October Surprise, Bitch.

JP has posted attack after attack in an attempt to paint Virgil and Batmite! in a bad light.

But who is the real JP?

He's leveled charges about Virgil's economic strategies and Batmite's foreign policy plans. He claims to be a "straight talker" who has called Virgil "evil" and Batmite! a "suspicious bearded brown man." JP has even accused Batmite! of having an "extravagant drinking habit and leather fetish." The public wants to know: how exactly do you know that, JP?

Well, somebody better ask JP what he was thinking when he launched his bid for the White House at a party thrown in Batmite's house. That's right, JP's entire political career began in the dining room of that very same "suspicious bearded brown man." As a matter of fact, documents leaked to the press show that JP, Virgil and Batmite! were in talks for a power sharing coalition when JP got greedy and chose to go his own way.
Not the American way, JP. Not the American way. Just look at that maniacal expression--it's clear he was already measuring the drapes for the White House and having them made extra tall. And what about his later claims about Virgil? JP said: "Virgil wants to ...eat your babies."

Really? Just how "scared" is JP for your safety? Just this scared:

Looks pretty cozy to us voters, JP.

And now he's acting as though he represents you, when all he really represents is himself. We all remember that post about "I'm Having Fun Looking Out For Number One...". Well, not on our tax dime, mister. Looks like there's only one real description for the way JP has run out on his own supporters:



With JP it's just words, just speeches. Don't be fooled by his grad school vocabulary and his grade school politics ("I'm not your friend anymore!!")

Vote Virgil/Batmite! for a coalition government that represents all colors, all humans, all anime, all fuzzy characters, all luchadores and everyone else that JP thinks are big, fat waste of time. Vote for candidates who really know how to get along.




Vote for Virgil! She knows how to share.

I Want YOU!

We want YOU to Vote for Virgil on November 4th. Virgil is a woman of the people, and she understands what it means to fight for them.


Virgil is also an Amigo de los Luchadores. Do you really want to mess with Blood of the Aztecs (pictured below left) and the Ultimate Dragon (pictured below right)? Virgil understands how important treaties like NAFTA are to our entertainment.

JP thinks nachos grande comes with it's own "bean juice."



What more should we expect from a man who seems obsessed with "BROWN FOREIGNER!!!! :)". We hear you, JP. We hear you, but we're not smiling. Do you see us smiling in that picture up there? Because we're not. Not even a little bit.

On this election day, support the candidate who fights for all people, and whose campaign headquarters is run out of an actual office, instead of a parent's basement.

Vote for Virgil, the candidate with an actual office.

Virgil: Change We Can Believe In

Virgil has proven leadership abilities and respect from your leaders in government. She recently received the Head Bitch In Charge award from Secretary of State Betty Ireland for bucking party lines and moving forward with her ideas on what the people deserved. What a maverick!




Virgil: Experience you can trust. Change we can believe in.
JP: No awards to brag about. Chump change.

Vote for Virgil

I had no idea I was running for anything, until the attack ad questioning my economic proposals hit the blogosphere. So, since the gauntlet has been laid down, I will answer the challenge. Here is why you should Vote for Virgil.


Virgil is environmentally friendly and is endorsed by the ASPCA and the Humane Society. She is a friend to the animals. As a matter of fact, she can tame the savage beast.

Virgil supports your right to bear arms. Her foreign policy expert has intergalactic experience:


Virgil is the only official candidate endorsed and supported by the most important female activist agency in the United States. And they ain't too happy with the other candidates right now:


As to the slanders against my economic policies, I will defer to my choice of treasury secretary on that one:



Virgil has a "maverick" reputation. This is evidenced by the fact that she took on her own department. And won. JP has never taken on anything, and he still managed to lose.

Eat that, JP.

Besides, it's well known that JP's foreign policy "expert" is this guy:


JP's plans will cost, shall we say, billions? He's in the pockets of big (evil) corporations. And what exactly have they gotten the average Joe lately?

JP: not ready for the real world. Not ready to lead.

Dante's Virgil: HBIC


-- I'm DV, and I approve this message.

Campus Overkill

On Wednesday, rumors of shots being fired on Western Kentucky University's campus spread like wildfire, and the entire campus went on lock down. If you'd like to read the full version, here's a link to the campus' online paper: link to story. Incidents like this are frightening, of course, in the wake of Virginia Tech. The comments after that article reflect the fact that the number one priority of the people on campus was that campus security react swiftly and immediately regardless of consequences. What I find more disturbing is this:



The student on the ground is completely unarmed. Here's some more from the article:

At 12:30 p.m., 42 minutes after shots are reported: "Armed men have been reported on WKU South Campus. Please stay clear of the area." At 12:48: "Shots fired near PFT seek shelter immediately." Western didn't confirm any of that before warning students. But (Ree-see) doesn't know. She can't get into her dorm. It's on lockdown, so she stays with friends on the grass.

About 20 yards away, Bowling Green police officer Jamie Peerce makes a discovery. One of the suspects, he says into his radio, is approaching the Downing University Center. The man is wearing a light blue toboggan and a black jacket with white trim. Moments later, three policemen approach the Guthrie Bell Tower with a pistol and two AR-15 assault rifles.

"Get on the ground," they shout at four students, including the blue-hatted man. They point their guns and the students comply.

Then (Ree-see) says something to the officers. The mob of about 20 onlookers can't hear it, but it makes one officer visibly angry.

"You want to be a part of it?" the policeman says. He aims a rifle at her head.

"Get on the ground," he says.

She doesn't. So he pushes her down, smacking her head against stone.

"Get the f--- off me," she screams. "Get the f--- off me."

The policemen move the students to the Preston Center for questioning. (Ree-see) is the only one in cuffs.

After about 30 minutes, police put the blue-hatted man in the back of a Bowling Green Police cruiser. He was one of five students detained, but not arrested. (Ree-see) is released. She declines another interview.

The three students with whom the detainee chatted by the clock-tower are also released.

Nashville freshmen Corin Jones and Augustus Quaye are two of them. Both say they were complaining about the lockdown and chatting about the PFT melee before police approached them. They witnessed the fight but say they weren't involved and don't know what it was about.

What the fuck? I think if this had happened on my campus, I would be very, very angry. The article goes on to say that the incident was somewhat related to a fight that broke out at a dance that had been put on the previous Saturday night by Black Men of Western, a mentoring group on campus. Apparently another fight had happened on campus that Wednesday, and then rumors went flying that shots were fired, none of which were confirmed before campus security took down several black students. What disturbs me about this is not necessarily that campus police didn't confirm the shots before they reacted with such force. I don't think it's wise, necessarily, to delay action that long. What bothers me is the way campus security reacted to Reesee and the way they targeted and took down the black students, who were obviously unarmed at the time. None of the students who actually participated in the fight were put down on the ground or had guns aimed at them. Reesee was slammed on the ground and had a gun put to her head because she was speaking to officers--she wasn't a suspect and she was most obviously unarmed as well.

