I'm not sure I'm actually a real "Bush Hater". First, the terminology is suspect at best. It's a Republican Party partisan epithet that has been in use since the inception of the Bush Administration. Tagging an individual or group as "Bush Haters" is/was meant to marginalize them as inherently irrational. It doesn't matter what irrational people think. They might as well be crazy. However, for the purpose of this editorial, I will allow myself to temporarily don the label in order to explain my revulsion of the Bush Administration.
While I never put it this bluntly, I wanted George W. Bush to fail. More specifically, I wanted his administration to fail with regards to certain policies. However, I also realized that if he really "failed" on the big things, the country would be in big trouble. George Bush was elected by the American people (slightly less than half of all voters). This is the system of government under which we live. If "we" choose someone to represent all of us, then on a very basic level, we must wish that he be successful, even if we'd prefer that specific policies don't get enacted.
My initial feelings about George W. Bush could have been characterized as somewhere between indifferent and cautiously optimistic. I didn't feel good about him, but I was open-minded. Following the slash and burn South Carolina primary, the campaign, and then the post campaign debacle of Florida, my opinion of Bush changed a great deal. I didn't like the way he spoke. I found his lack of knowledge on basic issues to be distressing. What I perceived as arrogance was all the more frustrating given his lack of knowledge.
Nonetheless, I wanted to believe his characterization of himself as a "compassionate conservative", which before it became a joke appeared to be repudiation of the more radical Conservative ideology of the previous two decades. Further, I felt a sense of reassurance that Bush might be a decent president because of his father's foreign policy realism. I imagined the new Bush leaning heavily on people like Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell. I also thought he'd try to "heal" the divided nation by governing, at least initially, as more or less a moderate.
It's hard to separate my feelings about Bush from 9/11. Prior to 9/11, I thought he was likely to be an accidental president. Bush's response to 9/11 terrified me. I didn't think he had any idea what he was doing. It then followed that I didn't think he would have meaningful input to what his advisers were suggesting. My fears were confirmed when he announced that we were in a "war on terror". That was ridiculous to me. A war on jealousy would have better chances of success. A war on "terror" can't be won. There will always be terror. Further, that's the nature of "terrorism". Declaring a war seemed designed to keep people scared all the time and into perpetuity, which is exactly what the tactic of "terrorism" seeks to achieve. The Bush administration's response to the attacks struck me as naive. We were in a war with Al-Qaeda, and we were in that war prior to 9/11.
Regarding Iraq, reasonable people questioned the existence of WMD. I tended to think it was unlikely that Iraq had WMD, but I didn't know of course. I think the selling of the war was a low point in American politics. The "smoking gun that comes in the form of a mushroom cloud" was hyperbole of such an order that it was hard to know how to respond. Once the war was underway, the issue of whether there was WMD in Iraq became academic. Perhaps the administration lied, or misled, or overstated the case, but regardless, we had launched a war against another country. In that context, I certainly didn't want failure. Failure in Iraq was, and still is, an unacceptable outcome. No, we shouldn't have been there in the first place, but it was too late for that. I firmly believed that my anger over how we got in had to be separated from my opinion of what to do in the present.
I was conflicted regarding Iraq. I didn't want Bush to be successful, yet I wanted Iraq to turn out alright. I wasn't in favor of any sort of pull out until that place had been brought under control. I believe that we destroyed Iraq. I have to include myself in that "we" because I live in America and continue to freely choose to do stay. I think the human toll exacted on the Iraqis was devastating and I believe there is a moral obligation to make Iraq as right as possible. Failure means more suffering, more harm to Americans, and a further destabilized Middle East. In the end, I concluded that I wanted the best possible outcome for Iraq, but I didn't want the Bush Administration to be able to claim any credit for it. I wasn't on the line for a decision, and I wasn't accountable, so I could live with this equivocal stance.
