| 0 9678 777 000 5675 245 0 |
SIMS : ROCKS ARE FREE, AND SLINGSHOTS EASILY STOLEN.
ABOUT ME:
I'm so hungry, I could
eat a baby deer.
ARCHIVES
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
INTERESTING
sims is on Twitter
She Genius
Atom feed, yo
Free Website Counter
I'm so hungry, I could
eat a baby deer.
ARCHIVES
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
INTERESTING
sims is on Twitter
She Genius
Atom feed, yo
Free Website Counter
Thursday, November 04, 2010
Let It Burn
Got a hold of a phenomenal transcribed speech today, passed along via Twitter by Andy Richter, of all people. The speech was given by Bill Moyers at Boston University on October 29th, 2010. It's a long read, and even if you know a little something about how the owners of this country run things, you'll likely still pick up some interesting facts as you read it, and I hope you will.
The guts of it deal with the de-evolution of the United States into a plutocracy, or as Citigroup calls it, "plutonomy." The plan is to continue the 30-year shift of wealth from the working and middle classes to the very wealthy. None of this is being done in a particularly secretive fashion, but the vast majority of the ones catching hell don't seem to be able to form enough cohesion as a group to give a damn.
Well, you might want to consider what your passivity and fealty to wealth has gotten you. According to Moyers' speech:
You can't even support a starving African kid for $11 a year.
So, what are the remedies? Moyers continues:
Obviously Howard Zinn would not have us leave it there. Defeat was never his counsel. Look at this headline above one of his essays published posthumously this fall by the Progressive magazine: DON’T DESPAIR ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT. The Court was lost long ago, he said – don’t go there looking for justice. “The Constitution gave no rights to working people; no right to work less than 12 hours a day, no right to a living wage, no right to safe working conditions. Workers had to organize, go on strike, defy the law, the courts, the police, create a great movement which won the eight-hour day, and caused such commotion that Congress was forced to pass a minimum wage law, and Social Security, and unemployment insurance….Those rights only come alive when citizens organize, protest, demonstrate, strike, boycott, rebel and violate the law in order to uphold justice.”
Organize. Protest. Demonstrate. Strike. Boycott. Rebel. And violate the law in order to uphold justice.
Let me expound on that last one.
I grew up in the Midwest, close to a major GM assembly operation, and Delco labs, founded in 1909, which, in addition to building the only American-built plane to see action during World War I, invented the first dashboard-mounted car radios, and at one point employed 30,000 workers in the US. Union workers.
Even though no one in my family worked for GM or its subsidiaries, it was obvious the value that these jobs brought to the community. People who have good jobs and good wages spend money like no one else, including the rich. Their families go to the doctor and stay healthy, the kids go to college and get even better jobs, and the whole god damned country prospers.
Since the recession of the 70s & 80s, solid manufacturing jobs like these have disappeared. In fact, the assembly plant near where I grew up, after hemorrhaging jobs for 30 years, closed down this year. The city where I grew up, has largely dried up and blown away.
Sadly, I doubt that the information I've given about the town will help you narrow it down to less than a dozen possibilities. This story has happened thousands of times since 1980.
Getting back to it, the only union workers whom I actually know as neighbors today are police, fire fighters, prison guards and teachers. I know there are a lot of unions, but they have almost no power. However, they are certainly welcome to take part in what I'm suggesting.
Police, when a call comes in from a neighborhood of the sort where residents could afford private security, you should really take your time getting to those calls. Think about it! People of means can pay private guards to patrol their property and keep it safe from any type of intrusion. Even better, the wealthy are always well-insured, and can have any item replaced or reimbursed. Why hurry? Most of all, they really hate paying your salary, and in some regards, pay less of a share of it than working-class types, who do not have tax shelters, and cannot find the Cayman Islands on a map.
Fire fighters, same thing. Many of your nicer homes have state-of-the-art fire suppression systems that should be able to handle any manner of calamity. Why race out to some beautiful suburban estate to put out a fire and save a couple lives, when you just know that you're going to get an earful about water damage, tracking soot on the Italian marble, and trampling the rose garden? Heroes! Have some more chili, and go back to sleep.
Teachers? Stay home, you don't feel well. You probably get more crap from the ignorant who think your jobs are sunshine and lollipops because you actually get due process should someone want to take your job from you. Prove them right. Refuse to babysit their idiot progeny, make them pay for day care, or skip work, assuming they still have a job to go to.
Of course, the wealthy often send their precious snowflakes to private schools, so wouldn't this only really hurt the people I'm claiming to want to help?
You bet.
As the Moyers speech details, you can't really hurt the rich through actions like the ones I've outlined, because they are attempting to construct a separate economy from the one the rest of us are living with, anyway.
You! Working class, middle class, unemployed, and everyone hanging on by their fingernails! You need to start feeling this in a way which doesn't just make you scared or frustrated. You need to be angry about this.
Your country and its promise is being stolen away from you, and stolen by people that could afford to pay for it if the law didn't make it so simple for them to just confiscate your dreams and hopes. Until you stop being subservient, stop showing up and making the shareholders wealthier as your wages and benefits shrink, this will not stop.
Organize. Protest. Demonstrate. Strike. Boycott. Rebel. And violate the law in order to uphold justice.
