Thoughts on the campaign

I find it interesting that there is so much drama about Florida and Michigan primaries. It is obvious why, this tight of a primary race, was never predicted. But had FL and MI allowed themselves to have their respective primaries at some point past Feb 1 - then the map would look, potentially, quite different. Super Tuesday was a draw. Hillary won some big states, and she lost alot of the smaller states. Florida and Michigan decided to rebel against the Party and hold their primaries before this arbitrary line in the sand, that being Feb 1st.

The primary results of these two states, obviously, should not count. The Democratic leadership of these states obviated their citizens' votes. This is not a Federal issue nor is it even an issue of fairness that their votes are nullified. The people of those two states let their "leaders" disenfranchise them, willingly. There was no ambiguity from Howard Dean on this issue. The "leaders" decided to defy the leaders as a gamble to push their importance as bellweathers for the primary candidates. Sad to say that the leadership decided to put their own interests as "players" ahead of their people. As a result, the people of these two very populous and very distinct populations are now sitting on the sidelines. And I would argue this is now very much to Hillary's chagrin. Hillary polls well in blue collar states - Ohio, Pennsylvania are two states with similarities to Michigan in many regards. She would have probably taken Michigan cleanly. Not neccesarily for a large share of the pie - but in terms of supporting her stated position that she can command the vote at large. Florida, very unlike Michigan in almost every way, is full of minorities - Jews, Cubans, Blacks, Hispanics (of the non-Cuban ilk), gays, the grey hairs. She might have fought to the draw here - but a draw in Florida would have been huge to support her role as a "vote getter".

Instead, Hillary got no bump from either state because both MI and FL chose to place themselves at odds with the Party rules. As it turns out, Obama came to a draw on Super Tuesday (in VERY early February). He then secured his position as the leader by going on a rampage in the February primariles. The problem that Hillary now faces has become clear in the national polls of Hillary vs. Obama. To wit, Hillary can win the big states, but she has not shown any ability to win most of the small states. Are we to believe that the people of the large states, in voting for the very liberal Hillary, would then turn around and vote for McCain or some third party candidate? Nope - the large states would, in a general election, still go blue and that would be benefit Obama. On top of that, the electoral college votes would go(notably non-proportinally) to Obama. He would be, if he were to become the nominee, a formidable challenger in most of the 50 states, not just the big ones.

So Hillary, not having primary votes from these two VERY large states (in terms of population and their very distinct differences where Hillary was competitive), is now almost a moot point. Especially when, a favorable vote tally from both of these states in early February, could have contained, to some degree, Obama's bubble.

It is interesting to me that state politicians of FL and MI would allow their people, and a big chunk of votes, to be nullified by their own fiat. The gamble had such poor odds at the time when the bet came due (maybe not when the bet was made many months earlier, that being when Hillary was to be coronated after an appropriate time of "appearing" to compete), one has to wonder, in context, what the whole point of Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore really entailed. That Supreme Court decision had everything to do with advancing a candidate and not the people. When every vote is supposed to count, and in that particular case, only Kennedy's did, the Democrats now must have an odd feeling of deja vu - except their own party fucked them in this case - not the Federal judiciary which was Republican in the case of Bush v. Gore.

Hanging chads and premature primaries. Florida seems to be the home of the disenfrachised. And Michigan, a state in dramatic decline, could only benefit from Hillary's big government proposals - those free Federal dollars would keep the state of Michigan afloat. At least for a few more years. But here we sit, watching millions of primary voters left on the sidelines due to a small cabal of insiders playing God with their citizens' will.

I say the choice is obvious. The state leaders went against the rules of the national Democratic Party, and now those leaders ought to pay the price. This price should be a recall of every state government person in FL and MI that supported the premature primaries in defiance of the national Democratic primary rules. Whether those national rules are valid is a sideshow now. The Democratic leadership of those two states rolled the dice in a longer term battle, that being which state decides the momentum in the early primaries - and the result is a catastrophe for every citizen who wanted to have their voice heard in the Deomcratic primaries.