Regarding the financial crisis, I was in pretty much the same position. I considered the Bush Administration, or to be more specific, the administration's oversight of the financial system, to be largely responsible for the crisis. Yet, how could I wish for failure once the crisis had happened. Bush responded about as well as I think he could. I give him credit for not being an ideologue in a time of crisis.
I have no idea how many people ended up in this place. I found the anti-war movement to be ignorant. And they were the loudest. Certainly, anger was driving the response to everything Bush did, regardless of the outcome. There were more considered opinions out there, but they weren't loud. Plus, nuance always whispers, while simplicity shouts.
Oddly enough, Bush actually failed. From the response to 9/11, Iraq, Katrina, and the financial crisis, the administration failed. This isn't a cause for celebration. Bush's failures have caused untold harm. Sure, now I have a guy that I like in the White House, but was it worth the cost? Certainly not to me. Worldwide havoc is what happens when a presidential administration fails. It happened on Bush's watch, and it will happen to President Obama if he fails.
posted by Ant In A Hailstorm at
1:00 PM on Saturday, March 28, 2009
1 Comments
Start Digging The Graves... Big Oil's Propaganda
Big Oil is terminally ill. You wouldn't know it by their profits, but the walking dead frequently appear just fine until you know about the disease. No one except those who own and/or work for Big Oil likes oil. It's now considered a necessary evil. When the product contains the word "evil" anywhere, you know the fat lady is about to sing. No one wants oil anymore. Everyone wants a cleaner, cheaper alternative. These companies see the end coming, but they are still on deck with their buckets, furiously trying to empty the water from the Titanic. How do we know? Their completely absurd self-promoting advertising is the giveaway. Big Oil is now pouring millions of dollars into advertisements to convince consumers that they aren't dying, and in fact, are actually integral to the future and are ideally positioned to take us forward into a world of non-oil-based energy. They are no different than the alcoholic ex-boyfriends that keeping promising that they've really changed this time. These metaphors are killing me! Now let us consider a few examples of their futility...
First lets deal with Exxon. This ad features an array of stooges posing as scientists (who presumably work for Exxon) telling us about all the ways they'll be improving our lives through with their innovative "technologies". They start by framing their concern as environmental in nature. It doesn't take five seconds before the nonsense starts. Does anyone seriously think that the company which posts the largest corporate profits in history, every year, would be doing ANY of this craziness if everyone hadn't started to freak out over gas prices and global warming? Why would they? Why should they change? Obviously, they have no problem making the largest corporate profits ever by selling us good old fashioned oil. Yet, they are so audacious as to think they can drop millions of dollars telling us that they are actually concerned about consumers and we'll all go along with it. No doubt, I trust that Exxcon will lead the way. Did you see that? ExxCON???!
But wait! Exxon isn't the only oil company in the game. Don't forget British Petroleum, or BP, or "Beyond Petroleum" (I just love those marketing wizards!). They start their ad with a slightly different premise than Exxon. BP begins by assuming that we already think they have a role in new energy. Exxon seems desperate to convince us, so they have to bring in a bunch of scientist-looking folks of different ethnic origins. BP doesn't bother with any of that. They go straight to the "man on the street" and ask "What would you ask an oil company?" As if it were any surprise, the actors/dupes they have cast wish to ask BP what they plan to do about air quality and alternatives to oil. That's the first thing I thought of. I didn't think "How dare you rape the planet for all it's worth, for as long as you could get away with it, then hold us hostage by offering us the Earth's natural resources for a ransom, while claiming you care!" Don't let the ingratiating "hopeful" sounding music at the end fool you either.