Nothing worthwhile ever comes easy. People are going to get beat over the head, thrown in jail, gassed, shot and killed. You can wait until you have nothing left to lose, but that day is closer than you think. Heroes act. The effort required is Herculean, and it will take all of us working together for what's good for all of us. Otherwise, to quote the late, great George Carlin:
"It's called the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it."
Wake up.
The guts of it deal with the de-evolution of the United States into a plutocracy, or as Citigroup calls it, "plutonomy." The plan is to continue the 30-year shift of wealth from the working and middle classes to the very wealthy. None of this is being done in a particularly secretive fashion, but the vast majority of the ones catching hell don't seem to be able to form enough cohesion as a group to give a damn.
Well, you might want to consider what your passivity and fealty to wealth has gotten you. According to Moyers' speech:
I must invoke some statistics here, knowing that statistics can glaze the eyes; but if indeed it’s the mark of a truly educated person to be deeply moved by statistics, as I once read, surely this truly educated audience will be moved by the recent analysis of tax data by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez. They found that from 1950 through 1980, the share of all income in America going to everyone but the rich increased from 64 percent to 65 percent. Because the nation’s economy was growing handsomely, the average income for 9 out of l0 Americans was growing, too – from $17,719 to $30,941. That’s a 75 percent increase in income in constant 2008 dollars.
But then it stopped. Since 1980 the economy has also continued to grow handsomely, but only a fraction at the top have benefited. The line flattens for the bottom 90% of Americans. Average income went from that $30,941 in 1980 to $31,244 in 2008. Think about that: the average income of Americans increased just $303 dollars in 28 years.
That’s wage repression.
This isn't just bad luck and poor career choices. There has been a highly concerted effort to roll back the gains made by the middle class during the post-war boom when unions were growing strong and creating a living wage for the majority of Americans. Since Reagan started busting unions in '81, your average income has increased about $11 a year, instead of almost $500 per.You can't even support a starving African kid for $11 a year.
So, what are the remedies? Moyers continues:
Obviously Howard Zinn would not have us leave it there. Defeat was never his counsel. Look at this headline above one of his essays published posthumously this fall by the Progressive magazine: DON’T DESPAIR ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT. The Court was lost long ago, he said – don’t go there looking for justice. “The Constitution gave no rights to working people; no right to work less than 12 hours a day, no right to a living wage, no right to safe working conditions. Workers had to organize, go on strike, defy the law, the courts, the police, create a great movement which won the eight-hour day, and caused such commotion that Congress was forced to pass a minimum wage law, and Social Security, and unemployment insurance….Those rights only come alive when citizens organize, protest, demonstrate, strike, boycott, rebel and violate the law in order to uphold justice.”
Organize. Protest. Demonstrate. Strike. Boycott. Rebel. And violate the law in order to uphold justice.
Let me expound on that last one.
I grew up in the Midwest, close to a major GM assembly operation, and Delco labs, founded in 1909, which, in addition to building the only American-built plane to see action during World War I, invented the first dashboard-mounted car radios, and at one point employed 30,000 workers in the US. Union workers.
Even though no one in my family worked for GM or its subsidiaries, it was obvious the value that these jobs brought to the community. People who have good jobs and good wages spend money like no one else, including the rich. Their families go to the doctor and stay healthy, the kids go to college and get even better jobs, and the whole god damned country prospers.
Since the recession of the 70s & 80s, solid manufacturing jobs like these have disappeared. In fact, the assembly plant near where I grew up, after hemorrhaging jobs for 30 years, closed down this year. The city where I grew up, has largely dried up and blown away.
Sadly, I doubt that the information I've given about the town will help you narrow it down to less than a dozen possibilities. This story has happened thousands of times since 1980.
Getting back to it, the only union workers whom I actually know as neighbors today are police, fire fighters, prison guards and teachers. I know there are a lot of unions, but they have almost no power. However, they are certainly welcome to take part in what I'm suggesting.
Police, when a call comes in from a neighborhood of the sort where residents could afford private security, you should really take your time getting to those calls. Think about it! People of means can pay private guards to patrol their property and keep it safe from any type of intrusion. Even better, the wealthy are always well-insured, and can have any item replaced or reimbursed. Why hurry? Most of all, they really hate paying your salary, and in some regards, pay less of a share of it than working-class types, who do not have tax shelters, and cannot find the Cayman Islands on a map.
Fire fighters, same thing. Many of your nicer homes have state-of-the-art fire suppression systems that should be able to handle any manner of calamity. Why race out to some beautiful suburban estate to put out a fire and save a couple lives, when you just know that you're going to get an earful about water damage, tracking soot on the Italian marble, and trampling the rose garden? Heroes! Have some more chili, and go back to sleep.
Teachers? Stay home, you don't feel well. You probably get more crap from the ignorant who think your jobs are sunshine and lollipops because you actually get due process should someone want to take your job from you. Prove them right. Refuse to babysit their idiot progeny, make them pay for day care, or skip work, assuming they still have a job to go to.
Of course, the wealthy often send their precious snowflakes to private schools, so wouldn't this only really hurt the people I'm claiming to want to help?
You bet.