It is the fact that these students were black that disturbs me on a deeper level. I remember we had a similar incident in high school (on the other side of Kentucky) during my Senior year. My high school had probably around a thousand students in it at any given time. Less than ten of those students were black. One day a black transfer student (who was violent and had been kicked out of several school districts) and a white student from the back of one of our darkest hollers who was as racist and redneck as they come got into a fist fight. Rumors went flying literally five minutes later that Anthony, the black student, was going to get a gun. Pure melee. Anthony, of course, did not have a gun, nor had he said a damned thing about getting one. But this was considered an extremely credible threat, because the white students just assumed that a black student would be more likely to pack a hand gun to school and to shoot somebody over a fist fight. It was an implicit cultural concept.

Nevermind the fact that the boy from the Creek had at least three guns to his name, one of which was a long gun mounted on his truck's back window, and his truck was sitting out in the parking lot at the moment. Nevermind that this boy had already brought a bat into school to beat Anthony with, which I found in my locker because my "good friend" Wendy had dumped it there so he wouldn't get caught when he went to beat "that nigger," and with which I nearly beat her until she grabbed it and ran away to dump it in friendlier places. Nevermind that most white kids in that Kentucky high school hunted on a regular basis, got guns for Christmas, and had their pictures put in the paper when they brought down a buck for bragging rights. It was just incredibly obvious at that moment to all of them that Anthony was far more likely to do such a thing. Anthony didn't hunt, his parents didn't keep guns in the house nor did they hunt. But he was black, and that put the veneer of truth to the rumor.

I cannot help but think that something very similar is happening on WKU's campus right now. It's the same thing that makes black immigrants more likely to be deported than whites. Referees are more likely to penalize players with black uniforms on than any other color, because many people psychologically identify shades of black with aggression. Go google these things and read some books--the experiences are everywhere. Black enthusiasm is often misinterpreted as black aggression, a lesson I had only read about but learned the hard way when Dante was in kindergarten. His teacher sent me home a note complaining about how aggressive he was on the playground and how he had hit another child. My son was big for his age, especially then, and I didn't want any sort of bullying going on, so I punished him and immediately called for a teacher conference. I asked her about "the fight" and she looked at me strangely and said there had been no fight. I asked her what she meant by him being aggressive, and showed her the note she had written. Turns out Dante had been twirling around in a circle and some kid had run into him and fallen down. But Dante had been interpreted as the careless and aggressive party, not the victim of some other child. It just got worse from there. To the point where if I ever run into that woman outside of the school setting, I will beat her. And I believe that strongly enough to post it publicly.

While it's important for universities to respond swiftly and competently to threats of violence on campus, I believe there needs to be some pushing on what happened here, instead of a round of pats on the back. This should never turn into a return aggression at all costs kind of stance for any university. This sort of belief system and behavioral reaction is far too common in a society that at every turn swears it's "over" race issues. If we were over race issues, we wouldn't be hearing questions like "Is America ready for a black president?" And unarmed women like Reesee wouldn't be shoved to the ground with a gun to her head for daring to speak up against unnecessary violence.

Mommy Dearest

I work with first generation college students, meaning that most of their parents have never attended college, or maybe went for a semester or so but dropped out. Every emotion attendant on coming to college is really heightened with 1st gens. If you fail out, the fall out is more severe, because you have less of a base to go back to. Sometimes even when you're successful you still feel a rupture at home, because now it's a bit more difficult for your family to relate to you. Or they guilt trip you about how you'll never come home again once you're done, you'll move off somewhere else with your big high-falutin' college job. And that usually turns out to be true. I did. The social worker side of me kicks in pretty hard with this crew. They're really well bonded with me by this point, and they plop down in my office basically to tell me the stories of their lives (which are fascinating), which usually keeps me from the gazillion other things I have to do.

This week I've been meeting with students who are failing two or more classes in school. It's required that they meet with me. Out of the little over sixty students I am personally responsible for, 22 of them are failing. Basically one whole class. That's still less than the average number of 1st gen students who tend to fail their first semester with no program intervention of any kind. So, statistically I'm doing OK. Only about nine of the 22 have bothered to make appointments with me, though, which says a lot. Most of them are falling into two categories--students on the way up and students on the way down. Some of them had shitty midterm grades because of the overwhelming first semester experience, such as being away from home for the first time, doing laundry, just trying to wake up on your own without someone prompting you, figuring out how to test and take notes, because it is *very* different from high school, etc. So they had a first bad test or two, which reflects on their midterm grades. But they're doing better now and will probably pull B's and C's at the end. The other group started out doing OK, and then discovered this university's favorite pastime--partying and drinking yourself stupid. Those students are on the way down, and it's hard to get them to pull their heads out of the hedonistic stupor they've created for themselves and quit screwing themselves academically.

But then there is this third category. And that's students who have a really shitty home life or other circumstances that are really getting in between them and success. And it's just not fair. My Rock Star student (no, really) lost his brother and his best friend in Iraq. Then he fell out of a second story balcony and cracked his back. He doesn't miss a class unless he has to go back to the hospital or to his home town to clean out his brother's stuff. It's usually things that are completely beyond their control that throw up the major blocks in the road. But when it's the parent who is at fault, I just want to make a road trip to New Jersey and bitch slap the lot of them.

Dear Mom of B: I know you thought that waiting until your daughter was "away at college" to file for divorce was probably preferable to putting her through it when she was eight years old. But thanks a fucking lot. Now B feels like her whole relationship to you both was a big, fat lie, and her grades have started to tank. She doesn't know what's going to happen at Thanksgiving, and she's dreading it. She feels like you blew up the place she had to return to and now she feels like she has no home. Good job.

Dear Mom of G: You're the one I'm probably going to drive seven hours one way to smack. I'm sorry your real estate job is on the ropes now, really. But to continue to take the entire paycheck your daughter hitches rides on the weekend to work for is unconscionable. Go out and work at fucking Subway. Here's a thought--do the cashier's job your daughter is doing yourself. G is failing every class she is taking because she is too tired and worried about you moping around your house to get up and take care of her own business. What's worse is that she thinks it's simply because she's not working "hard enough," and that if she just gives 150% instead of the 140% she's pulling now, things will get better. What's worst of all is that you told her on her last trip back you'd be "really disappointed" if she did poorly in school. Quit taking her checks and get off your ass. She's only a couple of months past 18 years old.