I've saved the best for last! Energy Tomorrow started putting out ads during the presidential primaries that featured a lady named Brooke Alexander. She used to act in soaps, so she was perfectly suited for this! She's still out there selling out whatever soul she has left to a promotion called "Energy Tomorrow" which is actually an ad campaign from the American Petroleum Institute (API), largest U.S trade association for the oil and natural gas industry. She starts by saying "Oil and natural gas powered the past". That's really interesting because on the American Petroleum Institute's webpage it says "API is the only national trade association that represents all aspects of America’s oil and natural gas industry". So is the API like... some sort of medieval guild? Our friend Brooke then tells us that a "growing world will need more" and proposes, unbelievably, a sixty year plan using "oil and natural gas resources right here". But, wait... didn't she just say...? Yes, she said "oil and natural gas powered the past" AND THEN that we have enough for the "next 60 years". Sixty years sounds pretty safe. But why not 500 years? Because then we'd think they were trying to trick us. So 60 years is a nice number that sounds safe and yet means absolutely nothing. She used the word alternative once, but didn't mention any actual alternatives, which isn't surprising since she represents the OIL AND NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY. There obviously is no alternative. Never mind that though. We'll all be gone in 60 years anyway, right? Or at least that old bag in the commercials will be gone.
Here's the thing to remember. We don't know the name of the company that will provide us with new sources of energy. Just like we didn't know what a "Microsoft" was in 1973. As far as I'm concerned, it's time to start digging the graves.
posted by Ant In A Hailstorm at
3:00 PM on Friday, March 27, 2009
0 Comments
Imagine Less Stuff
With all of the discussion about how to fix the economy, is it surprising to anyone that no one ever asks what it means to be "fixed"? Is it surprising that there isn't any discussion about the nature of the world in which we live and whether we want it to be fixed? The world in which we live is one that is far too complicated for any of us to understand. We live in a world where the decisions of a couple senators and one president can have the effect of creating financial mayhem. In this instance, I'm referring to the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act. We live in a world where our fate is largely in the hands of several thousand very wealthy people and the boards of several hundred large corporations. They make the decisions. We face the consequences, whatever they may be. This state of affairs is referred to, by some, as "freedom" incredibly enough.
The things upon which the our lives depend are determined by decisions that are completely out of our hands. We have no idea how to grow food, raise animals, make a car, fix a telephone or cellphone, or even start a fire. Most of us have no idea why the economy is a mess right now. Except for those few people who have either made one of these things their career, or have taken it upon themselves to learn certain survival skills, we are utterly dependent on forces upon which we have no ability to influence. We are basically helpless.
I believe these are facts, and that they won't change as long as civilization exists. I have no wish to do away with the many comforts of 21st century life. I can live without knowing how a plasma television works. I can live without even knowing someone who knows how a plasma television works. That's diversification of knowledge and labor and I'm all for it. A small group of survivalists and anarchists would prefer that the system as we know it be brought down altogether. I don't find that idea particularly enticing for a number of reasons, unless it happens in several hundred years.
In this time of crisis, during which we are dependent on our political leaders to make the correct decisions that will end the economic crisis, I think it is worth considering at least a few changes around the edges. We don't have to do away with capitalism to grow our own food, or support local farmers. Even something as simple as building grocery stores within walking distance would make a difference. Efficient mass transit is a worthy goal, but another worthy goal would be to not need mass transit. Does nearly everything have to be made in China, India, Cambodia, Taiwan, etc...? I have nothing against the people of the Far East, but the meager earnings of the average Malaysian assembly worker doesn't outweigh the possible gains we'd make by being able to make our own clothes if necessary. The industrialization of the Far East isn't doing those people any favors in the long run. Global capitalism is stripping all rural people of the basic skills that sustained them for generations. It happened in this country in the late 19th century.
Regarding finance, is it absolutely necessary that banks be international conglomerates with every investment hedged against another investment with another financial institution? Would a smaller system of smaller regional banking networks be worth looking into? Sure, some people wouldn't make $8 million in a single year, but there would still be rich people. And when a crisis occurs in banking, instead of threatening the entire world, perhaps only a few states would be at risk. Greed would be modestly tempered for a while.
I can't help but think that people would experience more "freedom" in smaller, more self-contained communities, in which they might have some measure of influence. At the moment, I'm not feeling particularly free.