As the Moyers speech details, you can't really hurt the rich through actions like the ones I've outlined, because they are attempting to construct a separate economy from the one the rest of us are living with, anyway.
You! Working class, middle class, unemployed, and everyone hanging on by their fingernails! You need to start feeling this in a way which doesn't just make you scared or frustrated. You need to be angry about this.
Your country and its promise is being stolen away from you, and stolen by people that could afford to pay for it if the law didn't make it so simple for them to just confiscate your dreams and hopes. Until you stop being subservient, stop showing up and making the shareholders wealthier as your wages and benefits shrink, this will not stop.
Organize. Protest. Demonstrate. Strike. Boycott. Rebel. And violate the law in order to uphold justice.
Nothing worthwhile ever comes easy. People are going to get beat over the head, thrown in jail, gassed, shot and killed. You can wait until you have nothing left to lose, but that day is closer than you think. Heroes act. The effort required is Herculean, and it will take all of us working together for what's good for all of us. Otherwise, to quote the late, great George Carlin:
"It's called the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it."
Wake up.
Labels: America, economy, greed, recession, work
posted at 3:20 PM
0 comments
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Czar chasm
50-70000 people showed up in Washington DC Saturday to protest...something. Everything! A few snippets:
The remarkable thing here, is that there is very little of this which has been taken out of context. It's easy to make people look stupid via editing, but the interviewer was really only asking them why they were so upset about the things that their signs claimed that they were upset about. Again, I'm not really wild about the debt and deficit being where they are, but when the economy is where it is, this is the only recourse. You don't have to be happy about it, but it'd be nice if you could veer close enough to reality for a moment to at least acknowledge a couple of things:
Barack Obama isn't responsible for cratering the economy.
Things would be a damn sight worse if the stimulus bill had not passed.
Thus, here we are in a very strange moment, where we have the chance to make some real improvements in the way this country operates, and there are people, even those who would benefit, who are opposed to it because televised multi-millionaires have told them they ought to be. I will not go so far as to refer to them as "oligarhs."
Oligarchs, maybe. Plutocrats? Definitely.
I try very hard to see issues and events from all sides, because I have no use for political parties, and no ideology has a lock on good answers or common sense. So, I watch these events, and I wait for the moment where someone says something that makes me think, "Okay, I can agree with you in principle on some of that." But there's just so much WHARRGARBL, that it's nearly impossible to latch on to something that doesn't make you feel lobotomized.
Honestly, I'm to the point anymore where I'm halfway in your corner if you can just say what's bugging you without screaming or starting to cry. The right has turned into the left, all emotion and no brains, just angry, scared, and making everything about everything all the time, which is a classic liberal mistake.
For example, the anti-war protests. You're against the war? Great, march make signs, show the colors. But when the left turns out, PETA shows up, NORML is there, Greenpeace blows in, looking to roll severely obese marchers back into the nearest body of water.
But the right has guzzled down that particular gallon of left-wing stupid. These people who showed up in DC Saturday were angry about health care, that Obama is African, that we have officials called Czars, higher taxes, that Obama is a Muslim, ACORN, the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, to support Joe Wilson, a civilian corps of volunteers to do work in the US, the new combo philosophy of Communist Fascism, that Jesus isn't president, Barney Frank, to take the country back, mandatory abortions for all females over 11, that the country has been mostly destroyed, that "Barack Obama" means "anti-christ" in Hebrew, and just dozens of other really sensible, well-thought out reasons to be upset without needing to admit that the president is colored and that ain't America.
I know that this isn't all about racism, there are legitimate political and philosophical reasons to dislike what the president is doing. But most of this is about racism.
Labels: America, Barack Obama, Church v. State, Darwin, economy, election, Fear, health care, Jeebus, partisanship, race, recession, teabag
posted at 3:25 PM
0 comments
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
We can still lose without you
Here we are, more than halfway through 2009, and still, 48 million Americans have no access to health care. I wrote about this almost five years ago, and at the time, George W. Bush was president, and both houses of Congress were run by Republicans. Remember? Karl Rove's permanent majority?
The point is, there was no way that the people of the United States were going to get health care, because it was more important for these bought-and-paid-for stooges to protect their corporate masters' short-term profits, than to save a few thousand meaningless American lives. Hell, these people wouldn't even pony up to protect the health of children. But that was then.
Now, we have Barack Obama as president, who is, according to the best and brightest in Conservative thought, a Socialist. And as I recall, an Arab.
The main thing is, he wants health care for all Americans, as do 72% of us here in the US. But here in 2009, Obama has a Democratic majority in Congress who can get it done. Hell, as of this week, with the addition of Al Franken, it's an unfilibusterable (just made that up) super majority. Yay! We're getting a public option for health care NOTSOFAST.
I find it interesting that when anything important needs to be voted on, the Republican party can pull the leash on its members, and get them to vote in unison for whatever they're told to do. I don't like party-line politics as a rule. Truthfully, I have no use for political parties, and would never join one. But hey! If the GOP can get their ducks in a row, then there's no reason that the Dems can't do it to pass something important like health care, especially since, and I can't put too fine a point on this, 72% of the people in this country want a government option. Will we get it? Doubtful.
