The Dilettante's Dilemma

The best metaphor I’ve come up with for the $700B bailout of the financial markets (and how the President is selling it to the American people) is that it’s like the Iraq War “surge.”

We shouldn’t have been in Iraq in the first place, and if those in charge of the decision had not relied on incorrect and/or fabricated intelligence, we wouldn’t have been. But we were, and given that, the President told us it would be irresponsible to pull out and just let Iraq sort itself out. Doing that would cause chaos that could destabilize the entire region, so we had to increase our presence in order to stabilize the country, despite the tremendously high cost.

Similarly, the financial markets shouldn’t be this fucked up in the first place, and if those in charge of the markets hadn’t relied on confusing and/or suspect investing techniques, they wouldn’t be. But they are, and given that, the government is telling us it would be irresponsible to do nothing and just let the free market sort itself out. Doing that would cause chaos that could destabilize the entire world market, so we had to increase government control in order to stabilize the market, despite the tremendously high cost.

1. When it is announced that “the Fed” has loaned AIG $87B, where does that money come from? And as a related question, is the money being loaned by the Federal Reserve Bank, or the Federal Government (and is there any real difference)? Given that the U.S. government is in debt and is running a deficit, it’s not like the money is just laying around, is it?

And yes, I know that no one cut a check, and no actual cash changed hands. It’s all electronic. But still, what was that money doing last week? Was it just created (minted/printed), and if so, isn’t that going to be problematic wrt inflation?

2. How can free-market, pro-deregulation Republicans (like, say, George Bush) be OK with this bailout? From my stand-point, I understand (and grudgingly agree with) the bailout, since I believe that one of the roles of government is to protect its citizens in times of crisis. But if you’re a free-marketeer, aren’t you supposed to just let the chips fall where they may? Some people win, some people lose; that’s what happens in a free market.

And, if you believe that the government should stay out these sorts of things because the free market will sort itself out, but then the government has to step in in order to prevent the entire economy from collapsing, doesn’t that sort of prove that your philosophy is flawed? After the last week, unfettered free-market capitalism has started to feel a little bit like Communism to me: interesting in theory, crappy in reality.

[UPDATE 12:20]: Slate’s The Explainer answers many of the questions in #1.

Apparently not…

Matt Damon has some questions about Sarah Palin. Actually, a lot of us have a lot of these same questions, but because Matt Damon is Matt Damon, CBS News gives him a forum to express them:

A: A pit bull doesn’t wear $600 eyeglasses.

(HT Lin B)

After yesterday’s heart-ripper-outer of a game, the Cubs have lost 7 of 8 for the first time since last June. They still have a 4 game division lead and an 84.5% chance of winning the division, thanks to the Brewers losing five of their last seven, so things are not actually as bleak as they may seem. Still, with Zambrano and Harden in various levels of gimpitude, the collective angst here in Chicago is not unfounded. Harden is scheduled to pitch on Thursday, and Zambrano on Saturday, so we’ll know more (and know just how freaked out to be) in a week or so.

In the meantime, maybe WXRT’s Lin Brehmer is right and the Cubs are suffering under The Curse Of Jon Bon Jovi. Apparently the Cubs are playing “Living on a Prayer” during pitching changes. “Living on a Prayer”? Seriously?

It doesn't make a difference if we make it or not.
We've got each other and that's a lot for love
We'll give it a shot.
Whoah, we're half way there
Whoah, livin' on a prayer

I don’t think “it doesn’t make a difference if we make it or not” adequately captures the feelings of Cubs fans (not to mention players and management). The Cubs aren’t “living on a prayer,” either; they’re living on strong pitching, solid defense, and the best offense in the National League.

And that doesn’t touch on how crappy a band Bon Jovi is, or the fact that “Living on a Prayer” is a twenty-year old song. I wish I had a viable, recent, higher-quality alternative, because I’m all about solutions, but alas the last few weeks have reduced my brain’s capacity for that sort of critical thinking to almost nil.

So instead of suggesting what should be played, I will merely add my voice to Lin Brehmer’s: no more Jovi at Wrigley. Not now, not ever.

Yesterday’s funk has passed…

1. I’ve got a bunch a houses to look at tomorrow.
2. Nothing to be done about this, but at least I’ll get back to The HBG in a few weeks.
3. The pageantry is over, now the real battle begins.
4. “It’s merely a flesh wound!”
5. Times of clouds and sun, high 71 degrees.

Plus the draft of the report is almost done, I’ve got good new music to listen to, and the office closes early today. I am, to quote Dan Wilson, feeling strangely fine.

Have a great weekend, everyone!

1. That house we thought we were going to buy? Not so much. There are good reasons why, but it still means we’re back to square one. I’m looking at more houses in the same neighborhood on Saturday.

2. I’m here; my wife and children are here, 682 miles away; given #1, it’s likely to stay that way for a while longer.

3. Turns out Sarah Palin can give a great speech (even filled, as it was, with distortions and half- and un-truths) and energize the base, making McCain’s gamble pay off. It would have been so much easier over the next two months without an articulate, intelligent candidate in that slot.

4. Five losses in a row and an injured ace (or two). They’re still a lock to make the playoffs and odds-on favorites to win the division, but after a season that was remarkably free of bumps in the road, this is a big one.

5. Two straight days without seeing the sun, with no end in sight.

You’ve all seen the conspiracy theory surrounding republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s new baby, right? The nutshell version is that it isn’t Sarah Palin’s baby, it’s her daughter Bristol’s; here’s the DailyKos diary where I first read about it.

I love this theory. Not in a “oh my god, it must be true” way, but in a “wow, there’s an awful lot of circumstantial ‘evidence’ that feeds into liberal wish fulfillment in a fascinating way” way.

(I should clarify, however, that I don’t believe it. If true it would be a cover-up of pretty massive proportions that implicated Palin, her doctor, her entire family, and potentially the McCain campaign. No matter how desperate the McCain people are, there’s no way he picks Palin and hopes that something like this doesn’t somehow come out. That’s way too far on the wrong side of the risk-reward spectrum.)

Still, it’s a great crackpot theory. Unfortunately, any possibility that it was true appears to have disappeared with the announcement that Bristol Palin is currently five months pregnant; that timing puts conception before the birth of Trig.

But why let the facts (or should I say “facts”) get in the way of a perfectly good conspiracy theory? I laid out the whole theory to my Mom over the weekend, showing her the pictures of a supposedly seven-month pregnant Sarah Palin, the family pictures (my mom: “Sarah’s not pregnant, but that girl is!”), etc., and then the story broke yesterday about Bristol’s pregnancy. My mom’s response? “Well, all they have to do now is announce that Bristol has lost that baby. If that happens, you’ll know something was up.”

If that were to happen, it would send the crackpot wing of the Democratic Party into a frenzy never before seen. It would be incredible.

Of course, it’s not going to happen, and hopefully within a few days we can (as Daryl said to me last night) move past this and focus on the fact that she’s completely unqualified to be Vice President.