I have seen a lot of analogies and metaphors that try to explain Credit Default Swaps. They are so unusual that they can't be explained without examples. Here is mine...
Pretend it's 2003:
Cast Beavis: Investor & lender Stuart: Borrower Butthead: Someone with a lot of money (in theory) Todd: Lender of money to Beavis
Beavis: I see a house that I don't own. It is a nice $4.5 million house.
Butthead: I, too, see a house. It is so nice.
Beavis: The owners are nice too. I lent Stuart, the holder of the mortgage, $1 million dollars so he could start a typewriter business. He'll give me $1.25 million dollars when the business takes off (this is Goldman Sachs lending money to Lehman Brothers). The only problem is that I worry that Stuart's house will go into foreclosure if his wife Daria divorces him (this is the risk that the debt will not be repaid by Lehman Brothers).
Butthead: No, Daria loves Stuart. There is nothing to worry about. Plus, everyone needs a typewriter these days. They will always make their payments so the house will never be foreclosed (this is AIG's confidence that Lehman Brothers will never fail).
Beavis: I don't know... if they got divorced, Daria would be ruthless. Plus, if the typewriter business doesn't work out... well, I'd be in big trouble with Todd. I borrowed $1 million from Todd so I could lend it to Stuart (Goldman Sachs is worried about it's ability to pay it's creditors).
Butthead: We disagree about Stuart's long term stability, so how about this? If you make payments to me of $100,000 a year for ten years, I will give you $1 million if Stuart's house goes into foreclosure in the next ten years (This is the deal AIG struck with millions of debt holders, mostly large banks. In this example, Goldman Sachs is "insuring" the $1 million it gave to Lehman by purchasing "insurance" on Lehman's existence).
Beavis: You've got a deal (He thinks he has insurance, but he doesn't because he doesn't own Stuart's house, just as Goldman Sachs does not own Lehman - this is important: CDSs are not insurance, which is regulated by the SEC. )
Butthead: Great doing business with you (this is the fine line between gambling and investing. AIG never thought the big banks would fail, so selling the CDSs should be easy money. AIG is "betting" that Lehman will never fail).
Skip ahead 5 years. The $4.5 million house is in foreclosure.
Beavis: My fears were confirmed. Stuart cheated on Daria, and then Daria divorced Stuart and took all of his money. He couldn't make his mortgages payments so now his house is in foreclosure. Worse still, no one wants a typewriter. Stuart informed me that he wouldn't be returning the $1 million he borrowed from me. Now Todd is mad at me. I'm in big trouble. I need my $1 million now (Banks entered into CDS arrangements with AIG for just this reason)
Butthead: Uh... I made thousands of agreements just like yours, and wouldn't you know it, all of the houses, on which those agreements were based, are now in foreclosure and everyone wants their money right now. I don't have the money. I owe $50 Billion, but I have only $10 Billion. How about if I give you $300K? (This is why AIG was very irresponsible. They were making a lot of money from the sale of CDSs until the value of housing destroyed the value of mortgage backed securities. AIG had no ability to make good on their side of the deal. This is what happens when risky financial products aren't regulated).
Beavis: Hey that's not fair. That is $100K less than what I paid you, and not even close to $1 million. I need that money now or else Todd will kill me! But I'll kill you first! I have to pay back the loan that Todd gave me. If I go down, you'll go down! (This is the panic the banks felt, plus the explicit threat of bringing down the economy because everyone has borrowed money from everyone else based on the value of mortgage backed securities which were of dubious value)
Butthead: Okay, okay... I'll get my parents to give me some money because surely they would not like me to be killed (this is the US Government which doesn't want the entire economy to crash and thus, has no choice but to give AIG the money)
posted by Ant In A Hailstorm at
8:58 AM on Thursday, March 19, 2009
1 Comments
Time To Panic
The AIG Bonus "Scandal" is junk news. I refer to it as "news porn". I don't think I'm the first person to use that terminology. The bonus debacle isn't just news porn, however, it's news fetish porn, and not only is it distracting us from the main event, it's crippling our ability to manage the growing crisis. The real lurid action, what we all need to be watching, is in the bailout itself. How is it going to work long term? Will it work long term? What is the future of AIG? What is the future for the the credit default swap, the kinky sex of high finance?
