothing in that for them, said "no way").
this isn't the way you stimulate the economy, folks--you stimulate the economy by encouraging savings and investment, which leads to job and wealth creation. if you focus on consumption, as our idiot leaders have chosen to do, you're gonna get nothing but currency debasement and creeping socialism.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
yeah, hillary, that was the problem
this just in from the associated press:
WASHINGTON - Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton replaced campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle with longtime aide Maggie Williams on Sunday, engineering a shake-up in a presidential campaign struggling to overcome rival Barack Obama's financial and political strengths.
the mccain problem (part 2)
good ol' john mccain--noble, self-sacrificing war hero. poster boy for bipartisan cooperation. independent straight-talking maverick. everybody's favorite white-haired benevolent grandpa.
yeah, right.
to republicans, moderate democrats and independents alike, i'm begging you: please, please don't allow yourself be taken in by this asshole.
[and understand: unlike many bloggers out there, i'll willingly put forth my own personal biases before i argue why you should feel the same way i do--in fact, before i even do that i will, for the benefit of those who don't know it, present an abbreviated recap of the mccain legend in all its glory:
this was a guy who, unlike most sons of privilege in the 60s, not only willingly volunteered to serve his country in vietnam, he did so valiantly. and after not only being injured and narrowly escaping death on an aircraft carrier but flying numerous perilous missions as a navy pilot, he was shot down in 1967 and, after ejecting his seriously-injured ass outta his fatally-damaged aircraft, parachuted into the ocean, nearly drowned and was captured by the north vietnamese, who subsequently imprisoned and mercilessly tortured him.
and later, when his captors realized his daddy was a powerful admiral in the american navy and, for propaganda value, announced his capture and volunteered to release him, he essentially said "fuck you--i'll leave only when every man you're holding who was captured before me is released as well", he pretty much secured his well-deserved reputation as a true american hero.
and, for brevity's sake, i've left out lots of details of lieutenant commander mccain's rather remarkable war history--but it's all out there on the internets, and if you're of an even-minded sort, i urge you to seek it out--it's inspiring reading and it might give you some context for what's to follow.]
so with all that this guy has going for him, how could i--or any true american--possibly argue with his fitness for the highest office in the land?
to my mind that's a no-brainer--but if in light of his actions since his aforementioned military heroism you haven't figured it out on your own already, i guess you'll have to wait for part 3 of this series for me to fucking spell it out.
yeah, right.
to republicans, moderate democrats and independents alike, i'm begging you: please, please don't allow yourself be taken in by this asshole.
[and understand: unlike many bloggers out there, i'll willingly put forth my own personal biases before i argue why you should feel the same way i do--in fact, before i even do that i will, for the benefit of those who don't know it, present an abbreviated recap of the mccain legend in all its glory:
this was a guy who, unlike most sons of privilege in the 60s, not only willingly volunteered to serve his country in vietnam, he did so valiantly. and after not only being injured and narrowly escaping death on an aircraft carrier but flying numerous perilous missions as a navy pilot, he was shot down in 1967 and, after ejecting his seriously-injured ass outta his fatally-damaged aircraft, parachuted into the ocean, nearly drowned and was captured by the north vietnamese, who subsequently imprisoned and mercilessly tortured him.
and later, when his captors realized his daddy was a powerful admiral in the american navy and, for propaganda value, announced his capture and volunteered to release him, he essentially said "fuck you--i'll leave only when every man you're holding who was captured before me is released as well", he pretty much secured his well-deserved reputation as a true american hero.
and, for brevity's sake, i've left out lots of details of lieutenant commander mccain's rather remarkable war history--but it's all out there on the internets, and if you're of an even-minded sort, i urge you to seek it out--it's inspiring reading and it might give you some context for what's to follow.]
so with all that this guy has going for him, how could i--or any true american--possibly argue with his fitness for the highest office in the land?
to my mind that's a no-brainer--but if in light of his actions since his aforementioned military heroism you haven't figured it out on your own already, i guess you'll have to wait for part 3 of this series for me to fucking spell it out.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
the whole romney thing
i've chosen not to write about mitt romney until now--nothing more than a dispassionate, superficial recitation of his electibility issues will be found on this blog, nor have i ever even commented on him in any substantive way anywhere else.
there's a sad and simple reason for this: cynic that i may be, and as unbelievable as it may now seem, i somehow allowed this guy to sneak past my defenses and break my political heart. i still feel like a fool and it fucking kills me to admit i was taken in any politician, but now that he's outta the race i feel the need to lance this boil that's been festering inside me for lo these many months.
believe it or not, i once had high hopes for romney--he was the one that was gonna make me believe again. i've watched him for years--long before he was even a blip on the national radar--and he got my attention, as no other politician in recent memory has, for the following reasons:
and then he opened his mouth and started talking, and the dream just...well, it died a slow agonizing death.