The problem is that the Democrats in the Senate have a preponderance of members suffering from chronic cases of being too old and too self-important. I'd also like to add "useless." Max Baucus, for example, Democrat of Montana, has said on many occasions that a public option is "off the table." Ben Nelson of Nebraska, has echoed these sentiments, as has Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. I'm sure their boss, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada will pull rank and get these guys in line, right? Because, as you may have heard, 72% of Americans want a government health care option.
Well, Reid has flip-flopped all over the place on this issue, as well as most others of importance, and cannot be counted on to get this done. What can we do? Hmm, wait a minute...
Montana. Nebraska. North Dakota. Louisiana. Nevada.
These are mostly large, windy, empty places, represented by people who resemble that description. What else do they have in common? There are sure a lot of white people in those places who think of themselves as rugged individualist Libertarian types. These states are, historically, red ones, and vote Republican. Louisiana too, now that New Orleans has been rid of so many black voters, thanks to Bush's indifference before, during and after Katrina.
You want to pass real health care reform with the necessary public option, President Obama? Easy as pie, just do this:
Call each of these senators, and any other Democrats who are being weaselly about this, into your office. Ask them if you can count on their vote for your health care plan, and please do not fail to mention that 72% of Americans want this, with a majority even willing to pay higher taxes to get it.
If they are unable to pledge their support on this, make a vow to them. Promise to support a Democrat against him or her who will help you in next senatorial primary in their state. Even if they prevail, it will cost them millions of dollars, and leave them in a weakened position when the general election comes up the following November. Remind them that they are in states that have found it very easy to elect Republicans to office. If any of them are actually stupid enough to ask why you would be willing to cede Democratically-held seats to Republicans, explain the obvious:
"We can still lose without you."
Explain that the American people want to have guaranteed access to health care, and that the fact that we are the only major industrialized country without it is a miserable embarrassment at every level. Make them understand that this is not simply a smart move economically in the long term, but the right thing to do morally.
But mostly, make them understand that if you are unable to pass this legislation, it makes no difference to you whether it fails 59-41, 55-45, or 52-48. You can lose it with or without them, they are not special, and if they are unable to see how vitally important this is to the future of the United States, they are not even necessary.
Now, we have Barack Obama as president, who is, according to the best and brightest in Conservative thought, a Socialist. And as I recall, an Arab.
The main thing is, he wants health care for all Americans, as do 72% of us here in the US. But here in 2009, Obama has a Democratic majority in Congress who can get it done. Hell, as of this week, with the addition of Al Franken, it's an unfilibusterable (just made that up) super majority. Yay! We're getting a public option for health care NOTSOFAST.
I find it interesting that when anything important needs to be voted on, the Republican party can pull the leash on its members, and get them to vote in unison for whatever they're told to do. I don't like party-line politics as a rule. Truthfully, I have no use for political parties, and would never join one. But hey! If the GOP can get their ducks in a row, then there's no reason that the Dems can't do it to pass something important like health care, especially since, and I can't put too fine a point on this, 72% of the people in this country want a government option. Will we get it? Doubtful.
The problem is that the Democrats in the Senate have a preponderance of members suffering from chronic cases of being too old and too self-important. I'd also like to add "useless." Max Baucus, for example, Democrat of Montana, has said on many occasions that a public option is "off the table." Ben Nelson of Nebraska, has echoed these sentiments, as has Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. I'm sure their boss, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada will pull rank and get these guys in line, right? Because, as you may have heard, 72% of Americans want a government health care option.
Well, Reid has flip-flopped all over the place on this issue, as well as most others of importance, and cannot be counted on to get this done. What can we do? Hmm, wait a minute...
Montana. Nebraska. North Dakota. Louisiana. Nevada.
These are mostly large, windy, empty places, represented by people who resemble that description. What else do they have in common? There are sure a lot of white people in those places who think of themselves as rugged individualist Libertarian types. These states are, historically, red ones, and vote Republican. Louisiana too, now that New Orleans has been rid of so many black voters, thanks to Bush's indifference before, during and after Katrina.
You want to pass real health care reform with the necessary public option, President Obama? Easy as pie, just do this:
Call each of these senators, and any other Democrats who are being weaselly about this, into your office. Ask them if you can count on their vote for your health care plan, and please do not fail to mention that 72% of Americans want this, with a majority even willing to pay higher taxes to get it.
If they are unable to pledge their support on this, make a vow to them. Promise to support a Democrat against him or her who will help you in next senatorial primary in their state. Even if they prevail, it will cost them millions of dollars, and leave them in a weakened position when the general election comes up the following November. Remind them that they are in states that have found it very easy to elect Republicans to office. If any of them are actually stupid enough to ask why you would be willing to cede Democratically-held seats to Republicans, explain the obvious:
"We can still lose without you."
Explain that the American people want to have guaranteed access to health care, and that the fact that we are the only major industrialized country without it is a miserable embarrassment at every level. Make them understand that this is not simply a smart move economically in the long term, but the right thing to do morally.
But mostly, make them understand that if you are unable to pass this legislation, it makes no difference to you whether it fails 59-41, 55-45, or 52-48. You can lose it with or without them, they are not special, and if they are unable to see how vitally important this is to the future of the United States, they are not even necessary.
