Oct 312011
 

 

It is time to highlight another species of rude Metro rider. We’ve met the Pole Hugger; now meet Window Seat Blocker (or if you can think of a better name, leave it in “Comments”).
 


 

If you ride during rush hour often enough you’ve probably encountered this species of rude rider. He remains firmly planted to the aisle seat, leaving the window seat next to him completely empty or filled with his “personal items.” He knows that the car is packed and there are a lot of people standing. He doesn’t care. 

Move over, please.
 

 
Try to figure out the logic of this move. I guess they think that their stop is coming up soon, so they fear sliding over and getting boxed in by another passenger. This thinking is either simply mistaken or stupid (leaning toward stupid). In all my years riding the Metro, no one has ever refused to let me out from a window seat. Never. People are accommodating, because we know there are some nutjobs out there that would stab you in the neck if you refuse to let them out. Although another pet peeve is when you ask me to let you out of the window seat while the train is still moving. (Perhaps I can find a name for this species.)
 

Maybe they are thinking if they take the aisle seat they can have a little extra space, which is always comfortable. If I catch you trying that and I’m standing in the aisle next to you, you better hope I didn’t have Chipotle for lunch. I know … I know … probably isn’t a good idea since there would be a lot of innocent “friendly fire” casualties in such an attack, and it violates international prohibitions on gas warfare. But I digress. Anyway almost all of the Window Seat Blockers are not obese, so they don’t need extra space.
 

Your ass is not that fat, move over!
 

 
The Window Seat Blocker could be suffering from a severe mental illness. Maybe they did in fact purchase another farecard for their imaginary friend. Lord help you if you try to sit on their invisible companion.
 

So unless your name is Ellwood P. Dowd and you’re riding with Harvey, move over! “You see, science has overcome time and space. Well, Harvey has overcome not only time and space, but any objections.”

Digg This
Oct 272011
 

 

Another band-aid solution – granted, his hands are tied by a Congress whose number one mission is to make him a one-term president.  Higher education wouldn’t look like such a scam if there were enough jobs.  This minor student loan relief is just meant to keep us treading water until real help relief arrives (either the return of a robust economy or death — I’m sure Vegas has them at even odds right now).  The student loan relief is about as useful as a cardboard life preserver.  They see you drowning and shout “America doesn’t make boats anymore, but, here, take this.”
 

Student loan debt raises the related issue of the rapidly increasing cost of education.


 

Is the degree that much more valuable than it was in 1978?  I doubt that graduates have become that much smarter.  Just from a supply/demand standpoint I don’t think they are as valuable.  America used to have a huge manufacturing base.  Now, the people who would fill factory jobs are told to go to college.  This swells the number of degree holders chasing every available job.  So you graduate deeper in debt, less likely to get your preferred job, and if you do it will likely pay less.  Oh, but, the president will cut you some slack and let some of you have a smaller paymemt.  The broken promise, some could argue a “bait-and-switch,” calls for a stronger response.
 

The above chart also reminds me about the existance of Student Loan Asset-Backed Securities (SLABS).  The financial crash in 2008 was heavily based on the derivatives made from subprime mortgages.  What happens to the market for SLABS when the student loan default rate jumps?  I could see SLABS being sold as safer investments than subprime derivatives because students could not turn over the keys to their education and cannot have their student loan debts discharged in bankruptcy.  We can only hope that there are not nearly as many SLABS out there as there were supbrime ABS.  Stay tuned.
 

For more info about SLABS, see:

http://www.edu-factory.org/wp/bad-education/

http://nplusonemag.com/bad-education

http://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/czwc6/askfinance_is_there_any_way_for_an_individual_to/

http://www.slideshare.net/pkedrosky/eisman-ira-sohn-conference-slides-and-speech52610

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/subprime_goes_to_college_FeiheNJfGYtoSwmtl5etJP

http://rghost.net/download/1730024/bf87072c8c998af4d97f8036d710534676fc15d1/Steve-Eisman-Ira-Sohn-Presentation-2010.pdf

Digg This
Oct 242011
 

President Obama has announced the withdrawal of (almost) all troops from Iraq by the end of the year.  We will be leaving up to 200 Marines to protect that monstrosity of an embassy we’ve built.  Someday it will be a nice place for tourist to visit (at least we got something out of that war).