Dear Mom of K: Get off your son's ass about talking to girls. It wasn't enough that he left the inner city where he passed drug dealers every day who hooked some of his friends into slinging dope. It isn't enough that he's lived on his own throughout high school and managed to get into college on his own, with no help with his homework from you. It wasn't enough for him to get past being hit and yelled at by a drug addicted dad. The kid doesn't touch booze because he's smart enough to point out that addiction runs on both your side and his pop's side of the family--and this at a school where it's practically offered in the cafeteria. He's making A's and B's. Get off his ass about dating. Tell him how proud you are of him for once. Tell him how happy you are that he's not turning out to be just like you, dad, and everyone else back home.

Dear Mom of A: Your daughter is ashamed to talk about where she comes from because you're on welfare. Which in and of itself isn't a bad thing, but for fuck's sake, don't make her feel guilty over the way she chooses to spend her own money. They're her loans, so if she wants a bigger meal plan, I say tuck in, honey, and enjoy it. She is responsible, and she's making A's and B's right now. She saves her money for laundry detergent while her spoiled little floormates are running out to the clubs to booze it up every night. She works summers to save up money to live on during college. So don't make her feel guilty for not finding a way home to visit you every chance she gets. Don't lecture her about using condoms when you just had another baby and are still on welfare--believe me, she already learned about that life from living it with you. Don't try to control her major or her choice of career. What's worse, when you had to either go to work or to school because of welfare term limits, and you chose school, don't bitch to her about how you can't help her because now you have your own schooling to take care of, and if she can't get anymore loans, tough, because you won't sign for them. You're busy signing off on your own. She has a real shot at doing well here. Get off your ass and get a job and cosign her damned loan. She's already been more responsible than you were at her age.

Gah.

Of course, this will soon be followed up by some smackdown of students who don't have such excuses.

-- DV

Woot$ For Me!

I'm out of credit card debt!!

Years worth of having to put textbooks and car repairs and car insurance and sometimes groceries and life expenses along with a few not so wise but still dearly loved purchases has finally been erased by throwing literally every spare dollar I had into the project. I made a payment everytime I had some extra cash. Sometimes my statements show I made four payments in a month. But it was worth it.

I am now Susie Orman approved.




-- DV

WTF?

Sometimes pictures are worth more than a thousand words. Sometimes they're worth an election.

John McCain was leaving the stage after last night's debate and was mocking his own attempt at navigating the stage. I prefer to think he is trying to make bad juju for Obama behind his back. Or that he covets the man in secret. Or that Obama knows what's going on behind his back and is simply pretending to ignore McCain hoping that like an overeager dog with mange, he'll eventually just go away. LOL.

It's probably a good picture for the sort of campaign both candidates have ended up running. Obama's face is set, trying not to be angry or upset (because god knows what the Right would do with the concept of an angry black man), while McCain has deformed himself into some sort of crippled lesser demon.


-- DV

Unpack That Suitcase!

All during the Bush years and now at the thought of a McCain/Palin presidency, I continue to hear the same whine from some people: If X or Y happens, I'm going to leave the country. I'll go to Canada or something. I can't stand living here anymore. I know that some people don't really mean it when they say it. Sort of like saying, "I could just kill him." But some do mean it, and I absolutely cannot stand it when people say that. It hits a nerve in me for multiple reasons.

I think the primary reason it really scabs my liver is that it's such a cowardly thing to say. It would be different if, you know, the government was rounding up American political dissenters by the droves and imprisoning them, blackballing them from work, killing people because we were rioting everywhere, massively controlling the content of schools (you know, rewriting the history books like North Korea does), etc. This government does not do those things. I get that George Bush sucks. But as much as he sucks, I cannot honestly believe that some regular Americans feel so persecuted by his being in office that they must simply move away. It reminds me of Xians whining about persecution because they can't forcibly make kids pray in schools, when the early Xians got devoured by lions. Know the damned difference. Are you really that wimpy?

And on the subject of cowardly wimps, what the hell is everybody else supposed to do back home? You know, the ones who can't afford to leave. Who will help them and stand up for them? Who is going to stick around and make sure the children are not indoctrinated? (Think of the children! lol) If the problems with education, for example, are so severe, seems to me that calls for intelligent people with backbones to stand up and make a difference. That's how things get changed--by individual people working at small things that end up making a big difference. That's always how it happens. Who is making a difference now?

And on the subject of making a difference, that's another corrolary to what makes me aggitated at people who say such things. What are you doing to make it better? Are you exhausted because your efforts have gone unnoticed, unappreciated or because they were opposed? Most of the time it turns out the person doing the bitching has done nothing to try to fix the problem other than whine about it on an internet forum. And that bothers me, because if the person ever stopped to think about why there were such problems in the first place, they would discover that they are part of the problem.

I'm sorry, but it simply is not enough anymore to cast your vote, or even to be an informed voter. The problems our government has are due to the fact that people in power are no longer beholden to the people who elected them--they are in the pockets of lobbyists and at the mercy of power players behind the scenes who could make it difficult for them come re-election time. There's more to it than that, of course, but that's sort of a quick and dirty DV analysis. In order for the people to become more important than the lobbyists, the people are going to have to get louder. Not whinier, just louder.

Call, write letters and email the people in power. Go to their stump speeches and ask them difficult questions. Actually meet the people who are elected to represent you, especially at the state level--they are easier to meet than you'd think.Write into the newspaper, join a political group. Join a nonprofit that actually does things in your community. There are plenty of things you can tackle that actually doesn't require the government to really do a damned thing, like helping clean up that stream that runs in your neighborhood. Or getting out and befriending the neighborhood kids so that they have more role models and safe adults to turn to in times of crisis. Boycott something loudly. Just quit bitching on the internet as though you've had all you can take. You sat on your hands and opened your mouth, so don't be surprised at what was on the spoon. (What a weird analogy.) It's not like you spit it out or slapped the spoon away or offered to fix a different meal. So quit bitching about what somebody else cooked for dinner. Quit being a bunch of lemmings.

Even if they really wanted to leave the US, though, people obviously have done very little research on this "choice," which is likely indicative of how little thought and preparation they put into their own political activism. At some point, if there was a mass "migration" to Canada, I'd love to be sitting on the border watching, preferably with a few cold beers, when the Canadian immigration officials basically said, "WTF do you think you're doing?" People can't just up and move to another country. I know some people think the USA is the only place that has immigration laws, but it isn't. 99% of all known countries have some sort of rules about who gets to move there permanently. Our system is just so bogged down because of the sheer number of people who want to come here (in spite of George Bush). It is difficult to relocate to Canada. Here's a link that demonstrates how you can do it, if some of you are actually still interested. Just like the USA, some of the categories for immigration include being adopted by a Canadian family (if you're a kid, of course), if a Province "nominates" you, or basically says it desperately wants to have you there, or if you go through Quebec, which has its own set of rules, or if you have family there with at least permanent resident status who can apply for you. Otherwise, you can only apply through either the business class or the skilled worker class. As an example of what the business class immigrant must demonstrate, check this out from the link:

The business class is further separated out to investors, entrepreneurs and self-employed people. Investors must have business experience, a net worth of $800,000 Canadian and must invest $400,000 Canadian into the Canadian economy to qualify. Entrepreneurs also need to show business experience, either in owning a business or a share of a business. They will need to have an net worth of $300,000 Canadian and be able to manage and operate a business that creates at least one full-time job within 3 years of becoming a permanent resident. Self-employed applicants need to have experience, intention and ability to establish a business that will create employment for them as well as make a contribution to the Canadian society. Or, they must purchase and manage a farm.

