acerbic

I’m re-reading one of my all-time favorite novels.  I’ve read Atlas Shrugged probably five or six times; more than any novel besides On The Road. 

Ayn Rand fans have a certain habit of being completely insufferable, but this book is still important to me. It makes me question a lot of my thoughts about free markets and government intervention. She wants people to use their minds and think. Well Ms. Rand, you’ve done it. Every time I read this book I find myself questioning a lot of assumptions I have about the free market.

I like the world she presents (except for all the decay, destruction and starvation, of course). The book shows human potential for both good and ill, and concludes that we are powerful creatures, capable of much.

I like that. Far too often we succumb to our own feelings of powerlessness. How often do you hear “Well, nothing’s gonna change anyway so why bother?” Ms. Rand’s answer to that is a screaming NO. Humans can remake the world with amazing efficiency, and one person can change the world. Henry Ford, FDR, Steve Jobs, John Lennon, Mao are just a few that come to mind.

Anyway, getting back to the book. On paper, I agree with almost everything she says. Religion is bad, capitalism is good, the mind is not impotent. Regarding capitalism, I find her arguments very persuasive. After all, isn’t in the best interest of a businessman to produce a good product and sell it at competitive prices? If you sell a defective product, consumers will not buy it in the future and you will be out of business. Just some basic Adam Smith at work.

My problem is that I see so little of that. If Smith and Rand are correct we wouldn’t have toxic toys, beef that kills people, cars that explode or operating systems that don’t work at all. If the free market was really free we wouldn’t see million dollar payouts to failed CEOs.

So why? Why all the market failures? I think the answer can be found with another economist. John Maynard Keynes famously said “In the long run we are all dead.” Meaning that government should try to cushion the shocks of the market to provide the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. If we wait until all of the market failures to solve themselves (see housing crises), people will simply suffer needlessly. The government should intervene to assist.

This theory applies at both ends of the business cycle. Government should assist in the low points, and try to cool the market when it’s overheating. Basically, the same principle that the Federal Reserve operates under.

I think there is a dark side to this idea as well. Since we are all dead in the long run, humans have an incentive to maximize wealth in the short term, and the time value of money teaches us the shorter term the better. After all, who wouldn’t rather win the lotto today instead of working for 40 years?

Short term thinking seems to be an immutable part of the human condition.

That’s where my argument with Rand and other free market disciples begins and ends. There is a different between self-interest and enlightened self-interest. One of them works and one of them doesn’t. It requires us to see beyond the horizon of the immediate, which requires discipline. It’s not automatic, and that’s where Rand’s philosophy falls short.

It’s still a really good book. Read it.

Who is John Galt?

Meaganoff and I were discussing our mutual loathing of Hillary last night and I found myself nearly screaming “and another thing. That son-of-a-bitch husband of hers signed the law that overturned Glass-Steagall”!!!!!

Poor Meaganoff was caught off-guard by my outburst. Not her fault, so let me explain…

The 2nd Glass-Steagall act of 1933 was passed to ease the depression and ideally, prevent something it from happening again. Among other things, the law separated banks by type (commercial & investment) and explicitly said “You there, Mr. Banker, you can be a commercial bank or an investment bank, but ya can’t be both.”

To oversimplify to an embarrassing degree, commercial banks are for the little guys (me and you) and investment banks are for the big guys (General Motors, Exxon-Mobile). If you want to buy a house, you used to go to a commercial bank. If you wanted to buy an entire company, you went to an investment bank.

The idea behind this separation was to (somewhat) insulate these two sectors of the economy from each other. Ya know, if there was say…a problem in the housing market it wouldn’t affect the ability of large companies to get credit for their acquisitions, mergers, operations and divestitures…oh wait…yeah… That’s kinda exactly what’s going on RIGHT NOW.

Why? Well, among many other reasons, our friend President Clinton I signed a law that removed this regulation. A bunch of banks bought each other up in a mad frenzy; lo and behold, we have a bunch of banks that won’t loan companies money because they’re scared shitless about all the bad mortgages they are holding. It’s called a credit crunch people. Fun, isn’t it?

(One caveat, TeemKuntz himself is a homeowner, and every month he watches his hard-earned equity disappear as the value of his house tanks. Again, salt and pepper this entry to taste.)

If the sub-prime mess had occurred under Glass-Steagall (and there’s good reason to think it might not have), the debacle would still be kicking the shit out of the commercial banks, home values would probably still be tanking, but the entire economy wouldn’t be at risk because of a credit crunch. The problem would be contained. If Citibank had remained an investment bank, they wouldn’t be flipping the hell out right now. They would be continuing with their normal business.

In the real world, Citibank has no idea how bad this credit crunch will get. Some observers are suggesting we are just at the beginning of the mess. (Witness TeemKuntz hyperventilate).

