We Deserve AIG's Actions

I have heard for several days that people are pissed with AIG. If you have been avoiding the radio, late night television, political blogs or the newspaper, you may want to check out my last blog entry. This blog entry will be political – yuck.

The government gave AIG a bunch of money. I am sure there is a whole section of AIG that is in charge of collecting this money. I have heard that they received a bunch of billions of dollars that they could do whatever with. And then more money that Congress gave them that was for such-and-such, with no strings attached. And then there was more money that they were given to AIG for "other stuff" that may have some strings attached to it. I think that they can't buy nuclear weapons or teach abstinence to high school students. There are probably other strings attached, but I have not really been paying too much attention.

AIG is not a bank – more of an insurance company. And AIG got into trouble when their judgment on assessing risk was impaired. So the government is giving a company with questionable judgment a lot of money. Oh, and the government and the press has basically said, "We can't let AIG fail." (Even yesterday, President Obama said: "One is to withhold money from AIG that could potentially lead them into a spiral that could affect the entire financial system.")

If I had questionable fiscal judgment and everyone said "you cannot fail", and thus bailed me out several times, why would I change my actions. They seem to be working for me. I mean, I am getting all sorts of money, and I need to pay my executives, the same ones with questionable judgment, money to stay because they are so important to overall operations. I don't see what the big deal is.

I heard Obama speak about this on the radio Wednesday, and I was floored. President Obama said, "Well, look, rather than going sort of the details of finding it out, ultimately, I'm responsible. I'm the president of the United States. We've got a big mess that we're having to clean up. Nobody here drafted those contracts. Nobody here was responsible for supervising AIG and allowing themselves to put the economy at risk by some of the outrageous behavior that they were engaged in."

So he said, ultimately he is responsible, but qualified it with "nobody here was responsible for supervising" AIG.

We can blame AIG and get mad at them, but they are just reacting rationally to the situation. They are doing what is in their best interest. Perhaps the next multi-billion-dollar payment will have more strings attached. Of course, we won't change our voting habits (it is always the "other guy's" senator or representative that is the problem), so maybe the strings won't be their either. I guess one investment AIG made in 2008 paid off, their lobbying efforts.

It's the Economy, Stupid

I don't really know what is going on with the economy. I mean, you can watch The Real News, and they say one thing.

Anyway, The Real News has an interesting take on the economy. I think they got it a bit wrong. I mean, sure, there are different reasons for what is happening to our economy, but let's look at the housing market for a moment.

We have banks who are lending money to people, but as soon as the loans are out there, they sell the loans to someone else. So someone qualifies someone for a loan, then they sell that loan. So does the bank really care if the person can pay the loan since the loan has been sold? Hmmmmmmmmm. It would seem to me that there would be a tendency to qualify everyone for the loan. And because wages have not really gone up in 30 years (which is highlighted on the video), we Americans can pretend that we are doing better than our parents by qualifying for a house that is bigger than the house we grew up in. It makes us feel better, and while we are feeling better, we can roll our Visa/Mastercard bills into the new house at the same time. Nice.

I was reading somewhere else that the 800 Billion that was given to banks was sort of wasted money because they did what was in their best interest, suring up their positions, paying their key executives, whatever. And we get mad when they do what is in their best interest because Congress did not anticipate this.

Obama has been in office a short time, and he has already pushed through one bill (worth about $800 Billion), and then he introduced a big ass budget (about 1.3 Trillion deficit). Oh, crap. I mean, George W Bush was a big spender. Problem is, when times are good, we don't want to pay down debt. So when times are bad, we increase our deficit, and when times are good, we really don't make headway – we just start different "programs" that make our elected officials look good. Even The Resident asked a bunch of people, and most on camera did not trust the government with the stimulus package.

Okay, this is more for me than for you. I am just a bit pissed. Just click to your next blog. Me, I am going to start drinking. Well, that is something productive.

All the News That's Fit . . .

I have decided that I will get my news from the Internet. And by news, I mean, I will be watching Gnooze. It is pronounced "news", the G being a silent G. Sort of like gnome. Gnooze is hosted by Marta Costello. Looks like she started in news, then did stand up comedy, and then she decided that streaming video seemed like an easy thing to do. Well, that is a bit of a simplification, but there you have it.

I have thought about the news a lot lately, and I am thinking of not paying attention to stuff. On purpose. And not just because it is "work" and I have to read and retain and make sense of all of the different media bias. It really does not have anything to do with that.