Proving you can be viably self-employed is far more difficult than you might think. You can always try to declare asylum; most countries allow you to declare asylum. But that entails proving that you are in imminent danger if you are sent back to your home country--no? Ah. Well then. Of course, you could always stay in Canada for about 3-6 months simply by stating as you cross the border, "I declare asylum!!" It works basically the same way it does here in America. While your case is pending a hearing to grant you asylum (or not), you remain in Canada. In one of their jails.

In any case, why not simply stick around and actually engage in civic participation for a while? You want national healthcare insurance? Fine. The American Medical Association actually agrees with you, as does the majority of American people. How are you going to make your voice heard so that you get what you want? One thing you could do is check out their voicefortheuninsured.org and check out what they're doing with that. Want Bush impeached? Who are you going to complain to in order to see that it happens? A good hint would be: not an internet forum. If you're fed up enough to see things change, as opposed to just whining for whining's sake, then roll up your sleeves.

There's a lot of work to be done, and we need fewer slackers.

-- DV

Personal Financial Crunches

The financial crisis is hitting everyone, of course, and some more than others. I'm currently a renter and don't have a mortgage. I could've taken out a mortgage in the past few years, but chose not to because it didn't seem financially prudent, and boy, am I glad now. The housing crisis could still potentially affect me, though, because my landlord is one who bought several houses to try to make money off of real estate. So, if he starts defaulting on his multiple mortgages, I'll be looking for a new roof over my head. But he seems pretty solvent so far.

I'm still investing the same amount in retirement as I did before. We didn't remove any money from our savings account "just in case." Our stock market portfolio did lose some money, but not to the tune that the general market did, because we're invested in blue chips. We're not panicking. But one place where we are being pinched pretty hard right now is food.

Sometimes it takes a crisis to make you realize the things that you should've been doing all along. When you don't really feel the pinch in groceries, it's easy to spend a little extra money on stuff you don't really need, or the "good" olive oil, or the stuff you think you're entitled to eat, or whatever. One of the things I've noticed recently is the rising cost of food. Yes, I know it's been rising for a while, but when you're essentially a Wal-Mart shopper with Giant Eagle on the side, you don't really notice it until it becomes serious. I know people dig on Wal-Mart. I don't care. When I was a single mommy of 20 years old, I could go in and get a box of diapers, formula, groceries, and other necessities and not wipe out my meager budget. People who bitch about Wal-Mart, in my opinion, are rarely the people who have to shop there. But that's another bitch for another post. Recently, I noticed that Wal-Mart prices are out of control--at least for my family they are. So I went to Aldi.

The difference is incredible. Here's a link to Aldi's homepage. They keep their prices down by (among other things) making you come up with your own way to carry your food out and by charging you a quarter to take one of their carts (which you get back at the end of your shopping trip). There is in some cases a 50% difference in the prices offered. The meat they offer is at least 30-40% cheaper. The downside is that you don't get nearly the amount of choice that something like a Kroger or even a Wal-Mart would offer you. You can't find a lot of fish, seafood, or different cuts of beef and pork at Aldi. But at 50% off, I'd have to care at this point.

I spend somewhere between $70-90 for three days worth of food and supplies. I have no idea how that stacks up with the average American family, but it's for three people, two adults and one growing 11 year old. I shop for the generic in store brand where possible. I know where the problem lies. The problem is that I cook real food. If I fixed hotdogs and frozen pizza every other day, or even those heat up lasagnes and flash frozen veggies, I'd cut my expenses by at least a third. Damn me for making barbeque chicken in the oven from scratch, with garlic mashed potatoes and green beans (in a can, but with onions, etc. added). And screw me over again for making a vegetable lasagne with a bean dip spread, real veggies and spinach chopped up and sauted, with cheese, tomato sauce, blah, blah, blah. Whenever I go to Wal-Mart for a grocery run, I stop in the Subway that's in the store and pick up dinner, because it's usually too late for the hour and a half my cooking takes from start to finish. It's a sad realization that I can feed my family from Subway for less that it costs me to do it from scratch. It's not like I'm even buying organic most of the time. I wish I could, and I do when the organic product is within .50 cents of the price of the other (or really close to that), but I can't afford to make my ethics match my purchases.

And that just sucks. But you know what? I should've been eating out of Aldi's the whole time. I would've had more money to save, to go on vacation, or to fart around with in general. We've already been making concessions in our grocery bill, because that's really the only place that has any elastic to it. It's not like you can tell the landlord, "Hey dude, we've only decided to pay 70% of the rent this month." We rarely have fish anymore (and it's so contaminated, it's not recommended in the servings it used to be anyway). I've cut down on junk food for many reasons, including the bill. El Hijo is awesome at packing a lunch for the two of us to take to the university--I suck at that. It saves us a lot of money each month just by not eating out for lunch. But our menu options are starting to shift to reflect what's available in the Aldi grocery store. I never expected a store to beat out Wal-Mart prices. But here it is.

I'll be shoving my little quarter into their grocery cart to unlock it and stuffing my groceries into all the bags I have left over from Wal-Mart. I can still buy the supplies for bbq chicken, and the neighborhood boy vote is that my bbq chicken is "awesome." Shopping at Aldi's doesn't change its awesomeness. It's worth it, and I should've been doing it all along. I may even have enough money saved to take my family on a small cruise this summer. Here's to fiscal responsibility and rewards.

-- DV

The "Debates"

So, I watched the second installment of the Presidential "debates" last night. I thought Obama did well against McCain, who always comes off looking like somebody's crotchety old grandpa. "Get off my lawn, you damned kids!" I think Obama speaks well, I think he actually stops and thinks about his answers, and I think he has a good vision for the country, one that I personally resonate with. I don't think he'll get to do any of those things, because of the financial mess we're in right now, but I like concept of "prioritizing" your nations' values. If he accomplishes what he'd like to do with green/clean energy, that would be great.