Labels: America, Barack Obama, economy, Harry Reid, health care, Katrina, SCHIP
posted at 8:31 AM
0 comments
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Die In A Fire
Labels: airlines, bastardry, economy
posted at 8:13 PM
1 comments
Monday, May 26, 2008
Down Payment
I'm thinking about buying a house, but they cost a lot of money, which is really kind of the thing holding me up. Frankly, it's a bit mystifying how I, who slave over this terribly unique blog, on increasingly rare occasions, could not be sitting on a mountain of cash. I thought if I wrote less, it would drive up the value of the entire enterprise. That's economics.
But it turns out that blogging less pays the same as blogging more, which strikes me as Communism, or maybe anarcho-capitalism. I write, I don't get paid. I don't write, I don't get paid. It seems to me that there should be some appreciable difference in the fatness of my wallet at the end of the month based on my literary output. After minutes of reflection, I'm pretty sure I understand what's happened:
This is your fault.
Do you think you can just surf randomly around the interwebs and find blogs to read written by people you don't know and probably wouldn't trust with the combination to your bike lock? Don't be ridiculous. You need to step up and underwrite this masterpiece. Oh, sure, I've been giving it away for four years, and in retrospect, that was a mistake. I should have been printing these things up and selling them on street corners like those guys do with strawberries, depending on the season.
But there is no off-season for genius! Genius thrives in all climates, be they hot, cold, semi-arid or subtropical! I consulted with the finest climatological minds in the world, and they agree: You deadbeats should be paying for these nuggets.
The best way is to set up some sort of pay pal account, but I don't really trust these sort of virtual loan sharking cartels, and besides, I just don't feel like bothering. I might incorporate, and then you could buy shares of the blog, shares of me, really. I could go down to the Secretary of State's office and incorporate the whole shebang for $75, which would be really cool.
"I'm a limited liability corporation! Emphasis on 'limited'!"
I've done some research on how many shares I should put up for sale, and I think it should be about 50. But how do you price them? At last check, Google was selling shares at $544.62, although it has been as high as $747.24. They have a lot more shares out there, though, which is why they can afford to give away stock at that price, I figure.
If I'm only offering 50 shares, I suppose they ought to go for about $10000 apiece. That would put me in a pretty good position to buy a home.
But what if I lose operational control? What if some savvy corporate raider takes over majority control of my company, and forces me to write about things I don't want to, or at all? What if I get thrown out in a hostile takeover? Why the hell is Charlie Sheen following me around on a motorcycle?
But it turns out that blogging less pays the same as blogging more, which strikes me as Communism, or maybe anarcho-capitalism. I write, I don't get paid. I don't write, I don't get paid. It seems to me that there should be some appreciable difference in the fatness of my wallet at the end of the month based on my literary output. After minutes of reflection, I'm pretty sure I understand what's happened:
This is your fault.
Do you think you can just surf randomly around the interwebs and find blogs to read written by people you don't know and probably wouldn't trust with the combination to your bike lock? Don't be ridiculous. You need to step up and underwrite this masterpiece. Oh, sure, I've been giving it away for four years, and in retrospect, that was a mistake. I should have been printing these things up and selling them on street corners like those guys do with strawberries, depending on the season.
But there is no off-season for genius! Genius thrives in all climates, be they hot, cold, semi-arid or subtropical! I consulted with the finest climatological minds in the world, and they agree: You deadbeats should be paying for these nuggets.
The best way is to set up some sort of pay pal account, but I don't really trust these sort of virtual loan sharking cartels, and besides, I just don't feel like bothering. I might incorporate, and then you could buy shares of the blog, shares of me, really. I could go down to the Secretary of State's office and incorporate the whole shebang for $75, which would be really cool.
"I'm a limited liability corporation! Emphasis on 'limited'!"
I've done some research on how many shares I should put up for sale, and I think it should be about 50. But how do you price them? At last check, Google was selling shares at $544.62, although it has been as high as $747.24. They have a lot more shares out there, though, which is why they can afford to give away stock at that price, I figure.
If I'm only offering 50 shares, I suppose they ought to go for about $10000 apiece. That would put me in a pretty good position to buy a home.
But what if I lose operational control? What if some savvy corporate raider takes over majority control of my company, and forces me to write about things I don't want to, or at all? What if I get thrown out in a hostile takeover? Why the hell is Charlie Sheen following me around on a motorcycle?
"And why is this phone so fucking large?"I don't like where this is going, to be perfectly honest. I suppose the simplest thing to do would be for you to purchase gift cards online, and then send them to the numbers so that I can purchase things which will eventually go into my new home. I suggest that you start now, while interest rates are low, and the armed insurrection hasn't begun the overthrow of society and government.
Disregard that, everything is fine. Thanks for the stuff.
Disregard that, everything is fine. Thanks for the stuff.
Labels: blog, economy, greed, recession, tha Innernets
posted at 12:02 PM
0 comments
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Morbid Curiosity
I doubt that anyone who reads this blog regularly would be surprised to find out that I voted for Barack Obama in my state's primary. I suppose no one would be all that shocked to find that I have a pessimistic streak in me as well.
I know. Such intimate stuff.