I am not a closet socialist. I generally support free market principles, but we have to remember there are market failures, and those failures must be addressed, or we risk the entire economy.

FDR was forced to look at a lot of those failures and try to fix them. A lot of those fixes worked remarkably well. It took another democrat to undo this particular piece of legislation.

Remember kids, Hillary has got experience from working in Bill’s Administration. Maybe we should be asking what kind of experience that was.

And are said here better than I probably could.

So you wanna fight dirty?

Just a quick addendum to TeemKuntz’s well-put thoughts on civil unions. I would like to play devil’s advocate, but… I can’t really think of anything to argue. I guess my brain just doesn’t work like that.

A while back, I started searching for anti-marriage groups with a quick spin on Google, and found unmarried.org, home of the Alternatives to Marriage project.

Good start, I thought.

But, aiming to be politically correct and accept all attitude, one of the projects this group supports is a Marriage Boycott that will end when same sex couples have the same rights to marry as het couples. Then everyone will get married all at once, and it will be like the end of a Shakespeare comedy times a gazillion. Or something.

Does anyone feel like these people have missed the point? Does anyone think this is actually helping? And on a broader more important point, are actually we legitimizing inaction as protest? This ain’t a sit-down strike. There’s nothing pressing about this type of boycott. These people aren’t sacrificing anything, except a chance to fight with their future mother-in-laws about bridesmaids’ dress colors and / or a chance to be divorced. And who are they trying to impress / hurt / get to notice? Friends? Lawmakers? The wedding industry? (who they will give all their money to when the boycott ends, by the way.)

AtMP stresses that there are different ways to be “unmarried” with different levels of vehemency. But a few links later, they have information on types of “commitment” ceremonies (i.e. they look like a wedding, sound like a wedding, cost like a wedding, but aren’t a wedding.)
Isn’t the point to be uncommitted? Or, as I have phrased it before, to rebuild commitment every day? I realize this attitude would cause confusion in terms of legal arrangements, but since these ceremonies have no legal ramifications, then shouldn’t the message at least be right?

I’m not against big parties with fancy dresses and friends and family, followed by luxurious travel and kinky kinky sex. But the vow (if you can call it that) at said party should always be “I love you until I can’t love you anymore.”

Unfortunately, AtMP is the best that’s out there right now, as far as I can tell, and I generally hate to denounce powers used for actual good in favor of powers used for idealistic awesome.

But in the name of making the point, being a militant, being the Nader… I kinda want to.

Oh jolly days of wishy washy pundits! I know this is all old news for most of you, but this is the first primary I’ve actually followed and had minor salivation over, so pardon my naivety.

A few days ago, all anyone could talk about was Obama’s “momentum”; closing the gaps in recent polls, Hillary being on her last stand, or legs, or something upright.

Now they’ve apparently switched teams (again), joining Hillary and saying voters are “taking a closer look” at Barack. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard the term “free ride” thrown around. We’re all agreeing now that he’s all hat and no cattle.

Okay, saddle up. Let’s go cattle hunting. I’m going to try to spend my (limited) free-time over the next week or so and try to get elbow deep in policy, not only for Barack, but for all three who are still White House hopefuls.

I did a quick search trying to find out about John McCain’s ideas healthcare. The only thing close to actual policy I could find was that he wants to raise cigarette taxes. Hmmm. ‘Kay.

TeemKuntz, are you ready for a roundup? (Should I stop with the cattle analogy now?)

Oh, and can anyone get me a finer point on the origin of said phrase than just “Texas”?

A lawsuit is pending in California challenging the states’ definition of marriage. California does recognize civil unions and basically confers the legal protections of marriage, but now they’re fighting for the right to get (dum-da-da-dum) Married(!)

I’m getting a little sick to my stomach this morning. This is such a bad idea that I can’t fully count the ways, but I certainly aim to try.

(One caveat, TeemKuntz did used to be married, so feel free to take this post with liberal amounts of salt.)

The legal protections of marriage and marriage itself are two extremely different things. If I could go *poof*, and make it better, this is one of things I would change.

Being married basically tells the state “Hey, this person here (point to spouse), I want them to look after me and my interests if I am unable to do so myself.” Things like inheretance, power of attorney, medical decisions, these are important. Each person should be able to designate whoever they want to take care of those things. I love my parents and brother to death, but we disagree about enough things that I wouldn’t want them making decisions on my behalf.

This designation is important. Otherwise we could have mass chaos every time someone is injured or dies. Parents, spouses, children, could all have some kind of claim in medical care. Imagine being a doctor in those circumstances. We saw a bit of this during the Terri Schiavo fiasco. Avoiding that fiasco is why the state recoginizes marriages. It assumes the person you marry is the one you want to look after your interests.