But my big bitch about the so-called debates is the fact that there are several other people running for President right now, and they are routinely ignored by the media and shut out from the process. What is the harm in letting them answer the questions, too? Find out what Nader has to say about green policies. Find out what Ron Paul thinks about the economic situation right now. Ask the Constitutional Party guy why he's such a Xian nutter. Those people have ideas, and we never get to hear them in the debate forum. That should change.

If the big party candidates actually had to account for these other voices, there would be a lot less focusing on sound byte politics ("drill, baby, drill") and more actual attempts at distinguishing themselves through policy. Imagine how much more articulate you'd have to be about green energy with Ralph Nader standing there looking at you. Imagine trying to make the case for more regulation with Ron Paul ready to jump at it. Imagine all the weird looks you'd get from the Constitutional Party guy Chuck Baldwin. There would be more people to call you on your crap, making you rethink what you're getting ready to say.

The main reason third party voices need to be heard is because they often shift the grounds of politics. Abolitionism, women's votes, civil rights, all that stuff started out as third party platforms. Eventually, the parties in power had to account for it because of all the awareness raising that had happened, and so the stream of politics shifted in its bed. That's the value of alternative voices--they push you past the stiff boundaries drawn by those in power. Environmental issues used to be considered nutty (some people still think that way, but *they* are the nutty ones now). But the Greens pushed on, and now it's a mainstream issue. Think of how many times Obama and McCain talked about green technology, reducing emissions, the kinds of stuff Nader et. al bitched about for years. It's finally mainstream, and they're the ones who've pushed it into the spotlight. That's the value in third parties--they force those in power to think about issues that might not matter to them otherwise.

I know that coalition governments or governments with multi-party systems are pains in the ass when it comes to deciding things or fighting for power. But to me it's far more representative of what people actually want than what the two party system we have right now. Let them debate, dammit. Let's hear what this guy has to say:



-- Virgil

What is Old is New Again

It was about WW2 and war profiteering, but I can't help but think it has something to do with today's economic crisis. I wonder if the man's barrel sprung a leak, if he'd be asking for a "bail out"?

-- DV

I swear I didn't read the following before I posted. The link comes from here:

Dow plunges 800 points amid global sell-off

Monday October 6, 2:49 pm ET By
Joe Bel Bruno, AP Business Writer
Dow Jones industrial average plunges 800
points amid global sell-off
NEW YORK (AP) --

The Dow Jones industrials skidded more than 800 points and fell below 10,000 for the first time in four years, while the credit markets remained under strain. Financial markets took a despairing view of the future Monday, seeing contagion in a credit crisis that threatens to cascade through economies globally despite government efforts to provide relief.

Investors around the world have come to the sobering realization that the Bush administration's $700 billion rescue plan won't work quickly to unfreeze the credit markets. Global banks, hobbled by wrong-way bets on mortgage securities, remain starved for cash as credit has dried up. That has sent stocks spiraling downward in the U.S., Europe and Asia, and driven investors to sink money into the relative safety of U.S. government debt. Fears about a global recession also caused oil to drop below $90 a barrel; and the benchmark index that gauges fear in the market jumped to the highest level in its 18-year history.

"The fact is people are scared and the only thing they're doing is
selling," said Ryan Detrick, senior technical strategist at Schaeffer's
Investment Research. "Investors are cleaning out portfolios and getting rid of everything because nothing seems to be working." The selling was so extreme that only 67 stocks rose on the NYSE -- and 3,155 dropped. That's a telling sign considering the stock market is considered a leading economic indicator, with investors tending to buy and sell based on where they believe the economy will be in six to nine months.

Monday's steep decline on Wall Street indicates that investors are becoming more convinced that the country is leading a prolonged economic crisis that is spreading to other nations. Over the weekend, governments across Europe rushed to prop up failing banks, while the governments of Germany, Ireland and Greece also said they would guarantee bank deposits. As the U.S. tries to repair its battered banking system, the German government and financial industry agreed on a $68 billion bailout for commercial-property lender Hypo Real Estate Holding AG. And France's BNP Paribas agreed to acquire a 75 percent stake in Fortis's Belgium bank after a government rescue failed. The Fed also took fresh steps to help ease credit markets.
The central bank said Monday it will begin paying interest on commercial banks' reserves and will expand its loan program to squeezed banks.

Joseph V. Battipaglia, chief investment officer at Ryan Beck & Co., said government intervention certainly might help. However, he believes investors are sensing that what's happening in the economy is a shift in the extent to which consumers and businesses take on debt, a change that will take years to play out. "This is a global deleveraging of many economies," he said. "It might appear that you're going into the abyss where the economy grinds to a halt and the financial system goes into complete disarray. But, what the market is really reading here is that this is a global phenomenon, and when you delever like this, it is a process that takes a very long period of time measured in years, not quarters."

That, he said, is being reflected in major stock indexes being repriced significantly lower. In mid-afternoon trading, the Dow Jones industrial average fell 703.68, or 6.82 percent, to 9,621.70, dropping below 10,000 for the first time since Oct. 29, 2004. The Dow came within striking distance of its biggest one-day point decline -- 778, which the blue chips suffered a week ago when investors feared the bailout package might not pass Congress.

Broader indexes also tumbled. The Standard & Poor's 500 index shed 81.91, or 7.45 percent, to 1,017.32; and the Nasdaq composite index fell 156.33, or 8.03 percent, to 1,791.06. The Russell 2000 index of smaller companies dropped 48.68, or 7.86 percent, to 570.72.

Bolded for the really interesting parts. We're falling now because people are scared. When they calm down, I think things will start righting themselves. But, I think it's interesting to note what Battapaglia said: people are changing the way they think about debt, and investors are taking note. God, I hope so. The current pace of consumption simply can't continue.

-- DV

Sliding Down

A rhetorical question: if the bailout is supposed to halt the decline, why in the hell isn't it happening? The market has known for days that the bailout was signed. I think it's because the government has scared the daylights out of investors, and they're in a panic. I also think it's because it's impossible to predict who is going to be saved and when. How do you know when to invest when one company is allowed to crash and burn, but another is bailed out? You can't make smart decisions to buy, you can only rush to sell.

Other countries seem similarly concerned. Russia just suspended its stock market activities after its market lost 15% of its value. The Indian stock market is down over 700 points. The US is still sliding down, in spite of the knowledge that the bailout passed. In fact, it was basically the first thing the market did this morning.

It's going to take a while for things to sort themselves out. Job losses are going to be reported, but unemployment right now is still at about 6.1%. It's going to get messy for a while. We've made poor purchasing and financing choices. I honestly don't believe we're in for another Great Depression. I think the circumstances are different now than then. I do think we're going into a deep recession. But I don't think the economy will grind to a halt. Stay safe. And my advice, for what it's worth, is not to panic. There really is no reason to. We're nowhere near "panic" mode yet. Make conservative and safe choices with your money, cut your spending where you can, and you'll ride it out just fine.