Three or four months ago, I was pretty pleased about the slate of candidates running for president, and saw a number of Democrats and even a Republican or two (eh, one) that I wouldn't have minded casting my vote for. As the Democrats got down to just two, I was of the mindset that either one of these people would make a pretty good president.
To hell with that.
I have decided, and am stating for the record, that if Hillary Clinton is awarded the Democratic Party's nomination, I am not going to vote for her.
"Gonna sit this one out?"
Nope. I'll vote for John McCain. I will cancel out someone's vote, and do it with a grin on my face. My reasons are twofold.
First of all, I am absolutely disgusted with both Hillary and Bill Clinton, and with the type of campaign they have chosen to run. I just don't remember things being this damned nasty back in the 90s, but maybe it was. I don't remember it like this, I just don't. Maybe it's because Bill actually had charisma as a candidate, whereas Hillary seems to have very little. But as a supportive spouse? Bill Clinton can take his smug aw-shucksness and cram it with walnuts.
If the Jeremiah Wright videos were dug up by anyone, it was by the Clinton campaign. Yeah, the pastor is a world-class douchebag, but for Hillary to have the stones to castigate Obama in the manner she did was just ludicrous.
"If my pastor had said something like that, I'd have just gotten up and left."
Well, what if you were married to him and found out he was nailing an intern? Would you have stayed with him then? Or would you stay with him because there's no way America elects a bitchy divorcée to be the first female president of the United States?
It backfired anyway, because Obama ended up giving one of the greatest speeches in political history as a response. His numbers dropped two points. Hillary's went down eight.
The other reason I'll vote for McCain over Clinton is - well...
I just want to see how bad things can get.
McCain wants to maintain high troop levels in Iraq. He wants to invade Iran. He's content to let the mortgage crisis play out, and has very little understanding of economics. He's my guy.
Let's really crater this thing, I mean just fly the country into the side of a mountain at 1000 miles per hour, and see if it bounces or explodes. I'm really curious to see what happens to our 300 million soft, fat asses when the long overdue correction in our standard of living really kicks in and takes out 100 other economies in one fell swoop.
I'm not proud of this impulse, but I recognize it, and figure I may as well be honest about it.
Besides, why should anyone other than a Conservative have to clean up Bush's ridiculous mess? I think Obama could take a crack at it and maybe get this thing back on course, but Hillary is cautious and timid, policy-wise, and we are beyond any good that baby steps can provide.
John McCain sees this thing heading toward a cliff and punches the accelerator like he was driving his Buick Century through a downtown farmer's market.
If we're still actively involved in Middle Eastern wars by 2015, I'll probably leave the country, to be honest. The machinery of war is lubricated with the blood of youth, and I'll make no contribution of that resource, not for oil, and not for empire.
I know. Such intimate stuff.
Three or four months ago, I was pretty pleased about the slate of candidates running for president, and saw a number of Democrats and even a Republican or two (eh, one) that I wouldn't have minded casting my vote for. As the Democrats got down to just two, I was of the mindset that either one of these people would make a pretty good president.
To hell with that.
I have decided, and am stating for the record, that if Hillary Clinton is awarded the Democratic Party's nomination, I am not going to vote for her.
"Gonna sit this one out?"
Nope. I'll vote for John McCain. I will cancel out someone's vote, and do it with a grin on my face. My reasons are twofold.
First of all, I am absolutely disgusted with both Hillary and Bill Clinton, and with the type of campaign they have chosen to run. I just don't remember things being this damned nasty back in the 90s, but maybe it was. I don't remember it like this, I just don't. Maybe it's because Bill actually had charisma as a candidate, whereas Hillary seems to have very little. But as a supportive spouse? Bill Clinton can take his smug aw-shucksness and cram it with walnuts.
If the Jeremiah Wright videos were dug up by anyone, it was by the Clinton campaign. Yeah, the pastor is a world-class douchebag, but for Hillary to have the stones to castigate Obama in the manner she did was just ludicrous.
"If my pastor had said something like that, I'd have just gotten up and left."
Well, what if you were married to him and found out he was nailing an intern? Would you have stayed with him then? Or would you stay with him because there's no way America elects a bitchy divorcée to be the first female president of the United States?
It backfired anyway, because Obama ended up giving one of the greatest speeches in political history as a response. His numbers dropped two points. Hillary's went down eight.
The other reason I'll vote for McCain over Clinton is - well...
I just want to see how bad things can get.
McCain wants to maintain high troop levels in Iraq. He wants to invade Iran. He's content to let the mortgage crisis play out, and has very little understanding of economics. He's my guy.
Let's really crater this thing, I mean just fly the country into the side of a mountain at 1000 miles per hour, and see if it bounces or explodes. I'm really curious to see what happens to our 300 million soft, fat asses when the long overdue correction in our standard of living really kicks in and takes out 100 other economies in one fell swoop.
I'm not proud of this impulse, but I recognize it, and figure I may as well be honest about it.
Besides, why should anyone other than a Conservative have to clean up Bush's ridiculous mess? I think Obama could take a crack at it and maybe get this thing back on course, but Hillary is cautious and timid, policy-wise, and we are beyond any good that baby steps can provide.