The bonus scandal is basically sad. It's something that average folk can easily understand. We can all understand the superficial absurdity of the very people who were instrumental in the AIG fiasco receiving million dollar bonuses, while we are taking pay cuts and fearing for our jobs. Unfortunately, this outrage is misplaced. The total amount of the bonuses is less than 1/100th of the total bailout. The bonuses are 165 million. Add three more zeroes for the amount of the bailout (thus far). The sadness is that the public blurs all of this together resulting in generalized anger and lack of trust. The stimulus, bailout, and bonuses are all the same thing: a lot of tax dollars being spent, all to line someone else's pocket!
I'm inclined to blame our whip smart news media for the focus on the bonuses. The banking crisis is ridiculously complicated. Complication = ratings poison. Ill-advised bonuses funded by tax payer dollars? That's cable news gold. Regardless of the disservice this does us, they'll carry on with it until it gets boring and/or some other irrelevant scandalous thing happens. All of you "the media is liberal" people can stuff it because everyone is going along with this story. Media outlets exist to make money, bias be damned.
The great risk this poses, as I see it, is that the bonus scandal gives extra strength to politics in the Frazier/Ali fight against good policy. Politics just took steroids, while good policy ate a pizza. The fact of the matter is that the situation in which we find ourselves is a multi-trillion dollar global economic crisis being held together by single thread. That single thread is tax payer money being used to prevent catastrophe. "Bailout" is really the wrong word to use. It should be called "life support money" because nothing is getting bailed out. The patient is merely being kept alive while the doctors scramble to find a cure.
Good policy may very well be an infusion of even more money into the banking system. I'm thinking that no less than a trillion dollars is going to be needed to keep this thing afloat while the garbage is cleared out. This presents a grave problem to the Obama administration, and thus to all of us. President Obama is going to have to ask for more money exactly when the public is infuriated with spending money, particularly on bonuses for greedy executives. Politics, being what it is, means that Obama will face great resistance from Congress, and may very well fail to pass the appropriate measures. Members of congress will take a "principled" stand that we've already spent too much taxpayer money, yet the economy isn't better. It doesn't matter what the facts are. Forget all of that. Even those members of congress who understand the dynamics of the crisis will demagogue this thing. The news media will no doubt join in on the fun. Before you know it, President Obama's approval rating will drop by 20% and obituaries for his presidency will begin to appear. Meanwhile, we'll continue to flounder, only to eventually succumb to the gravitational pull of a worldwide great depression.
Of course, I hope I'm wrong. Perhaps the Obama administration has this all worked out. They have surprised me before. Sometimes they seem to be several steps ahead of everyone else. At the moment, I'm worried and think President Obama should take unprecedented executive measures to deal with this crisis. By any means necessary...
posted by Ant In A Hailstorm at
7:02 PM on Wednesday, March 18, 2009
0 Comments
AIG: In Bed With The Enemy
AIG executives plan to award themselves 165 million in bonuses and retention pay. These aren't the regular run-of-the-mill executives (although they're getting their share too). The largest share of the bonus money is headed toward the derivatives division, the people who brought us Credit Default Swaps.
Suddenly, everyone is surprised and shocked! In the world of income inequality, it's these people who comprise the very top. We find ourselves horrified only now, because 170 billion American tax dollars were given to AIG to prevent it from failing, and consequently destroying the world economy. Understand, this was perfectly fine last year. And the year before. And the year before that. It made complete sense that these people received millions of dollars in compensation. The justification for the high payouts is that those who receive them brought in billions of dollars. So, all considered, it's a good deal.