Now onto the more troublesome (in many ways) situation of the superdelegates; Hillary's last hope. The superdelegates are a fine way of recapitulating the political machines of old. In the past, the conventions were about back room deal-making in spite of the will of the majority. This was not fair but it was par. In our current era - this sort of old-boys network seems rather dated (in kind terms) and downright undemocratic (in reality).

The proportional distribution of the common vote, in primaries, seems easy to comprehend. The check of superdelegates in close races seems far more complex to understand. Do we need the leaders of the states to have a non-proportional opportunity to "check" the fiery will of the Republic, via the electoral process (in this case primaries), with their more "considered" opinion? They have no mandate to reflect, and thereby echo, the will of the majority - rather, they act, in theory, as the Senate which tempers the House. While this to-an-fro between the Senate and the House is all well and good when framed within the Legislative Branch (we vote for the House and Senate members to do that sort of tug of war) - we do NOT vote for these people to temper the primaries. That was NEVER specified in the Constitution. In this very nondemocratic arrangement, this superdelegate effect is against the very grain of the Democratic Party. It seems much more befitting of a Republican scenario.In reality, are the Democrats, when considering these sorts of manipulations, any different? Of course not. It is, as it was in the past, about controlling access to the highest levels of power.

I do not posit that Obama will wash Washington clean. But, if his message of hope, compromise, and respect - and that resonates with the primary voters - is discounted by some sort of backroom dealing, are we any different than a banana republic? If the secretive cabals of the leadership are biased against (even for) what the majority wills with their vote (and, as a side note, who pays the taxes??) then what is the point of an election, in a primary or otherwise?

Having superdelegates is no different than having the Supreme Court decide a contested election - it is having a politically chosen body "arbitrate" the outcome - and that outcome does not consider the will of the people. It is the will of those, interestingly not directly voted upon for this particular role, to propel their own goals and ambitions.

I find it sad that when the bully (Hillary) becomes the bullied, she resorts to the sorts of undemocratic shenanigans that happened in Bush v. Gore. Her coronation was all but assured in mid-2007. If she cannot win the majority by convincing them of her superiority as a candidate, then it appears she will game the system to still come out of top via the insider/superdelegate vote. Whether it is one Supreme Court vote or one superdelegate vote, the effect of these hollow victories, for us all, is the same. Our vote, sadly, does not matter unless we bow to the will of the majority and consent to their candidate.

So happy together

Well it is round 2 for Obama and the mayor of NYC. Obama and Bloomberg.

This is a match made in heaven and solves alot of problems for Obama. Having the multi-billionaire on the ticket is a very strong vote for business. Bloomberg is no dull conservative - he is very saavy at working both sides against the middle. The mere fact that someone has made an estimated 13 billion and rides the subway to work is something that makes the working man smile.

Maybe not smile, but at least they know that someone is riding the same train as them. And when was the last time you saw Hillary take the Metro? Living in DC for years- never heard about the Dem high-priestess descending into the bowels of the city to get around. The point has to be this - Obama came from us and Bloomberg, while not one of us, reminds us that he is not above us. This makes a Obama and Bloomberg ticket lethal to the Republicans and the Dems. Here is a ticket that is progressive and experienced. Obama worked his way through the system and Bloomberg made a fortune explaining the system. United on a single ticket, they offer something that is an antidote to what we all have expected.

Hillary's coronation is not only troubled - this Obama/Bloomberg ticket would drive the stake into the heart of the Clinton legacy. Hope is not just a town for Bill and Huckabee - it is a notion that stirs the heart. Could we actually have a ticket that is heart-felt and driven by the market at the same time?