Fine, OK. My objection is the recognition of marriage as the means of accomplishing this end. It’s mixing the church and state in very uncomfortable ways. In my world, designating a person would be the equivalent of filling in the “in case of emergency” entry in your passport. Something happens, you erase the name. Simple.

Marriage could still exist as well, but it would be completely outside of the public sphere. You want to go to a church? Fine. Wear a wedding band? Fine. Your church doesn’t want to perform ceremonies for gay people? Fine with me. Remember, coercion is a bad thing. If gay people want to have a wedding, that’s fine too. They can rent the hall, wear tuxedos, watch Uncle Mike get tanked up at the open bar, all fine with me.

And if they fill out the “in case of emergency” form all rights and benefits are theirs.

This is my ultimate problem with same sex marriage. It legitimizes the mixing of public policy and religion. We should be encouraging states to only recognize civil partnerships. But for this to work there cannot be any substantive difference between the civil unions and marriage.

OK, I stole the title of this post from “America – The Book”. Give credit where it’s due.

Brief sidebar: Lately the best place for news analysis are the various fake news outlets. The Onion, Daily Show, Colbert. I dunno. Says something sad about the news media.

Anyway, I am going to jump into the icy waters of gender politics for a second. Yes, gentle readers I am the possessor of a Y chromosome so I realize this journey is fraught with peril, but here goes.

Are we past due for a woman president? Categorically, yes. No question at all in my mind. However, this is not a political issue. This is merely a statement about the woeful prejudices of my countrypeople. I am skeptical that prejudices can be changed. Having a woman president isn’t going to make people any less misogynistic, than say, passing the Civil Rights Act made people less racist.

My bottom line: voting for Hillary because it’s time for a woman president, is ridiculous. It’s not an ‘issue’. Gender is not an issue, and no Ms. Clinton, the boys aren’t picking on you because you’re a girl.

Are you really trying to tell me that this country is more sexist than racist? That the media is giving a black man a pass so they can gang up on a white woman? I’m asking you to really think about that.

The only issues are the issues. The actual, real, nuts-and-bolts, economic, foreign policy, trade issues. Anything that doesn’t directly have to do with that is a smokescreen. (for further discussion, I refer you to Michael Lind’s “The Next American Revolution”)

For a generation now, we’ve been told that abortion, affirmative action, gun control, these are issues. In that time corporate power has gone completely unchecked. Labor unions have been smashed, banking deregulated, power deregulated, mergers, the revolving door between K street and congress, massive debt, a housing crises, credit crises, health care crises, CEO pay is at astronomical levels….need I go on?

These are the only things we should be concerned with. Anything else is a diversion, including gender of the Occupant of the White House.

Happy CP Day – it’s a great day and a better song.

It is also TeemKuntz’s birthday, so in honor of that lovely event, here’s one of his / our favorite topics: “In the current election, Nader is the sole presidential candidate you’re likely to hear about (now that Dennis Kucinich has dropped out) who stands forthrightly for adopting a single-payer solution to the health-care crisis, a stance universally regarded as politically impractical. But single payer is the only solution of much practical value in the real world, as evidenced by the experience of nearly all advanced democracies. If Nader does no more in the 2008 election than oblige major-party candidates to consider that stubborn reality for five minutes, he’ll have done us all a big favor.” More at Slate.

Chicago blogger and, as far as I can tell, possessor of awesome, Nikkos seems to endorse (rather more eloquently than I) my stance on getting involved in ways other than voting. I should take my own damn advice.

And in less seriousness — because couldn’t we all use some lightness to take our minds off those Ohio / Texas results? — for once I can say I can’t agree with the FCC more.

from www.theonion.com posted with vodpod

It seems the “older women” contingency of voters that make up the largest and most vocal part (generally speaking) of Hillary’s voter base say they sympathize with her because she’s a woman. They support her because of the “gender issue.”

What issue is that, exactly? The fact that the United States is one of the only countries in the world that has never before had a woman at the helm? Okay. I guess that is kind of a problem. It really makes us look bad, and recently, looking good is an American value.

So, it’s time for a woman president. Past time, even. I agree.

But don’t you want the best? Shouldn’t she be the most capable? As a woman — more importantly, as an adult, tax paying, (mostly) law-abiding citizen — I want to represented by someone at least solid, not just someone with a pair of ovaries.

Hillary seems to be, in the minds of her fans, some paragon of women. But I’d like to point out her total lack of a political career prior to being First Lady. And hell, while she was First Lady. Sure, I know they ran as “two-for-one”, supporters say she was just like any other advisor.

But she wasn’t hired as any other advisor would have been, and likewise no one voted her into office. She didn’t get to any of these positions because of her merit.