see, i guess i'm an idiot, because i, in my naivete, just assumed the guy would run on his actual fucking record--that he'd position himself as a moderate problem-solving consummate-executive republican with the most actual real-world experience and cross-party appeal of any of the candidates; i mean, it never even in my wildest dreams occurred to me that romney would try to rewrite history and, in a pathetically futile effort to pander to the evangelicals who would despise him as a heathen no matter what, position himself as the goddam conservative choice, for chrissakes.
additionally, it really shook me that a man i had seen as principled could seemingly abandon those principles with such ease--i mean, was he lying about his values and beliefs back when he was running for governor of massachusetts, or was he lying about them now?
at first, finding it hard to let go of the dream (especially in light of my choice of alternatives), i tried to excuse, equivocate and rationalize (ok, fine--it doesn't really matter what he has to say in order to get elected because they all lie; all that matters is what he ultimately does), but i could only stomach that for so long--and then, as i watched him choke in the debates when even i coulda taken his pathetic competition down with one hand tied behind my back, i had to come to the painful conclusion that this guy, for all his skills and accomplishments, doesn't have what it takes after all.
in fact, i feel that i can say without qualification that the only smart decision mitt romney has made since electing to enter the race is electing to get out.
it's been a bitter pill for me to swallow--made even harder by the certain knowledge that any alternative to him you can name is even worse.
[and a final note to governor romney: if in your next life you choose to launch your craven conservative-republican presidential campaign from a position of state governor, you might wanna try doing it from--oh i dunno--how about your home state of michigan, where (a) you'd easily be elected governor, and (b) you might actually have a chance of representing as an actual conservative--i mean, christ, did you seriously think you could pull this off coming outta everything you said to get yourself elected in massachusetts?!]
there's a sad and simple reason for this: cynic that i may be, and as unbelievable as it may now seem, i somehow allowed this guy to sneak past my defenses and break my political heart. i still feel like a fool and it fucking kills me to admit i was taken in any politician, but now that he's outta the race i feel the need to lance this boil that's been festering inside me for lo these many months.
believe it or not, i once had high hopes for romney--he was the one that was gonna make me believe again. i've watched him for years--long before he was even a blip on the national radar--and he got my attention, as no other politician in recent memory has, for the following reasons:
- unlike most scions of successful politicians (i.e., al gore, g. w. bush, any third-generation kennedy you wanna name), romney wasn't some mediocrity who managed to coast his way into prominence on daddy's reputation--this guy not only succeeded on his own in the private sector, he did so brilliantly.
- he's proven himself time after time to be a competent, capable executive with a knack for walking into complex situations that are broken and fixing them.
- he's a highly-disciplined, focused individual who has lived a clean, scandal-free life, thrived within the confines of an extremely demanding religion, remained happily married to his high-school sweetheart and raised five productive and (to all appearances) non-wastrel sons (and yes, virginia, even though i may myself be a degenerate, i still look for indications of character in my politicians--and unlike most i can think of who simply talk the talk, romney has actually walked it).
- as a republican governor of arguably the most liberal state in the union, he proved to be a progressive problem-solver who not only balanced his adopted state's budget, but, with bipartisan support (including that of ted kennedy), forged the nation's first workable statewide universal healthcare plan.
- he has repeatedly demonstrated the ability--almost unheard-of in a politician--to put aside personal bias and ideology on any given issue and instead collect and focus on the relevant data in order to most optimally address whichever problem crossed his path.
- despite his fiscal pragmatism, to all appearances he has always been a social progressive.
and then he opened his mouth and started talking, and the dream just...well, it died a slow agonizing death.
see, i guess i'm an idiot, because i, in my naivete, just assumed the guy would run on his actual fucking record--that he'd position himself as a moderate problem-solving consummate-executive republican with the most actual real-world experience and cross-party appeal of any of the candidates; i mean, it never even in my wildest dreams occurred to me that romney would try to rewrite history and, in a pathetically futile effort to pander to the evangelicals who would despise him as a heathen no matter what, position himself as the goddam conservative choice, for chrissakes.
additionally, it really shook me that a man i had seen as principled could seemingly abandon those principles with such ease--i mean, was he lying about his values and beliefs back when he was running for governor of massachusetts, or was he lying about them now?
at first, finding it hard to let go of the dream (especially in light of my choice of alternatives), i tried to excuse, equivocate and rationalize (ok, fine--it doesn't really matter what he has to say in order to get elected because they all lie; all that matters is what he ultimately does), but i could only stomach that for so long--and then, as i watched him choke in the debates when even i coulda taken his pathetic competition down with one hand tied behind my back, i had to come to the painful conclusion that this guy, for all his skills and accomplishments, doesn't have what it takes after all.
in fact, i feel that i can say without qualification that the only smart decision mitt romney has made since electing to enter the race is electing to get out.
it's been a bitter pill for me to swallow--made even harder by the certain knowledge that any alternative to him you can name is even worse.