This flap over Hillary in Bosnia is not just fodder - no, it is emblematic of Hill politics at its worst. Here is a serious candidate using a trip to a war zone as some emblem of her capability. She, dogmatically, stated that she was runnning from the bombs at the airport. Well, do you drag your 16 year old daughter in tow to a war zone? Do you think about the fact that there are photographers taking your picture on the tarmac smiling and waving? Sinbad, the comedian, was on the same flight and noted that he never got hit by shrapnel. This is politics at its worst - Hillary is desperate to show her credentials by fabricating something that never happened. She is so desperate to run from the First Lady role - or more accurately, turn it into something more than what it was. Meet and greet, that is all it was in Bosnia - pictures, in this case, offer only one word - LIAR. Meanwhile, she churns it into a version of the "Winds of War". Shameless. Utterly shameless.

The worst part is that she doesn't have to do this. She has cheapened the First Lady role of advocacy into some tawdry telenovela - she tells us that she is battle-hardened beyond the "vast right wing conspiracy" - and this is her evidence - waves and smiles with Chelsea, in tow?

There is nothing worse than having someone on the bubble who lies - not stretches the truth a wee bit - but flat out lies. An, all of this, in the vain attempt to burnish her record.

It is becoming an alarming pattern that Hillary will bring up anything to separate her shortcomings from her. Having her attack dogs go after Obama about youthful drug use was just silly given her linkage to the "I didn't inhale". Her need to dig into Obama's land deals are just silly when she have Whitewater hanging over her head. It is as if she has taken all her shortcomings (or whatever you might call them, liabilities might be a better word) - and projects them.

Just stop. Please. Hillary is not giving me a reason to vote for her - rather, she is giving me a list of reasons to vote against her. And just a few months ago - this was unfathomable. She is not presenting herself as a leader - she is busy trying her best to self-destruct with these antics. Add to this mess, Bill wagging his finger, red faced, on every network about how Hillary is the best person. It is just sad to see this whole legacy of the Clintonian dynasty fall upon itself. But they cannot, this time, point the finger at Tom Delay, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, or their minions. Nope, the Clintons are digging their grave all alone.

The bet is this - Obama/Bloomberg vs. McCain/Romney. The result is a no-brainer -to me and many others. Hillary's desparate moves in Michigan and Florida look even more contrived against the ideal Obama-berg Dem ticket. Poor John Edwards - he just stands and watches (with his unregulated Theresa Heinz Kerry-esque wife) with Hillary's bid for VP as his only lifeline. Not gonna happen. Not gonna work.

At the end of the day and when all is said and done - Hillary has become a shell of her original self - her desperation is evident- and thusly all the more damming. If only she could stick to the facts and keep it all above the fray. But she cannot. She, in spite of the obviousness of her peril, will not. A vote for her is not only regressive - but it supports the ideal that an insider is the only viable candidate - it is just plain rubbish. And I am full of shadenfreude at her own self-inflicted demise. She had every advantage, via Bill, to win - but all she can seem to do is try to lose.

Obama/Bloomberg - so happy together!

A Woman in Full?

Well looks like everyone who is elected is busy hitting it - save Hillary. And poor Donna Shalala pines away for her.

Seriously, it is a tad disconcerting when the American people (via the media) are transfixed in yet another of the sex eruptions that periodically occur. Although this fissure is more Mauna Loa, that is to say the spewing a steady stream of hot lava, rather than a Vesuvian burst. Seems that Bill Clinton, in his move to NYC, has unleashed the baser instincts of the state leadership. The Republicans cannot seem to find a straight guy to save them from their own man-loving sect (i.e. Foley, Craig, Miss Lindsey Graham, Empress Crist, Miss Greater Kentucky at large (McConnell) etc). The best they have right now is Vinter (a relative non-event by Clintonian standards) or McCain's over-friendliness with a young woman - pretty limp offerings compared with the Dems.

When is the last time that you would have predicted that the Democrats would be the studs about town and the Republicans trolling the netherworld of bathrooms and chat rooms? This should be vice versa according to conventional wisdom. But that is the problem with stereotypical ideas embodied by conventional wisdom- they stubbornly provide counterpoints on a regular basis.