John McCain sees this thing heading toward a cliff and punches the accelerator like he was driving his Buick Century through a downtown farmer's market.
If we're still actively involved in Middle Eastern wars by 2015, I'll probably leave the country, to be honest. The machinery of war is lubricated with the blood of youth, and I'll make no contribution of that resource, not for oil, and not for empire.
Labels: Barack Obama, economy, election, Hillary Clinton, Iraq, John McCain, oil
posted at 10:40 PM
0 comments
Monday, March 03, 2008
Waste not, want not
This is an expression I vaguely recall hearing as a child, although I'm pretty sure that my parents were decent enough to spare me hearing it from them. I don't know where I heard it, but I know it's an old expression. It sounds old, like some Puritan maxim, because everything is a sin, after all.
But I get it's meaning: Reasonable consumption now, avoid starving to death later. This is something I can really get behind, because if there's one thing that just bugs the hell out of me, it's waste. It irritates me when someone orders food that they barely touch. It strikes me as stupid for someone to purchase a four-wheel drive vehicle that will be used for nothing more harrowing than getting back and forth to work, or taking kids to school. It's overdoing it, just because you can.
Even with the looming recession, people can still live better in many ways than ever before. During the last real recession this country had in the late 70s until about 1982, people's standard of living took a noticeable step back. There would have been no point in the president going on television and using phrases like "mixed economic indicators" or "some slowing of growth." He would have been hooted down.
A woman I work with tried to tell me that there is no recession because when she went out last weekend, there were long waits at restaurants, and parking lots were crowded. I responded by pointing out that there are still plenty of people who are doing just fine (just not most of us), and that more importantly, because it has been a full generation since the last serious economic downturn, people really don't realize the magnitude of what is happening to them, and they won't slow down their consumption until their credit cards stop working.
The housing crisis is really only just beginning, and the fallout is going to poison many and varied sectors of the economy before it really plays out. Some studies I've seen indicate that, without another bubble (possibly in the alt energy sector) it may be as long as 2011 before the slide in the real estate and financial sectors bottoms out and is fully corrected.
The US Secretary of the Treasury has decided that consumers now living in homes that are worth less than the loans outstanding, in so many words, can go fuck themselves. You should have read the fine print, you should have believed what the lenders told you, and we're not going to reward bad behavior. And you definitely shouldn't have lost your job or gotten sick.
The reasons sound good, but the upshot is still a lot of people living in their cars. The new Middle Class Homeless. I like that. I may go on Nightline with that one.
But on the other hand, at least the Old School Homeless are benefiting in some cases, as many foreclosed homes are being squatted in by those affectionately named Urban Campers. Nature abhors a vacuum.
Waste not, want not.
Stimulus checks will be in the mail in 60 days, and the money will make a vague dent in the downturn, but it's not going to solve the housing crisis. $160 billion dollars, handed out, and most of it will be pissed away. A waste.
I've already speculated on the good that money of that type could do for infrastructure in the US, but I'll allow that people are probably more concerned about saving the roof over their heads than they are about some bridge over the Mississippi River.
At some point, as small banks, and eventually larger ones begin to fail, the government will realize that a bailout is inevitable. It's going to be gargantuan in scale, just like the recession caused by the lending crisis.
I'm going to propose some government waste.
The government will not bail out the banks. The government will assume these trillions in bad loans, people will remain in their homes with all loans converted to 30 year fixed-rate mortgages at 5%, paid to the government directly. The government will make commensurate monthly payments to the lender institutions at a rate of 4%.
Will the banks lose some money? Yeah, probably. Less than you might think though. The target lending rate will be no higher than 2.5% by March 18th, and possibly a quarter point less than that. The banks will manage, they just may have to cut back on the marble fixtures, and will likely put chains on all the pens again.
The government will also open the program to first-time home buyers by offering them 30 year fixed rate loans at rates from 3.5-5%, based on the banks' target lending rate. People will start snapping up homes that have been sitting on the market for months and years, and then they'll also do crazy stuff like buy things to put inside them. There's your fucking stimulus.
At some point, if the banks don't like being frozen out of the mortgage business, they can buy the loans back from the government, but with a transaction fee of 10% of the remaining value of the loan. The banks can piss and moan, but they understand compound interest, and will take the deal. The conditions of these loans will be unalterable by the institution that buys them back from the government. The bank will make a nice, slow, long-term profit, homeowners will make their payments, and this economic rollercoaster shit will end for awhile.
Who will pay for it? All of us. Will there be waste? Have you ever seen a government program that didn't have plenty of it?
I still hate waste. But I'll take it over want any day of the week.
Labels: economy, recession, stimulus
posted at 7:38 PM
2 comments
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Stimulus For Dummies
A great deal of talk about economic stimulus packages this week, as the US economy careens toward recession, all the while dragging the rest of the world with it.
So far, it appears that people making less than $75k a year will get $600 bucks each, plus $300 per kid. Thus a married couple with three kids and a combined income of $110,000, will get a check for $2100 from the party of fiscal restraint.
It's a nice chunk of dough, and theoretically, we'll all run out and buy flat screens, and the economy will be saved. I'm not exactly sure how the purchase of Asian electronics will help US workers get raises to save their foreclosed homes, but I freely admit that I am not an economist.