We believe that it is appropriate for individuals to generate billions of dollars in phoney (or to put it charitably "unsound") invenstments. Why isn't a $500,000 bonus sufficient? Why isn't a salary sufficient? Competition for the best talent of course. Our favorite financial corporate executives are the A-Rods of big money. And of course, we're also okay with baseball players receiving millions and millions of dollars. Seriously, why should we be surprised that these titans of industry would give themselves bonuses even when they have failed on the grandest scale in the history of civilization. And I do mean "civilization" because the mess created by AIG is the largest financial disaster ever. And the amount of money being thrown to AIG to keep it on life support is also the largest ever.
These are people in society that we accept. Some even admire them and wish to be one of them. Only now are they villains. No, they are doing what snakes do. We let them in our house and they are eating our children and now we're angry. The question we should be asking ourselves isn't "How could they take bonuses?!" It should be "Is this really the kind of world that I believe is right and just?". We're going to come out of this eventually. My guess is that business will go on as usual and the million dollar bonuses won't be front page news. If so, if we allow the system to be rebuilt much the same as it was prior to the crisis, then we shouldn't be surprised when get eaten again. That is the culture. Hasn't anyone seen the movie Wall Street?
In the meantime, President Obama spoke about AIG:
"This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed," Mr. Obama said ahead of announcing a plan to rescue small businesses through a raft of new lending options. "Under these circumstances, it's hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay. How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?"
I think that's all fine and well, and I hope those bonuses are stopped. However, as AIG has pointed out, they are obligated to pay out the bonuses because it's a contractual obligation. Do you see where this is going? AIG is too big fail. Therefore, we give AIG billions of dollars. Then AIG continues to do what it has always done because they believe they have us by the balls. They know we can't let them fail, so why not pay out those bonuses? Plus, it's in the contract. And beyond that, if they fail to pay those bonuses, then they might lose some of their gifted employees to other firms. Then what would happen?! I think that's a load of crap, but I'll go into it some other time.
So to finish, AIG will get their money. And we will let them do it now, and we'll let them do it again. It's time to read more books and newspapers, and spend less time worrying about gay marriage, prostitution scandals, abortion, missing pretty girls, etc... That's the connection. While the country was following the Natalie Holloway story, the disaster of AIG's greedy decisions was just starting to materialize. And we never saw it coming.
posted by Ant In A Hailstorm at
1:34 PM on Monday, March 16, 2009
0 Comments
We Are Not The Problem
This has been getting on my nerves for the past few weeks so I'm going to address it here. Don't let anyone tell you that "we" are responsible for the economic crisis. Don't let anyone tell you that "everyone" has to share in the blame. This is blatant establishment propaganda.
"Establishment Propaganda": What the hell is this socialist crap?! I'll tell you what it is. It's the reason why the existing of order of things is never seriously challenged by a significant number of people. It's meant to prevent social unrest. This is no conspiracy. There isn't a group of guys sitting around a table somewhere deciding to dupe everyone. It's simply self-interest. It doesn't matter who it is. It could be Fox or MSNBC. It could be Rush Limbaugh or Rachel Maddow. It doesn't matter because they all do it. No one with a leadership role in public life wishes to see it challenged. It's non-ideological.
"We" are being told that "we" should share some blame for the financial crisis. How much responsibility we are assigned varies. Some will say it's all "our" fault. Some will divide the responsibility among banks, mortgage lenders, political leaders, etc... The main point is that we are made to understand that responsibility does not solely lie with our institutions; that is, our government, our financial system, and the specific individuals who set economic policy.
Step back for a moment and think about your own situation. What changed for you? Were you doing anything different in 2007 when the subprime mortgage market began to crash, than you were in 2002 when subprime was booming? Were you doing anything different in March 2008 or September 2008 when Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers collapsed, Wachovia and Washington Mutual failed, and AIG, Merrill Lynch, and Citigroup required "bailout" money in order to prevent complete economic devastation? Perhaps you had a car loan, house loan, and some credit card debt. Most people continued to work and meet their obligations. Nothing changed except that the system upon which we all depend started to shake underneath our feet.