 

It is apparent that the Iraqis pressured him into the decision and it is a popular move for Obama now during the election season.  I’m sure there are going to be many on the right who will be calling this a failure.  Probably a lot of neocons will be crying about the loss of “force projection.” Surprise, surprise — the Heritage Foundation doesn’t like it one bit. . Here is how they overstate the threat:

[Withdrawal] will undermine U.S. security interests in Iraq by severely limiting bilateral U.S.–Iraqi cooperation in fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq and radical pro-Iranian Shia militias. The U.S. military pullout will also weaken efforts to contain Iran by leaving a partial power vacuum that Iran will exploit to expand its own influence.”

 

If I was in the Navy I’d be offended by the Heritage statement.  They are saying our Naval presence in the Persian Gulf alone would not be enough to “contain” pissant Iran.  Come on.  In the most likely conflict caused by Iran, they will just end up being nuked by Israel anyway, so we really can’t use them as an excuse to maintain occupation of Iraq.
 
In one of his statements, President Obama hints that he knows what the right thing to do is:  “Because after a decade of war, the nation that we need to build — and the nation that we will build — is our own, an America that sees its economic strength restored just as we’ve restored our leadership around the globe.” Does this mean he is ready to reallocate vast resources we spend on policing the world, and instead put them toward rebuilding America?  We need to stop wasting money by overspending on security.  As I asked before, who are we this afraid of?
 
Iraq withdrawal is a good start.  How about we leave Afghanistan next?  If the president really intends to do that, I’m betting he saves it until at least July or even waiting for the Republican convention.  I wonder how many Americans will die a pointless death in Afghanistan between now and then.

Digg This
Oct 212011
 

 
In this installment of the War on Celebrities, I bring you the bombing of Lohanistan.
 

Why is Lindsay Lohan on the news?  Here is one I really don’t get.  Supposedly, this person is an actor.  Off the top of my head, I cannot name a movie she has been in.  It is more like a famous-for-being-famous situation.  According to the Wiki, she apparently grew up in the business acting in commercials and print ads before starring in a couple of Disney movies.  (The Wiki says one of her movies was Mean Girls which was written by Tina Fey, someone with actual talent and whose work I have enjoyed. So I might have to check that one out someday.)

I do not understand how she deserves extra attention.  I guess because she’s been in and out of rehab (or “threehab”) and was arrested for stealing jewelry.  I don’t get how this person is famous and taking up our valuable airtime.  On the other hand, it also doesn’t seem fair to her.  Shouldn’t someone earn the pedestal before the tabloid media tries to knock you off it. She has not really done anything noteworthy, yet she faces the hounding and scrutiny of an established megastar. I think she deserves some pity while we dish out the scorn on the culture that makes her famous for no reason.

 

Digg This
Oct 172011
 

Behold this Yahoo! News headline: “One month in, protests yet to topple capitalism,” albeit linking to an article on right-wing The Daily Caller: “Conservatives and Republicans have ranged from skeptical to dismissive, calling the demonstrators’ anti-capitalist message unrealistic.”

Many have described the protest as anti-capitalism. Granted, there may be some (well, a lot of) sincere anti-capitalists out there protesting (the usual suspects that have showed up to many protests in the past decade or so), but I’ll bet you dollars-to-doughnuts the “Occupy Wall Street” protesters generally support capitalism. If they were protesting capitalism they would have still been out there when unemployment was 6%. They are angry because someone has hijacked the American capitalist economy, crashed it, received a bailout, and ducked all consequences. They are angry because they feel the death of the American dream in their own lives. Study hard, play by the rules, stay out of trouble and you’ll get a “good job.” That’s the promise of the American Dream. In the name of greater profits the “good jobs” are vanishing.

They know America has always had a capitalist system. They know it used to work better. They want to help American capitalism function again, not turn it into some Soviet nightmare.

To those protesting capitalism, I’m going to have to smack your hand. You see, capitalism used to work just fine for almost all of us. We had real hope that we could build better lives and evidence that the system honored merit. Not anymore. Capitalism works, but right now it is ill. Now a powerful few are going too far and are able to do so because of the modern finance system (including rules (or lack thereof) and technology).