What I am is a person with a long-term memory. In some cases, I can even remember things that happened six months ago. It's an inherited trait known as "not being a drooling moron."
On August 1 of last year, the I-35 bridge over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis collapsed. We all shook our heads and wondered how this could happen in America, and we talked about how under-funded our infrastructure is, and how this is the tip of the iceberg. But then, some other stuff happened, pennant races, steroids, Labor Day sales, and we forgot about it.
In the meantime, the subprime scams have helped the economy take a giant shit. People can't afford their homes, jobs with good wages evaporate as unemployment rises, and no one can think of anything that can be done except mail out checks to us like we were a nation of apocryphal welfare queens.
Well, I thought of something.
Every state in this country, every damned one of them, has infrastructure problems. Roads, bridges, schools, parks, sewers, all of it in disrepair. No one has any money to fix this stuff. Bush's answer, as it was after September 11, 2001, was to ask us to go shopping. I think people would rather have jobs with good wages. I'm thinking construction jobs.
Why can't the federal government (who again, is about to mail out $150 billion dollars for no guaranteed return) organize a 21st century Works Projects Administration? During the Great Depression, millions were out of work, and the government put Americans to work building and repairing everything from freeways and dams to local projects like parks and common areas.
Why can't we do this again? Even someone like me who knows nothing about construction could learn enough to be useful. I can use a shovel, put hammer to nail, or any number of things. We would be government employees, similar to the military, and we would be paid good, fair wages to repair America.
It would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, yes. Maybe even trillions. But if America's infrastructure is being improved, then commerce benefits. If out of work Americans are making good wages, then they are paying taxes, and spending freely. I don't understand how this isn't the type of win/win situation that everyone claims to want all of the time. We end up with a better country, both in a physical sense, and in terms of our mental outlook. We will all be far more invested in the place we live.
I doubt I'm the only one who has thought to combine these two problems in order to reach a decent solution, but if so, why haven't I heard or read about it? Is it possible that things are the way they are for a reason, and that the people who make the important decisions simply want them this way? Again, I'm no economist, but is the disappearance of the middle class really so advantageous to the wealthy, that they might prefer the nation to struggle in large measure, rather than prosper as a whole?
I want someone to explain to me why this can't work. And if all you can come at with me with is "they'll have to raise taxes," then I'll know I'm right. You get what you pay for.
So far, it appears that people making less than $75k a year will get $600 bucks each, plus $300 per kid. Thus a married couple with three kids and a combined income of $110,000, will get a check for $2100 from the party of fiscal restraint.
It's a nice chunk of dough, and theoretically, we'll all run out and buy flat screens, and the economy will be saved. I'm not exactly sure how the purchase of Asian electronics will help US workers get raises to save their foreclosed homes, but I freely admit that I am not an economist.
What I am is a person with a long-term memory. In some cases, I can even remember things that happened six months ago. It's an inherited trait known as "not being a drooling moron."
On August 1 of last year, the I-35 bridge over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis collapsed. We all shook our heads and wondered how this could happen in America, and we talked about how under-funded our infrastructure is, and how this is the tip of the iceberg. But then, some other stuff happened, pennant races, steroids, Labor Day sales, and we forgot about it.
In the meantime, the subprime scams have helped the economy take a giant shit. People can't afford their homes, jobs with good wages evaporate as unemployment rises, and no one can think of anything that can be done except mail out checks to us like we were a nation of apocryphal welfare queens.
Well, I thought of something.
Every state in this country, every damned one of them, has infrastructure problems. Roads, bridges, schools, parks, sewers, all of it in disrepair. No one has any money to fix this stuff. Bush's answer, as it was after September 11, 2001, was to ask us to go shopping. I think people would rather have jobs with good wages. I'm thinking construction jobs.
Why can't the federal government (who again, is about to mail out $150 billion dollars for no guaranteed return) organize a 21st century Works Projects Administration? During the Great Depression, millions were out of work, and the government put Americans to work building and repairing everything from freeways and dams to local projects like parks and common areas.
Why can't we do this again? Even someone like me who knows nothing about construction could learn enough to be useful. I can use a shovel, put hammer to nail, or any number of things. We would be government employees, similar to the military, and we would be paid good, fair wages to repair America.
It would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, yes. Maybe even trillions. But if America's infrastructure is being improved, then commerce benefits. If out of work Americans are making good wages, then they are paying taxes, and spending freely. I don't understand how this isn't the type of win/win situation that everyone claims to want all of the time. We end up with a better country, both in a physical sense, and in terms of our mental outlook. We will all be far more invested in the place we live.
I doubt I'm the only one who has thought to combine these two problems in order to reach a decent solution, but if so, why haven't I heard or read about it? Is it possible that things are the way they are for a reason, and that the people who make the important decisions simply want them this way? Again, I'm no economist, but is the disappearance of the middle class really so advantageous to the wealthy, that they might prefer the nation to struggle in large measure, rather than prosper as a whole?
I want someone to explain to me why this can't work. And if all you can come at with me with is "they'll have to raise taxes," then I'll know I'm right. You get what you pay for.
Labels: economy, Minneapolis, recession, stimulus
posted at 7:07 PM