Buying an iPod, plasma tv, or Wii did not cause the problem. It wasn't you. It wasn't even those who took bad mortgages, but that's a different topic for a different post.
Believing it is partly "our" fault makes us complacent and helpless. It strips away any possible curiosity about why all of a sudden we fear for our jobs and the value of our 401k's have been cut in half. It was partially "our" fault. The nice thing about this belief is that it means that the same people that got us into this mess will not only maintain their position, but will be paid to fix the mess. When the economy eventually recovers (and it will) we'll all be so relieved that our leaders and institutions got us out of this crisis we created. In the end, the system will look much the same as it did prior to the crisis. The main difference will be that there will be some provisions put in place to try to prevent the same thing from happening again. Otherwise, the system will benefit the few at the expense of the many. Profit will be capitalized, while risk will be socialized.
I'm not suggesting that we should take to the street and burn down our local television affiliates and our local government offices. It won't do any good. The thing to remember is that while this crisis unfolds, it should not be forgotten that you aren't responsible. If you find yourself in a position to do something, then do it. For most of us that will be in November 2010, the next congressional election.
There is a terrifying statistic out there that the "blame everyone" crowd has been using to build it's case. It's the fact that total household debt exceeds the nation's total GDP. Household debt burdens are too high, but the debt to GDP ratio is not a factor in our current problem. Read here for more: Debt-To-GDP Chart "Wrong".
posted by Ant In A Hailstorm at
8:08 PM on Saturday, March 14, 2009
0 Comments
Erase Jennifer Anniston
Of course this requires a large font! Jennifer Aniston is easily the least interesting "celebrity" of our time. People like Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian don't count because they barely attempt to portray themselves as little more than semi-literate retards. Aniston, on the other hand, would have us believe that she's a legitimate actress and generally an important person. This woman should have a big "FAIL" stamped across her forehead. Her life's dream is to be the next Meg Ryan. Sorry Charlie, Meg Ryan was "Meg Ryan" when she was in her twenties, over twenty years ago. Aniston is now 40, which is the "wall" that even very talented actresses pay hundreds of thousand of dollars in plastic surgery to avoid hitting for fear of ever diminishing job prospects.
In the nineties, Aniston was married to Brad Pitt. He wanted kids. She didn't. Why? To advance her career without the impediment of stretch marks no doubt. So Brad Pitt eventually moved on, thus launching the multi-year "Jennifer Aniston Poor Pitiful Me" publicity blitz. Has anyone else made so much news by only commenting on her ex-husband while at the same time complaining that she has to comment on him? She wants to "move on". Sure, she does. Without complaints and planted stories related to Brad Pitt, she has nothing. When did Friends go off the air? Five years ago? Did she ever write or direct any of those shows?
I can only imagine the meeting of geniuses struggling to market this ever diminishing blank slate. How can they make her seem intriguing and enigmatic, while also portraying her as independent and strong? It can't be done. There isn't anything there. Aniston isn't the least bit interesting. Celebrity publicist Stephen Huvane is the king of all things Aniston. Whenever she appears in the news or on magazine covers bitching about Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie, remember that Huvane is the wizard that makes it possible. This guy also represents such endearing personalities as Gwyneth Paltrow, Kirsten Dunst, Ashton Kutcher, and Demi Moore. What a cast.