I don't think I want to monitor the news because it is counter-productive with being a happy, resourceful and contributing member of society.

When you read or watch local news, you take in the facts. Problem is that your brain treats these facts as representative of the world. We are wired that way. So when you read "child fell down a well and has been trapped there for days", your brain files away something that indicates that there are a bunch of wells around, potentially trapping lots of children. And we don't think, "Hmmmm, if it is in the local news, it must be extra-ordinary or out-of-the-ordinary. You know, newsworthy.

We have the same brains, more or less, that people did ten thousand years ago, when - between mounting the slow chicks - you would see who died when eating which berries. Green berries, bad. Small red berries, really bad. Large red berries, good. Special mushrooms, really good.

So we can't really get that what is on the news is not really what is happening all around us. Even the Amber alerts, they scare the pee out of us when we see one in the local area, but really, children are not getting snatched every day in your community. But if feels that way because our brains are meant to group events because we need to know what kinds of berries to eat.

Not only are we bad at interpreting the frequencies of local news events, but a lot of the time, we get news fragments and cannot put together the big picture of things. I have already heard a few people saying that history may treat George W Bush very well, after we have had time to think about all of his accomplishments. Okay, I nearly spit out a mouthful of Diet Dr. Pepper when I heard that on the news, driving into work.

George W is a boob with some sort of father complex. How can history treat him well. Well, I don't think it will, but the point is that we lack proper perspective as we are digesting these news sound bites.

So if news does not give us proper perspective, what good is it? I mean, let's say I was in tune to the business news for years. Would I be better prepared for what happened in the markets in 2008? No, not a bit. And after the economic decline, meltdown or whatever you want to call it, lots of people said, "Well, we should have known this was coming."

I remember listening to people proudly say that they did not listen to the news . . . when I was in college. I always thought, "What an ignorant, lazy Frat Boy person." Now I wonder if I am the one who has it all wrong.

Maybe it is better to get news from Gnooze, where they at least crack a joke. The one thing I don't want you doing is relying on Marta's blog. I mean, if you want to read a blog, you ought to read this one. Nary a newsworthy item, and occasionally a naughty picture. At least with my blog, you can count on a happy ending or two. Not so with traditional media.

Election Day Advice

Today is Election Day. All over the country. And I have heard a lot about how it is our duty to vote. But you know, if you don't know how many Supreme Court justices we have in the US, if you don't understand something about the issues, and if you get your advice from bloggers, I don't want you voting.

You see, ill-informed votes dilute other people's votes. I mean, if you have given it some thought. Even if you looked at the candidates mascots and figured which would beat the other in an ultimate fighting match (Obama went to Columbia, the mascot is a lion; McCain graduated the United States Naval Academy, the mascot is a goat), I am betting on the lion making cabrito out of the goat. The point is that I want people to think before they vote. But not real random thoughts. I don’t want a voter saying, "Well that McCain supporter had nice tits. I think I will vote for McCain."

I want voters to come up with cogent arguments that make sense in your world view. I mean, I don't care if the methodology is bizarre – just that you have some rationale. Let's say you make your living on insider trading. Well, if you thought McCain would be tougher on adding people to police insider trading, vote for Obama. Or if you are a military contractor doing business in Iraq and am afraid Obama would get us out of Iraq (I find this a bit doubtful), then vote for McCain.

But if you have no clue who to vote for, don't practice drunken voting. Just don't vote. And if you want to lie about it, then you will have something in common with most candidates. I don't think a vote for Obama or McCain means the end to civilization as we know it. That was last election.

So if you don't want to vote for president, just pass. And if people want you to go to the voting booth with them (perhaps a candidate entices you with booze or a ride anywhere in the city), then vote. But just vote against all of the ballot initiatives. Most of them are just something about raising taxes (or bonds to build this or that). Sure, occasionally it will be on another issue, but since the initiative is poorly written anyway, you probably won't be able to figure out what it says. And we have survived all this time without the initiative, so what harm does it do for not passing it?

Me, I am going to see what soft drinks each prefers to make my choice. But have a system people. We don't need no more hanging chads.

---

My prediction (made on November 3, 2008): Obama will win 46 of 50 States. It will be an early night for those setting up camp on the couch with a pint of Häagen-Dazs and the remote.

Oh, and this just in. Someone sent it to me - so I don't have a real source - other than the wire itself.

LAND O' LAKES, Fla. (AP) - A nudist community on Florida's west coast wants to establish the first clothing-optional polling site. The Caliente Resorts, located in Pasco County north of Tampa, has approached election officials about the idea.