The mainstream media and right-wing elite are frequently labeling the Occupy Wall Street protests as anti-capitalist, intentionally or not keeping the working class conservatives on the sidelines. They tell the lie that the movement is about destroying capitalism when it really is about restoring it. They know that if the tea party activists (well, the real grassroots among the astroturf) join Occupy Wall Street, it is game over for the 1 percent. It would be like when Darth Vader finally decided to take Luke’s side, the emperor couldn’t really put up much of a fight. (I think I’ll have to write a different post about the redemption of Darth Vader and the tea party.) Occupy Wall Street may lead to an awakening and a uniting of the 99%. You can see why those with the power to influence the mass media would want to prevent that.

Some in the media have been catching on to the idea that the protests are not primarily anti-capitalist. One search turned up a piece in Forbes:

I want to note that there’s something profoundly anti-capitalist about the critics of OWS. It’s a movement about which capitalists, real capitalists who work hard and smart, have nothing to fear. Oligarchs, on the other hand, should be afraid, very afraid. Entrepreneurs and corporate leaders will find a way to make money and allocate capital so that jobs are created even in a workable financial system. Sure, breaking-up the incestuous relationship between Wall Street and K Street will change the rules of the game, but it won’t end the game. Maybe wealth disparity will shrink, maybe CEOs will make slightly less relative to average workers. But the entrepreneurial spirit will still triumph. Who knows, just like Steve Jobs emerged from the ethos of 1960s radicalism and spiritual-seeking, perhaps the 21st century’s next great industrialist will emerge from the Zuccotti Park tripod tarps and all-inclusive General Assembly in which everyone has a say.

Even someone at WorldNetDaily gets it:

The Occupy Wall Street protests are no more an attack on capitalism than the tea party is an attempt to restore the Confederacy, because there is nothing capitalist about Wall Street. Wall Street is actually an outdated throw-back to the pre-capitalist period; it is a variant of the royal mercantile system in which profits were not dependent upon superior competition, but upon the monopolies granted by the thrones of France and England.

Neither Occupy Wall Street nor the tea party are going to achieve their self-contradictory objectives. Their ideological incoherence renders that impossible. But the mass anger and frustration they represent are real, their grievances are legitimate, and the inept, short-sighted, arrogant governance by the bifactional ruling party makes it likely that eventually, the two popular sides will come together to fight their real enemy: the unholy alliance of the politicians of Washington with the bankers of Wall Street.

So everyone remember American capitalism is just ill; it has a virus. However, it does not have a virus like the zombies in “The Walking Dead;” you don’t have to put a bullet in capitalism’s brain. It can be cured. Occupy Wall Street is just another March for a Cure.

Digg This
Oct 142011
 

 
About that focus on jobs…

 

They wonder why their approval ratings are in the tank. Congress and President Obama had a stunning 48 hours on the jobs front. On Tuesday, the Senate blocked via filibuster the president’s (albeit lame) jobs bill. The VERY NEXT DAY they all got together and passed three “free trade” agreements that would create jobs … in other countries: South Korea, Panama, and Colombia. Some people say you shouldn’t raise taxes during a recession, why aren’t people screaming you shouldn’t export American jobs during a recession!
 
With these trade deals it looks like they are really fighting hard to get that corporate money in their coffers for next year’s election. It brings a whole new meaning to Perot’s “giant sucking sound.”
 
Who do they really represent? These deals are wildly unpopular amongst the public. According to the American Jobs Alliance, 80 percent of voters, including 90% of the Tea Party — believe these FTAs cost the U.S. jobs. Well, I guess the people are too distracted by Michael Jackson’s doctor’s trial.
 
Oh, and the press, I’m calling you out, too. Here’s the Washington Post headline: “Obama gets win as Congress passes free-trade agreements.” They are making it about the horse race and kicking analyses about the job impact to the curb. It is disturbing that Obama wanted this, and absurd that the press would consider it a “win.” Maybe a win in the sense that it will win him some donations, but for the American people, bet on this as a loss. The Economic Policy Institute figures that the Korea deal alone will cause the loss of at least 159,000 jobs.
 
For a good breakdown of these free trade schemes, see this Leo Hindery article.
 
President Obama, because these FTAs were a bipartisan betrayal, I hereby forbid you from blaming Republicans for blocking your job creation bill for … let’s say three days. Now be ashamed and look sad:
Sad Obama

Digg This