Poor Hillary has no one talking about her sex life. While the chattering classes steer clear of Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, Crist, et al and their "secrets" (but it is clear that everyone knows the gay subtext), Hillary presents, comparatively, a much more complex situation in her sterility. She is married to a true man-whore, yet no one seems able to fathom her as a sexual being. I'd be tempted to say that the media is presenting some sort of passive statement on the sexuality of post-menopausal women, but then I walk by a rack of magazines and see that everyone, unless on life support, is having AMAZING sex. I think this goes a few levels deeper than simple feminine ageism. Hillary does not wrap herself in matronly gear and pearls like Barbara Bush, she doesn't have the vacuous deer-in-the-headlights look of Laura Bush, she has none of the superficial plasticity of Nancy Reagan, and certainly none of the plucked-to-within-an-inch-of-her-life of Nancy Pelosi (she seriously looks like a droid). Hillary dresses, when looking at her in total, like a woman in her 40s who is professional and serious without being sterile. Her hair is carefully done and regularly updated. Her make-up is present, and subtly flattering, without being garish or vain. She has one ass, not two. She picks festive colors and flattering cuts. The construction of her uniform, i.e. pants-suits, is impeccable and fails to register as even vaguely lesbian. Her suits (by my estimation) tend to be ready-to-wear intepretations of Christian's winning collection on Project Runway. Her speaking/presentation style is not winning, to be sure. The smile is clearly plastered on her well-done, and well-preserved face. Her annoying head nodding affect is almost bobble-headed. Side note: Her nods distract almost as much as Bill's penchant for shaking his hands as if he were playing a Wii. Her voice, having an unattractive gravel-like feeling, seldom has any warmth. But Americans forgive such superficiality in favor of the content presented.

So what gives? Hillary is firmly in the older MILF category. Insiders note her for being warm, responsive and funny - which seems almost as odd as Al Gore's insider reputation as a deft mimic. When one tries to conjure a mental image of what Hillary would be like in person and behind closed doors, based upon those "in the know", most of us come up short.

And I don't think this is the by-product of the wars fought during the Clinton years. It wasn't like all that drama hardened her. Even when she was initially installed as First Lady - she had no sexual presence. I find it odd that she currently presents herself on the campaign trail in moderately feminine drag, and lacking any frivolity associated with that loaded term, that no one really thinks of her embodiment as a woman any more than they do her hair color. I surmise that many people look at Hillary as a man in a woman's body.

This may just be the by-product of our era where women have moved up the ladder, and in the process, become sterile. Sexy is just not an option - that I can fathom to some degree. But men ascend the ladder and still exude sexuality and vitality. I wonder if Hillary, allowing herself to be boxed into a corner of asexuality, is what unnerves many of us.

No one, outside those who are rabidly partisan, would doubt her ability to lead. She has shown herself a very competent Senator who can convey her seriousness and determination without a heavy dose of ego. She is a serious candidate (compare her to the shrill Ferraro) with mature ideas and thoughtful insight regarding the political machine. However, where Obama seems alive and vital and, in many areas, naive - Hillary comes across as oddly lifeless. I wonder if Hillary needs to have a consequential speech on her "femininity" the way that Obama laid out his views on race in a recent, and generally brilliant, speech. Were Hillary to present herself as a woman, and more accurately a person who embodies a woman, running for president and not the presidential candidate who happens to be a woman - would the perception of her candidacy not undergo a renaissance?

I have ruminated over the idea that Hillary's problems are, in actuality, not about Bill. Yes she stayed with him even though there was one bimbo eruption after another. Yes she appears to have ridden his coattails to the Senate (appears is the operative word). I would submit that she has subordinated herself in some ways to acheive her longer term goals. But this is the stuff of character and drive. Who, male or female, has not stood by a flawed spouse (Jackie O or Laura Bush)? Who has not used certain openings for their own longer term gain (John Kerry anyone)? Who, in politics, has not used their own battle scars for their ultimate advancement (John McCain)?