This is a bit of a slippery slope, I realize, for someone who’s writing a blog with her boyfriend as co-author. But belief in someone’s abilities and talents are, presumably, only part of the reason you’re with them or love them. It also has to do with your chemistry with them, how they make you laugh, how great a lay they are. Or, more cynically perhaps, if they knocked you up. Or how much money they have. It’s a lot of different things to different people and it doesn’t amount to the same as a job interview or being an actual candidate.

And you know what? I’m gonna go one step further and say Hillary never would have been senator, never had the public appeal to get that far if her husband hadn’t gone bed hopping.

As in the Texas debate, she constantly makes jokes and references to her suffering as the betrayed wife. Her slogan-meisters must have advised her that it somehow lends credibility to her image as a “fighter.”

For the last time: sticking with someone who clearly doesn’t give a shit about your emotional state doesn’t make you a fighter. It makes you a) ignorant b) ambivalent about or out of touch with that person and / or c) proves you still need something from them other than their love.

Hillary is many things, but dumb ain’t one of ‘em. And she may have been out of touch with her relationship at the time, but I would hope certain events would have snapped it into focus pretty fast. So it seems to me that she felt she still had more to gain — namely, momentum for her own political career — from Bill.

I’m sure it’s a hard line for any politician, especially female, to walk. I think a divorce would have made her appear empowered, in control of her life. But she might have appeared “weak” to voters with more traditional familial ideals.

So she stayed, and reaped buckets of sympathy from older women who also don’t have the guts to leave their husbands.

There’s a great episode of Futurama (go with me here) where Leela gets drafted to a Blurnsball (futuristic baseball) team, making her the first woman in the Major Leagues. She’s totally oblivious to the fact that she was put on the team as a publicity stunt until outraged female athletes rise up against her, saying she’s set them back, blown away their legitimacy.

I want to see a woman in the White House. There’s no question.

But I don’t want our first female president to have coasted halfway there on her husband’s coattails and, more importantly, Monica Lewinsky’s dress hem.

Maybe this isn’t news to many. But no one seems to want to mention it. And I’m not saying she’s the inventor of gold digging (er, vote digging?), but let’s call things what they properly are and not get swept up in the “Evita”-ness of it all.

The bottom line is, I’m anti-Hillary for the same reason a lot of women say they’re pro-Hillary.

Because I have to be. For women. As a woman, how could I feel otherwise?

Ah, the baby in the bar. God. My stomach still turns thinking of that night. I’d also like to add that there was, at another table, another family with two kids. Two girls, probably aged 8 and 12-ish. Not babies, but not your typical liquor swilling hole-in-the-wall denizens, either. But they seemed happy enough wowing over their uncle’s customized saw, which had some sort of NASCAR logo carved in the blade. I kid you not. (TeemKuntz says he doesn’t want to be elitist, but I think I do.)

I’ve digressed before I’ve begun.

Despite my shared loathing for all the aforementioned people, I have a semi rebuttal.

Do these people get a vote? Yes. Do they, in theory, have more sway than us? Yes.

Will all of them utilize their vote? I am saying probably not. I would bet cash money that that woman will be dealing with that baby’s chronic cough (or other ailment, or daily problem) come Tuesday in November, and she won’t make it to the polls. (Which is a shame, because I tend to think she’d at least have survival instinct enough to vote for a candidate with a sturdy healthcare plan.)

But if we prefer to dwell in a realm of ideals, I still think there’s another answer.

The American answer is: Everyone gets a vote, but you can do more.

And to clarify, I don’t mean George Bush’s ” ‘MERICA! FUCK YEAH!”, the world-policing nation, or the super-slickly marketed, superficial pandering of current politicians to this half-assedly stuck together for-better-or-for-worse group of diverse and pissed-off people. I mean America, where people used to give a damn.

I don’t know that there was ever a nation of equality where “anyone could become president” (Zinn says no so far and I’m only on Chapter 4),. I don’t know if hard work ever paid off for everyone. I doubt it. But I do know causes used to mean something.

Protests, riots, enlisting in the army. These acts meant something. And you know for damn sure they meant more than the contents of a ballot box.

The American answer is: make your vote mean more. Volunteer, hold a protest, make art, start a movement. Create a website. Craft a heavier vote with your hands and your sweat and your time.

Thank you for visiting the Realm of Ideals. Now entering: Reality.

I don’t think I have to take the time to explain why this doesn’t happen. 40+ hours with these fluorescent lights sucking at my eyeballs — SUCK SUCK SUCK — and THEN I’m going to commute, make dinner, potentially work on my second job, and THEN campaign? Or create? Or donate?

I don’t think so. The most political thing I’ll probably do tonight is watch the Daily Show (IF I can wrestle away the remote and turn off the O’Reilly Factor…)

So for the time being, I suppose I’m surrendering to having less of a vote than the baby-weilding bar hoppers.