The real question is going to be who gets bailed out and who gets left to fall on their faces? That will be where the rubber meets the road. So far, there haven't been any decisions made yet.

-- DV

We're Going to Hell--Or Are We?

I've been thinking about this bailout business. I've had conversations with many people about it, and I'm in the middle of a giant special in the Economist about the bailout. I'd like to say that because I have an Economics degree and I read things entitled "Economist" or "Financial Times", that it sheds some special light on this mess for me. It doesn't. It's complicated. But for my own purposes (and because JP asked me), I'm going to try to make sense of it. But even though he asked for 500 words or less, I'm not sure I can make that happen. In fact, it's probably going to be a really long ass post. I am going to put it into categories, though. Even if all it does is help me piece it together. I think there does need to be one or two caveats added, though. As objective as I'll try to be, all the explanations/refutations are inevitably somewhat colored by our political persuasions and economic viewpoints. I'm also sure I'm going to leave things out, so if I don't present the "complete" economic picture, it's not like anybody else whose job it is to tell people these things has either. Go read a magazine about it or something. Sigh.

How the Hell Did We Get Here?

Well, people are still bitching about that and probably will still be debating it fifty years from now. People are blaming everything and everyone, including Bill Clinton, who it seems someone somewhere has to blame for something on a routine basis. There are several reasons we're going to hell in a handbasket right now (instead of a designer bag).

Unsustainable Growth/Consumption. That pretty much sums up a good lot of it. It is a fallacy to believe that the economy can just continue to grow infinitely. People tend to look at nature and natural resources as some subset of the economy, as if the economy is somehow the overarching ecosystem we live in. It isn't. It's the other way round. Putting aside the issue of literally running out of resources, consider what's going on in the economy right now as a metaphor for running out of natural resources. You only have so much money coming in. You can only feasibly buy so much stuff. Even with credit, you can only falsely extend your purchasing power for a finite amount of time. Eventually you hit your credit limit. At that point the piper wants to be paid, and that's when shit started to hit the fan. It hit the fan in several ways.

Subprime mortgage lending was the main way. Two groups are responsible for this. The first group includes the people who thought they were entitled to more house than they could afford, and were willing to take a gamble on their bank loan to get it. What does a subprime loan even mean? It means that money is lent (in the form of a mortgage, a credit card or a car loan) to someone who is either asking to be lent wa-ay too much money than what they can afford or who has no assests to back up such a loan or who has a shitty credit rating--probably because they have a history of not paying stuff back. The way bank loans worked in the good old credit solvent days, were that you had to put down 20% of what the house was valued at before you could even get a loan. Then, you got a *fixed rate* mortgage with a payoff date of probably around 30 years. You knew what your mortgage payment was going to be for the next 30 years. Banks decided to get creative with the way they loaned money to people. One of the first ways they got around it was to drop the 20% requirement and start charging PMI (private mortgage insurance) instead. PMI is just tacked onto the monthly payment, and is the fee a person pays for being more risky than someone who bothered to save up the money to prove they had good money management skills. Another way they now loan money to people is called an Adjustable Rate Mortgage, or an "ARM". This loan has an interest rate that is tied to market indicators, usually some sort of index like what Treasury bills are doing or what the national average lending rate is. Which means when it's down, your payment is cheaper. When it goes up, on the other hand, so does your payment. That's the main thing that is forcing people out of their homes right now. They got an ARM while the rate was low. They were told that the market would stay low for a long time, and they chose to believe it. Now that interest rates have risen, they simply cannot afford to make the payments anymore. According to Wiki, for example, ARM defaults made up 43% of all banking defaults recently. By 2006, also according to Wiki, subprime loans made up $600 billion in loans--about 1/5 of the housing market. Other bizarre types of loans include"interest only" loans, which only lets you pay the interest for 5-10 years (but keeps you in debt for a lifetime, since your payments never reduce your balance) or plans that let you choose how you want to pay--sort of hybrid loans that start off with fixed rates only to convert to an ARM at a later time. Think of the introductory offers credit cards offer you in the form of 0% for the first X months. Same thing. Incidentally, there are also subprime credit cards and car loans. It' s not just houses. Predatory loans include very exhorbitant fees and closing agreements, much of which wasn't explained to the person taking out the loan.

Now, there is sort of a chicken & egg tendency that emerges at this point. Who is to blame, reckless people who took on more debt than they could afford, or reckless lenders, who by and large played it for all it was worth, knowing these people were going to default sooner or later? The answer is most likely "both," and it happens to also be a class issue. The people who took on most of these loans simply didn't make enough money to cover the payments, nor, in my opinion, did many of them really understand what they were getting into. If those of us with degrees in business cannot fully process it, how is someone with a high school diploma or a GED supposed to? I'm not talking about people who wanted a second home and couldn't afford it. I'm referring to the first time home buyers taking credit from places that are basically a financial loan shark operation. There are lenders that are essentially set up as pay-day advancers--the ones who will give you a loan before your paycheck comes in but then charge you 20% or more to pay it back. The same people who end up having to take out cash advances from these places are also the same class of people who bought into these shoddy loans. Say what you want about that, I don't care. It's part of the problem. They didn't understand what they were getting into, and the lender didn't bother to explain it to them. They're both at fault--the ethical question might be, who is more at fault? The person who was ignorant of the way it works, or the person who purposely left out that information? Ignorance is no excuse. Maybe. Maybe not.

So how on earth could this affect everybody if it's just about people who can't pay their mortgages?

The simple answer is Subprime mortgage "bundling." In my opinion, the real answer is greedy fuckers who don't place good bets. But the economic answer is "bundling." Bundling is the reason why many supposedly reputable financial institutions are in trouble right now instead of just the slimy ones that deserve to go under. What happened is that investment houses came up with the brilliant idea of buying mortgages from bank lenders and then bundling them all together and issuing bonds out of them. They used the monthly payments from homeowners to pay interest on the bonds, and in theory the principal would be repaid once all the mortgages had been paid down or refinanced. Of course, that went to shit when the homeowners couldn't pay their mortgages and both banks and investment houses (and your mutual funds and 401ks, incidentally) were left holding the bag. Investment houses like Merril Lynch being willing to buy up/create bundles out of these mortgages encouraged financial lenders to keep making stupid loans and passing them on. This encouraged some lenders to overleverage themselves. What that means, is that they took on wa-ay more debt than they could cover by issuing tons of subprime loans in the hopes that the housing market would continue to soar and make them lots of money in the future. When lenders are overleveraged, some of them in debt up to thirty times what they are worth, their failure means lots of failure. It's not just a loss, it's a loss times thirty, if that makes any sense. Supposedly smart institutions like Merril Lynch decided to make up some of their other finanical products like mutual funds with these bundled crap loans. That's why everyone has the potential to be hurt like this (among another reason, which is discussed below)--the stupid has been spread over the whole financial market, like butter on toast.