Hillary has been using the First Lady stint to explain how she has participated in substantial aspects of government. And, as it should, this facade rings hollow. I'd posit that Hillary has not taken on the Bill problem vis a vis her own story - this is the gold mine. She has been defined by Bill (and this is not solely the fault of the media - Hillary is saavy) without explaining why she was so passive in allowing herself to be "boxed" into this supposed role of calculated gain through her public humiliation.

I feel that Hillary's inability to articulate who she is has led her to where she is - in second place to an articulate upstart. Her stiff upper lip treatment of Bill allows others define her - and in many ways this definition becomes a virtual truth. Make no mistake - she is not running for PTA and, thus, her private life is not just fodder for the gossips in the room. She is running as a viable candidate for the leader of the free world. And her story, that being the narrative of her life, is largely a void in the personal sense. She has accomplishments, she has victories, she has battle scars, she has mistakes, she has strengths and flaws - in short, she has all the makings of a very interesting human being. But I think that the collective unease stems from the fact that we want to know our leader in some way. Bill couldn't avoid telling you his story - people just love him. Reagan exuded his fortunate life - his lust for life and optimism just spilled out of him. Obama interests many because we see his vision, we feel it when we close our eyes and listen to his visceral power through speech.

Hillary's tears in New Hampshire threw the media into a frenzy, somewhat belatedly, as the chink in her armor. But what resonated across that state was not weakness - it was humanity, it was her visceral response where none was expected. Hillary actually let us see (calculated or not) something beyond the rather thick veneer of polish and presentation. Hillary could blow Obama out of the water by not even speaking of her opponent, she doesn't need to - rather she could tell her narrative and seal her victory, in the primary and the general election.

In a nutshell, I think of her asexuality as the embodiment of who she projects - and not who she is. Obama has his narrative and McCain is a fucking novel. Both exude, in very different ways, a view of themselves, however circumscribed, beyond the political animal. Hillary is a political animal - no one in their right mind would think otherwise. But that is the role of the politician - to tell us the lies we want to hear. We all know that backroom deals have to be made - proverbially, it is the making of the sausage.

Hillary has shown that she has the grit and stamina - her marriage to Bill, her superb raising of Chelsea, her strong presence in the Senate (John Edwards would be happy to have done a tenth of what Hillary has done), her wit, her intelligence, and so on. But we have had to play the waiting game to see the results without being reminded, by her, of her battles, her fortitude, her drive - not in a political sense but also in a personal sense. And that is what we yearn to see. A compelling vision, dictated forcefully, by Hillary of why she should be president both from a political and personal standpont. She needs to separate herself from Bill - but she can only do that by explaining her relationship to Bill. This optin is not conventional - this is probabably not even advised by those around her - but this is where she needs to go. Boldly proclaiming that, she, Hillary has made her choices and why those choices did not determine her fate, rather she made her path in spite of those obstacles presented to her. Its very Horatio Alger. I feel until Hillary allows us to see her struggles and her flaws, we will remain indignant of the projection she offers us.

The number one rule of high end politics is not about locality - its about quid pro quo. Hillary seems to be projecting an ideal that she is the best candidate, ergo, we should vote for her. But I would state that she ought to force us to vote for her, explain why she is a leader, give us the rough and tumble story - we all know it is there - just level with us. Show us who you are Hillary, and we will hold up our end of the bargain. Continue to show us the sterile resume and bland platitudes, and we will vote for the alternative with a soul. Obama gives us a story - you are giving us a resume.

Hillary, make yourself real, flaws and all, and we will love you in your totality.

Mortgage mess

Well. For those of us who lived in DC for the past few years, the mortgage mess is no secret. Easy loans, lots of money floating around, "sophisticated" hedging schemes to spread risk, low interest rates, incentive for banks/loan origininators to cheat, ARMs, speculation, etc.

Any surprise that it all came crashing down?

The funny thing now is that all these really smart financial people are "scratching their heads" trying to figure out how their complex leveraging schemes to spread risk eventually came up broke. Well, it doesn't take a PhD to figure out that people who play the market on others money will get burned at some point. And these whiz kids knew that it was the poor people who would pay the price.