Obviously, one might rebut that I must be fascinated with this woman. Otherwise why would I be angry enough to write a few paragraphs about her. I'm not fascinated by her. My gripe is aesthetic. Aniston is a blight. She makes the world a less appealing place. This is a design issue. She's like a guy sitting on a toilet in the background of a perfectly good photograph of a bowl of fruit. She needs to be Photoshopped out.
posted by Ant In A Hailstorm at
8:04 AM on Thursday, March 12, 2009
0 Comments
Chris Matthews Doesn't Care
I find Chris Matthews alternately frustrating and fascinating. He was positively ignorant last week while trying to express his frustration with the progress of the Obama Administration's response to the bank crisis. On the other hand, tonight he went after Ari Fleischer without mercy. This is the kind of interview one gives when they don't care if their guest never returns. Fleischer handles himself well enough. He didn't fold. Regardless, it was nice to hear the questions in a public forum. Anyone who spends a little time watching these shows quickly catches on that both guest and host have a mutually beneficially arrangement. Neither wants to make the other look bad. The host wants to look like an insider. The guest wants to get the message out. So day after day we get boring interviews and no one really gets grilled. Even though Matthews thanks Fleischer for appearing on his show, adding "I really mean it", my guess is that Matthews plans on retiring sooner than he thinks he'll need Fleischer on his show again.
posted by Ant In A Hailstorm at
7:49 PM on Wednesday, March 11, 2009
0 Comments
Want To Fix The Economy? Start By Shutting Up
The first of probably a few commentaries on the destruction of everything we know and everything we do and why I'm scared to death.
No one knows what's going to happen. Most people want retribution against those who cause this crisis. Some express righteous indignation at the notion of "bailing out" banks. Everyone is wrong. There is no other way to say it. Perhaps an analogy will help. The global financial system is like God. Ordinary people cannot understand, and therefore should not question it's actions. We have neither the capacity to understand, nor the power to fight back. We are at it's mercy. Don't question God. It can only get us in trouble.
There really are certain things of which people should have no opinions. Monetary policy and the world of high finance are certainly two of those things. Consider your own background. If you are like me, you went to high school, then college, then got some job. How much education did we get about financial policy along the way? Possibly we took an economics class because we had to. Some may say that they took a lot of these courses. Okay, then as long as you've been paying attention to current events, and also have read up on the history of monetary policy for the past 80 years, then go ahead and have your opinion.
Everyone else needs to shut up. There ARE people in the world who can understand this stuff. The Chairman of The Federal Reserve Bank is one of them. The current and past Treasury Secretaries are two more. Trained economists of either a liberal or conservative persuasion who have been in the business for a couple decades count as well. The rest of us may as well be questioning how to put a man on the moon, or hear a person's voice in a device held to the ear, how a light bulb works. We are doing more harm than good with our opinions. God help us if we are called to answer questions in a poll.
That is what it has come to. Of course, it's always been like this, only it mattered far less when all we had to do was wrap our brains around what Monica Lewinsky did or whether that girl in Aruba was "asking for it". It's time to leave this problem to the grownups. So everyone, when you hear words like "nationalization", "bailout", "socialism", "Keynes", "Vienna School", "CDO", "liquidity", "Sweden", "Mortgage Backed Securities", "Derivatives", "Securitization", "Re-capitalize", "Japan's lost decade", "Depression", and sadly, even "asset", "liability", and "equity"... turn the channel to a cartoon or some other fun thing. The more the general public tries to insert itself into this mess, the worse it's going to get.
Why would this be, you may ask?
There are two political parties in the American system, and we are more or less a representative democracy (less, but that's another topic). Neither party is in the position to take the most reasonable steps towards solving this problem because their so-called "supporters" have opinions that make it impossible. Would letting the banks fail be a good idea? Word on the street compels our politicians to blow up the banks. No one likes banks these days except bankers, so letting the banks fail is like yummy chocolate. Surely nothing bad could come of that since we've all been paying our mortgages and have nothing to do with investment banking. Should the government get more involved, perhaps even temporarily nationalize the banks? Can't do that, because then the conservatives will scream and call everyone else a "socialist". Plus, everyone knows that nationalization won't work because Citibank has a branch in Mexico. Oops.
No good can come from ignorant folks who vote putting pressure on political leaders to do something stupid because that's the general level of understanding out here. Hell, if I had it my way, I'd appoint a Dictator Of Finance, and be done with it. Everyone will be mad and no one will be able to do anything about it. That's what it will take to fix the economy.