[and a final note to governor romney: if in your next life you choose to launch your craven conservative-republican presidential campaign from a position of state governor, you might wanna try doing it from--oh i dunno--how about your home state of michigan, where (a) you'd easily be elected governor, and (b) you might actually have a chance of representing as an actual conservative--i mean, christ, did you seriously think you could pull this off coming outta everything you said to get yourself elected in massachusetts?!]
Thursday, February 7, 2008
a love letter
[i apologize for the untimeliness of this post, but since (a) i stumbled in last friday night way too shitfaced to write this when it sorely needed to be written; (b) somebody just tonight reminded me of how infuriated i was about this last week; and (c) i presently find myself at precisely the optimal stage of drunkenness to attempt to do the subject justice, please allow me to introduce the following for your delectation.]
to caroline kennedy schlossberg kennedy, maria kennedy shriver kennedy schwarzenegger kennedy, and [insert your choice of wastrel rfk scion here]:
please, once and for all, shut the fuck up already--i can't begin to tell you how goddam tired i (and anybody else of my generation with half a brain) am of you, who--having done nothing and deserving even less, continue your tiresome habit of (a) coasting on your family name, and (b) dragging your dead father and/or uncle out in support of [insert name of unworthy candidate here], when in reality you have no idea if, were they actually still alive, they'd have supported any of them.
case in point: seriously, caroline--had you the volition and/or intellectual capacity to reference actual history rather than brainless emotion, even you would realize that, fiscally speaking, your daddy was effing ronald reagan compared to the likes of barack obama (oh, and for the record he wasn't even that crazy about black people either, your father--just ask sammy davis jr., who worked hard on his campaign and then as a reward for his efforts was pretty much told the only way he was gonna get into the inaugural ball was if he put on a waiter's jacket)--but of course, were you willing to look at things rationally, you'd lose not only your credibility but your very raison d'etre--and god knows that'll never happen long as you're still drawing breath, so i guess we can look forward to many more profound political pronouncements and endorsements from you on behalf of your father for countless years to come.
[and, truth be told, i'm not nearly as angry at you as i am at my fellow idiot americans who, against any and all reason, even now continue to be swayed whenever somebody with a pulse named kennedy opens their goddam yap--but hey, anger needs a focus, so indulge me a minute.]
[and further: note that i've omitted from this tirade any reference to the sole remaining viable second-generation kennedy--but then again, anybody who'd take seriously a guy who'd spend eighteen precious hours calculating damage to his political future rather than trying to save some poor girl who might still be gulping breaths of increasingly-stale air in the back seat of his submerged oldsmobile is so far beyond the scope of this discussion as to not even be worth consideration.]
to caroline kennedy schlossberg kennedy, maria kennedy shriver kennedy schwarzenegger kennedy, and [insert your choice of wastrel rfk scion here]:
please, once and for all, shut the fuck up already--i can't begin to tell you how goddam tired i (and anybody else of my generation with half a brain) am of you, who--having done nothing and deserving even less, continue your tiresome habit of (a) coasting on your family name, and (b) dragging your dead father and/or uncle out in support of [insert name of unworthy candidate here], when in reality you have no idea if, were they actually still alive, they'd have supported any of them.
case in point: seriously, caroline--had you the volition and/or intellectual capacity to reference actual history rather than brainless emotion, even you would realize that, fiscally speaking, your daddy was effing ronald reagan compared to the likes of barack obama (oh, and for the record he wasn't even that crazy about black people either, your father--just ask sammy davis jr., who worked hard on his campaign and then as a reward for his efforts was pretty much told the only way he was gonna get into the inaugural ball was if he put on a waiter's jacket)--but of course, were you willing to look at things rationally, you'd lose not only your credibility but your very raison d'etre--and god knows that'll never happen long as you're still drawing breath, so i guess we can look forward to many more profound political pronouncements and endorsements from you on behalf of your father for countless years to come.
[and, truth be told, i'm not nearly as angry at you as i am at my fellow idiot americans who, against any and all reason, even now continue to be swayed whenever somebody with a pulse named kennedy opens their goddam yap--but hey, anger needs a focus, so indulge me a minute.]
[and further: note that i've omitted from this tirade any reference to the sole remaining viable second-generation kennedy--but then again, anybody who'd take seriously a guy who'd spend eighteen precious hours calculating damage to his political future rather than trying to save some poor girl who might still be gulping breaths of increasingly-stale air in the back seat of his submerged oldsmobile is so far beyond the scope of this discussion as to not even be worth consideration.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