Essentially, people who knew better bet on the 50-1 horse and are now acting surprised that it didn't come in.

Belief that Markets are "free". The rest of us, meanwhile, are left to puzzle out how the market could've ended up this way if it were truly a "free" market, which is also, supposedly, a self-correcting market. Well, the truth of the matter is that the markets were, largely, free to do whatever the hell they wanted to. There will be some people who bitch about Bill Clinton (as usual) or the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (which sources--as in a quick Google search--will show is not to blame), but the fact is that deregulation was the name of the game. There were rules in place, but the Securities & Exchange Commission (the other SEC), which is sort of like the nuns with rulers in a Catholic school, did nothing about it. They turned a blind eye. They all got what they wanted--no one to have a hand or a say in their business--and the result is the worst financial disaster (possibly) in history.

In my opinion, people who believe in the "invisible hand" of the market are no different than people who believe in the "holy ghost" of the Lord. There is no objective economic system that functions outside of human behavior. Economic systems are only in place because of human beings, and they function in tandem with human nature. There is no pure capitalist system (or socialist, communist, whatever-ist) without human beings to run it. And human beings look out for their own. Thousands upon thousands of years of history shows us what our behavior trends toward without intervention and regulation. We don't hire the most able--we hire the person who gets us ahead either socially, who promotes family bonds, or who gives us the most to gain personally--that doesn't always translate to the best thing for the markets. The most memorable events of economic history have not been righted by some "hidden hand" of capitalism. They were changed by the course of human intervention. In recent memory, the Great Depression and the almost-crash of Black Monday in 1987 were reversed or averted solely through specific human intervention. Market balance had nothing to do with it.

That's why some economists, the government, and apparently most people living in other countries think a bailout is critical right now.

What's the Bailout Supposed to Do?

Here's where things get murkier and more interesting.

Supposedly, the bailout will halt the downward spin we're in right now. The bailout allows the government to buy up the bad loans, which injects cash into the markets that are currently failing. This is supposedly a good deal, because even though the loans are crap, the land is still worth having. Markets simply can't run without some liquid cash (which means real money, not stocks or something) to buy things. This bill injects cash into the market and also will somehow keep homeowners in their homes by allowing the government to renegotiate the loan--it appears, anyway--and somehow it claims taxpayers will be protected from these bad decisions made on Wall Street through the act of buying these junk loans, although it's difficult to see how, and the executive summary doesn't make that clear, and the original bailout explanation from the government was 110 freaking pages long. Supposedly, executives lose their bonuses and severance pay, and while the Fed has $250 billion to act upfront, it has to come back and prove it needs more than that before it can spend any more. Congress has already signed this into law, so it's a done deal. It's sort of considered "emergency surgery", as one news article I read put it. It's not like this is going to make the economy get up, stretch it's arms and walk out of the hospital on its own two feet. But, presumably, it did save the economy's life.

What else is in this bill? Har. The new bill is over 450 pages long, and some of the filler is pure pork--you know, the kind of stuff John McCain recently said he was absolutely against in the last debate? (Although both he and Obama voted for this bill Friday.) Among other concerns is a tax repeal for the manufacturers of children's wooden arrows. I'm sure they appreciate it, although looks like repealing any taxes right now is stupid, considering how much we have to pay for. When was the last time you even saw children's wooden arrows for sale? Tax breaks are also given to fishermen who were affected by the Exxon Valdez oil spill and owners of race tracks. The bill also proposes to increase FDIC insurance (the federal promise that your money in a bank will be guaranteed by them) from $100,000 to $250,000. Which is great, but where are they going to get the money to pay you back, considering all the taxes they're cutting? Credits are given to people who buy certain kinds of hybrid cars--which just so happens to correspond to only General Motors cars. No favors there, I'm sure. All in all, there are nearly $150 billion in added tax cut provisions. None of these has to do with solving the immediate financial/banking crisis. If we're in the middle of a crisis, why do we need those? The argument will be that it stimualtes the economy in some way (so you can buy more wooden kids' arrows). But the government is already deeply into debt, and is basically cutting its own paycheck even further.

What Would Have Happened if We Said No (Or What Might Happen Even If We've Already Said Yes)?

Apparently, Armageddon. And lo, I looked and I saw a white horse, a pale horse, a crimson horse, and, oh look!--a green horse with dollar bills painted on its flanks...

This is where it gets even cloudier. Because frankly, there is only one plan for fixing it, and this one was it. There is no Plan B. If this fails, presumably, we're all fucked. But not everyone is buying into that.

Why will we be fucked? Because of the doctrine of perpetual economic growth. Because in order to continue growing, businesses need credit, and in order to consume, we have to have credit. If banks start going under left and right, credit will go away. And the majority of the growth in our economy will grind to a halt. I can sort of buy into this. For one thing, looking at my own university, students find it hard to go there without credit in the form of student loans. It's difficult for most people to buy a car outright--most people need to take out a loan, which means being issued credit. I've even heard the argument that businesses pay their payroll on credit, which I don't honestly believe at all. I've worked for several businesses. They didn't run on credit. What they used credit for was for expansion purposes. More on that in a second. But suffice it to say, that if businesses can't expand, they can't create new jobs, which means it will be even more difficult to find work than it already was.

We might be fucked even though the government has already inked the deal. $700 billion may simply not be enough, because the government has done enough to panic people with its rhetoric into withdrawing money at alarming rates. I know several people who've withdrawn thousands of dollars "just in case." Just in case what? If it comes to "that", your money isn't going to help you anyway. It may also encourage bad fiscal behavior on the part of Wall Street, with the expectation that they'll get another government bailout. Think of the airline industries. Perhaps we should've just let them fail miserably, and then we'd have different choices to pick from now, instead of aging aircraft, bloated prices and surly staff. Same concept. I think the Dow will continue to fluctuate wildly, simply because now that the government gets to pick and choose who to save, how is anyone supposed to divine what will fail and what will be saved? Lehman Brothers got the boot, AIG got redeemed. The rhyme and reason is slightly above my ability to calculate it. But suffice it to say the small investor is now panicked and running for the hills. I don't expect that to turn around.

In my opinion, the majority of Americans were against this bailout, not because they were idiots who didn't understand economics, but because they had already been feeling the pinch of higher unemployment, rising cost of groceries and gas coupled with stagnant wages, and they sort of looked at the "crisis" and said, "So what?" Now that wealthier people are feeling it, the government has decided to act. At least that's what it looks like. No one cared when working class people started losing their homes until the wealthier lenders started feeling cramped. Incidentally, not all banks are folding, and the ones that do are protected with FDIC government insurance. Local banks I know are actually still granting loans. I'm sure that's the case in other states as well. And now, things are going to likely crunch for a while. But that's not necessarily a bad thing.