Nothing in state law would prohibit it, but the supervisor of elections says he is opposed to creating any new precincts before redistricting in 2010.

Gives another meaning to the term "hanging chads."

The Ten Commandments

Grant, an occasional reader and wonderful writer, wrote something on Halloween that was not satanic, overtly mocking, or had any pictures of hot Asian women in miniskirts. He wrote about religion. But not in a "why doesn't your Savior get a haircut" sort of way. More like in a way where several freshmen political science majors could plagiarize his blog, quoting him as "a senior white house official".

Grant's thesis, as follows: "Here in the Southeastern portion of the United States a lot of the Christian propaganda slingers make claims that our laws are based on the ten commandments." I have taken all of the wit out of the thesis, basically so I look clever and sexy, and Grant looks like an accountant with morals. Yeah, some accountants have morals. I have read about them. Okay, I haven't. But based on the number of accountants in the United States, there have to be some with morals.

Okay, I had to go back to Grant's site to cut and paste the Ten Commandments – and there was mention of a miniskirt in his blog. Well, at least I know it is him. [edited in: The bolded parts are from Grant's blog, and the rest is crap I made up and pawned off as fact. I added this after knot made a comment that made me think I was cutting and pasting all of Grant's blog from this point forward.]

The reason I took his 10 Commandments is because I don't know all ten of them. You see, I am Catholic. All I remember is not to have sex before married, or until the guy is really, really frustrated. Anyway, Grant gave very good reasons why most or all of these commandments have no relevance to our current government, and I thought it would be interesting if I tried the exact opposite approach, that the commandments are entrenched in our government.

#1: Do not have any other gods before me. The US Government can be thought of as a god. Our money has the words "In God We Trust" emblazoned on its money, but we are really talking about the US Government. If you have a peek at the government, it grows. When President Carter decided to make two new cabinet posts (the Department of Energy and Department of Education). These two departments have grown a lot over the years, and I don't know too many people who think we have a better energy plan or our education is any better since establishing these two departments. Clearly, the US Government thinks they are god, and the government knows best. So this commandment is clearly entrenched in the US Government.

#2: You shall not make or worship a false idol. You see, the government, according to the above, is the true idol. The government gets more power when you rely on it, when you take their handouts. And I am not faulting anyone from taking handouts. I mean, when I turn 65 or 72 or whenever I am eligible for Social Security, I will be filing my paperwork. But the Government doesn't want us to build our own businesses (why else would they tax them the way they do?), to form communities where we don't depend on Social Security (the Amish, for instance). No, our Government does not want us to worship other things.

#3: You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. Again, if the US Government is a god, then why do you think we enacted the Patriot Act? To catch bad guys? Right. How about having something where we can spy on our own? Oh, and as a bonus, we can imprison those who are against us. Bonus.

#4: Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. The Sabbath is not necessarily Sunday. For our government, there are several of these days. We call them Federal holidays. Try mailing a letter or depositing money in a bank on those days. Even some public transportation is extremely scaled back.

#5: Honor your father and your mother. Okay, again, "father" and "mother" are actually the President and Vice President. Mom and Pops. Seems you can't burn these people in effigy. I remember in school that the founding fathers burned King George III in effigy. Hell, if W. had a son named George, think of the parallels. Oh, I am off on a tangent again. Anyway, the Government doesn't like free speech if it involves fire. Think flag burning, yelling fire in a building. I could go on and on. Hey, now that is a great title for a blog. Again, a tangent.

#6: You shall not kill. This rule is for individuals, not municipalities. I mean, who hasn't read an article about some rookie cop shooting a ten-year-old with a lime green squirt gun. Oh, and this is the law of the land, as long as you don't count Texas. In Texas, you can kill someone if they are on your property holding your television set. Apparently, a TV set is considered a deadly weapon. I gave an argument for this one, but admittedly, this is my weakest argument thus far.

#7: You shall not commit adultery. I think this means you can't say, "Government, fuck yourself." Say government, bomb, George Bush, and anthrax on the phone to someone. See how long until some ATF guy with a 'tude knocks down your door. It may not be illegal, but if they can put you in jail without you seeing a judge, er, I think that is a bit worse than something that is illegal. I mean, you still screwed.

#8: You shall not steal. You can't cheat on taxes. That is like stealing from god. Not cool, illegal, and how they nailed Capone.

#9: You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Don't lie in court. Sort of like the above, except they nailed Martha Stewart (she really needed nailing, in more ways than one). They couldn't get her for those stupid doilies she makes on camera or the bitch she is, so they got her on lying.

#10: You shall not covet your neighbor's swag. I actually had to look this one up. I did not know what a swag was, but I am guessing it is a female stag. Bestiality is illegal, immoral and messy.

Okay, so I just argued the opposite of Grant. And I filled in all the blanks. Oh, and you know what is sort of funny, other than my one stalker (yeah, Grant, I have a stalker and you don't) and a few other people, the only people who will be reading this are freshmen political science majors and people surfing for Asian girls in miniskirts. And that's called limited freedom of speech, baby!

25th of July and Involvement

Okay, I have been blogging since September 2004, and initially I just wanted to place some stories on the Internet. Then I figured I could just write and improve my writing skills. And that is my main reason for being here. If no one ever wrote a comment, that would be okay with me. Okay, part of me would not be that motivated, but my main reason is to hone my writing.

I have started highlighting VLOGgers on a separate Friday post. Part of this is for me to involve you in my interest in YouTube. Well, that is all of it. And I know that people may not be interested in this at all. That's fine.

But I wanted to mention something I heard in a VLOG, the 25th of July. Anyway, he started out his VLOG talking about participation. He has this show that you can call in, and not many people do. But you know, what is nice about blogging or vlogging is that you and the people you interact with don't have to be online at the same time to interact.

The entire VLOG can be "viewed" below. It is pretty much all audio, and it is very long, more than 91 minutes. I listen to it while working or blogging.



Anyway, he wonders why people don't get more involved. We have 168 hours per day (it was cute that he and his co-host were trying to multiply 8 times 7 (for the amount people sleep), and both came up with the wrong answer – she (Sally) said 54 and he (John) said sixty-something. But most people, as John said, "value their time" but sometimes spend most of it watching TV or whatever.

Now, John will probably never read this, but what I was thinking is that instead of people calling up, in a YouTube community, he could get video responses to his "videos." He is still one of the most viewed video bloggers, but he doesn't get thousands of comments. Most of us just listen to his stuff, and he thinks, we just go back to watching television or whatever.

Some of the things that he says seem unlikely, but it is interesting to get his viewpoint. There are lots of things that our government is doing that I wonder about. I want to write a piece about Bush. And about the imminent domain issue last year. That issue scares the heck out of me.

Back to John, I think that he may be going about this the wrong way. If he really wants to foster a community, he should use avenues that YouTubers already are familiar with – like the video response.

I guess what John does not see is that his VLOG touch others, that we think about what he is saying, and that, on occasion, it may change what we do. Now, the next time I see a dead bird in Austin (something Sally was talking about), I will not kick it to see the feathers fly. Well, okay, I would not get near a dead bird. My OCD acting up, of course, but you get the idea.

I actually try and discuss politics at work. I tell my boss, "That was a bonehead mistake. You must be a Republican." Or "That was a bonehead mistake. You must be a Democrat." And when my boss says something insightful (a rare occurrence, but you have to be ready for it), I might say: "How insightful. You must have gotten that from a Libertarian."

Well, I think about discussing politics at work.

Part of my problem is that if, let's say I disagree with how President Bush is doing his job, what the feck can I do? I mean, I don't have a direct line to his office, and from what I have learned, you can't become an intern, give the guy BJs and then discuss politics. He likes his interns fairly silent, just humming a few things during the BJs. A joke!

But really, how can you affect change? You can't just call your local politician unless you have pictures of him being really friendly with farm animals – and that only works until he places a contract on your head. Or so I have heard. Politicians use petitions for toilet paper, so that is really not all that helpful.

I don't know how to really affect change on a more global level. I do know that this VLOGger does have a large audience, and if he would do the following things, he may be more successful:

1. Encourage VLOG responses. This makes it more of a community.
2. Edit your VLOG and cut it up. Instead of having 90 minutes of a continuous VLOG, cut it up to have several smaller installments. There are issues that are covered.
3. Do that fuzzy black and white visual. It is cool, it does not add anything to the content, but it is cool. Did I mention it is cool.
4. Get pictures of Senators and Congressmen with farm animals. Blackmail them. It works for a while.
5. Place the tags: lonelygirl15 and topless in your tags. No, don't do that. Really.

Me, I am going to hide under my bed. I fear the government and do not have a shoulder launched missile at home. I need one of those puppies and the manual to use it. You know, there is nothing about not carrying one of those on a plane, but four ounces of toothpaste? Dangerous.