In fact, champions of a truly free market should be willing to let it implode. It's a bloated system built on false purchasing power. It needs to collapse--it's founded on lies, the primarily lie being "we can afford it." Setting aside for a moment the thought of pensions going down in flames (which is my only reservation in not bailing out Wall Street), think of all the things people ask for credit to purchase. Do they need those things? Can we sustain the unchecked production of those things? Do we need to keep growing jobs infinitely, when the largest generation the United States has ever seen is entering retirement as we speak? We need a new way of looking at economics and at how we consume and why we consume. Financial institutions built on predatory lending need to collapse. Businesses that can't run except for borrowed money need to collapse--they don't have a viable business plan if they have to live on credit. Hell, regular people, if they have to live solely on credit, cannot sustain that pace. Why should we think it's OK for a business to do so? So you can't get a new car loan for an SUV--so what? Go to a used car lot, avoid the depreciation hit you take when you drive a new car off the lot anyway, and get one of those. How many people used to go to college and work during the summer to pay for it? Why is it considered unacceptable for our children to do the same thing? So loans do get reduced--save up your money and pay for school. Hell, how many of them are wasting their parents money right now because they think it's the 13th grade?

The things we're used to having, in my opinion, can still be had. They just won't be had as quickly and with such flimsy excuses as we used to grant them. Part of the problem is that my generation and the one before me want to have everything at once. Our parents saved up and bought a washer and dryer, but we take the Lowe's credit card and go buy them right now and make payments. We're making too many payments on too many things we don't need. And that, to me, is the heart of the problem. A bailout won't correct an ingrained way of looking at things. What we need is an attitude adjustment. My only concern is for people whose pensions are taking a hit. They don't have the time to recover in the stock market as younger people do. So, I'd support bailing them out. Frankly, if you really believe in capitalism, you have to take this next leap and say "let it die." I'm something of a hybrid. I think it needs to die, too, not because I believe in capitalism, per se, but because the markets as they stand are based on falsehoods, and I think that needs to be cleared away. It's bitter medicine that's long over due.

The bailout was emergency surgery. But what we need to do now is go on a diet and exercise more so this kind of thing is less likely to happen. We certainly don't need to go back to boozing it up and smoking two packs a day. That's enough of the metaphors.

And that's the best I can do with making sense out of this mess.

-- DV

Well, Shucky-Darn Diddly-Do, Middle America

I really should be grading portfolios, but I just can't bring myself to yet. Instead, I simply have to go on a tear about the Vice Presidential debates last night. I left a networking dinner to get home in time to watch them, and in between helping Dante with homework (which is an event in our home on par with terrorism), I watched the debates.

Holy sidewinding diddly-darn shit.

I almost don't know where to begin. But I'd like to start by saying that Sarah Palin is an embarrassment to me as a woman. There are plenty of Republican women McCain could have picked who would've had far more grace and eloquence than the Alaskan Husky that is Sarah Palin. She is a mockery of everything that so many women worked so hard for her to take advantage of. I've seen several interviews with Palin, and it doesn't seem like she knows much of anything. Most of us might not know what the Bush Doctrine is, for example, but by her god, she ought to know if she's running for the White House!

Here's a link to some of the collected "Palinisms" that have already happened, along with the video clips to prove it. Dear baby Jesus. One of my favorites was her response on why she had good foreign policy credentials: "As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It’s Alaska. It's just right over the border." But I think what bothers me most is her ridiculous delivery of her speeches. I get that she's supposed to be "folksy". Nobody knows "folksy" better than a girl from Kentucky. And that's part of the problem.

If you're going to appeal to the "Joe Six-Packs" of the world, you have to realize that Joe 6P comes in many shapes and sizes. Just dropping your endings and saying things like "betcha and dontcha" isn't going to cut it. After all, even the Pussycat Dolls can say "Dontcha wish ya girlfriend was hot like me?" It doesn't mean they're appealing to the heartland, although Joe 6P is probably watching for other reasons. Does she know, for instance, what a "holler" is? Because that's what the "folks" back home understand. They called one of the Harry Potter books, "Harry Potter & the Deathly Hollers." Maybe the real test is whether she knows what "hominy" is. Ha.

But seriously, I don't want a "folksy" person in the White House. I want somebody who I think is smarter than me, more connected than I am, and more personable than I am (that last bit qualifies most people), because s/he has to use those skills to make very critical decisions. I don't want somebody who will say, "Now, now, doggone it, Putin, dontcha know ya can't just go around messing with other people, you big, bad bully. Now you go have yerself a time out, okay? Here's a cookie." (Sort of like putting Lisa in the White House, eh JP & B!--although I think Lisa would do a much better job.) Which is what the woman sounds like to me. Additionally, we already put a Joe 6P in the White House. It was little better than a trained monkey, and fortunately his time is going to end in a few short months. I don't want to replace him with Ancient McGrump and Barbeque Barbie.

The debates themselves were somewhat interesting. Probably the most shocking part to me came when Palin praised Cheney's interpretation of the VP's powers, which expands them beyond what the Constitution allows. My jaw dropped when she said that. I was pleased when Biden almost condescendingly put her in her place by telling everyone what the job really entailed and by then going on to say that Dick Cheney was the most dangerous VP in history. A thought I agree with. I like watching the debates in general, because as a comp teacher, I love hearing the rhetoric that comes out. When Biden repeatedly linked John McCain to the current administration by saying "George Bush" three or four times in a row, that solidifies things like that in people's minds. Palin did nothing to counter it. As cheesy as it might have been, I also was touched at the part where Biden choked up a little about his kids and their accident. I think that was actually a genuine reaction. It was also a little callous of Palin to not acknowledge that moment, but to instead go into her Maverick Mantra again. But it was a good point to make--Palin, just by virtue of being a woman, does not get to claim the "family" values crown all to herself.

My radio right now is telling me that the "concensus" is that Biden won on points, while Palin won on style. Style? Seriously? "Doggone, it Joe, there ya go again," does not count as style. Disappointingly, the media is reporting Palin's performance in terms that make it sound like she actually did something well. But what that really means is that she didn't completely come out on stage and poop herself, like everyone thought she would. The bar should not be "acted like a normal person". That should be a given. The bar should be "acted like the second in command of the most powerful nation on earth." She just looked to me as though her cookies were burning.

On the other hand, maybe we can all crib some of her debating tactics to help us during our next big presentation. Here is a handy flow chart for you to use:




See ya later, ya bunch of good ol' middle Americans!-- DV