We have both sides of the aisle in the Congress and our nominal Commander in Chief advocating how wonderful it is to have people own homes. Let's just not talk about how they will be bankrupt in two years when the teaser rates vanish and the bill comes due. And who owns them now? Yup, the bank. And the bank become really the nominal owner. There are other things afoot.

I don't buy this idea that "no one saw this coming". Two and a half years in DC and I saw this beast grow and begin feeding on itself. Homes that were 180K in 2000 became worth 800K in 2006. We paid 2000 bucks a month in rent (60K over our time in DC) and the place was bought for 120K in 2001. The level of speculation (flowing out of the dot com bust) was truly spectacular. Am I supposed to feel sorry for people who played the market and lost. Well maybe. But I am really not sorry for the infrastructure that fed the boom and now has to deal with the mess. Should they go under? Absolutely. Teach the market some discipline.

Banks thought that they could move their positions in real estate off the sheet just one day after mortgaging the house. Except they had to write in clauses about foreclosure rates. Oops. Now they are having to pay their due for originating bad loans and are running to every Abu Dhabi, Shanghai, and Singapore that will loan them the money to get through. Their normal cash cow, Washington, has not sprang into action to resuce them in totality. And now the sterling institutions of the banking world are whoring themselves to the highest bidder to cover their ass.

Let's get this straight. Banks made bad bets. They want DC to cover their bad positions. DC blinks. They run immediately to rich international governmental funds to get their cash infusion - and dilute their stock in the process. Are you kidding me? Merrill Lynch is sucking up petro dollars from the terrorists and the government lets them slide by? I say that is a real problem because they are leveraging the financial structure of America on bad bets that they made. And now, they are shoring up their positions with foreign governments which are no ally to America.

Let's just clarify this. The major capitalists are selling themselves to enemies to hedge themselves and, let's just ask, who will own your house when it is all done? Some emirate in the sand? This is not leverage in the traditional view - that being that these governments buy a position in publicly traded bonds. No, they own sizeable shares in the companies that were given to them for a fire sale price.

I guess that we should not be surprised. China funds almost 20% of our housing debt - albeit in bonds which are tradeable (until dumped en masse when they approach zero in value - but we will set that elephant in the room aside fornow). Why ought these financial whores (read: banks) not shell out another 20% (not in bonds, but in real shares) to our non-allies. If Germany or France were going to finance our debt - I might not be so specious. But to give shares for pennies on the dollar to totalitarian governments (and board seats to boot) - are you kidding me? The point of this is that banks originate the loans of their own free will. Those freely given loans go into default when the teaser rates vanish and the people who paid NO money down start to walk away - banks, thinking that no one would ever default (um, are you kidding me), now have their pretty little leverage package handed back to them (under the terms of the agreement they willingly entered) and they now have to put all that loan mess back on their balance sheet. So when they hold the loans and then run to foreign governments for a capital infusion (for a trade of stock) - who owns your loan? Note the volition of the banks that set this whole debacle in motion.

I just find it hard to belive that banks had no "idea" about the mess. Of course they knew - it was short term gain (originate the loan, sell it off, and get the 1.5% charge in up front cash) and don't worry about the longer term implications. Well longer term implications are here. And banks, who hate to carry loans on their own balance sheets, are stuck with bad ones when the complex leveraging schemes hand them back because the default rate is too high. Had they followed the old model, they would NEVER have loaned out this money. But once they had the green light to move the loan balances off of their sheet and onto the sheet of complex leveraging schemes - they could make the origination money and the interest (read: profit) without having to carry the debt. Too clever by half. And now, when the bill is coming due, for their willing participation in the shell game of "who owns the mortgage" - they sell your loan out (in part through their shares) to those who don't (and won't) practice core capitalistic principles at home, much less democracy.

I have been watching some old movies lately while sipping wine and the whole Japanese conquering America in the 1980s theme has come back to me. Japan went on the rampage in the 80s - they took their money and went on a shopping spree in NYC and LA. This caused major drama. But they took those loans onto their own balance sheets and when the crash came, well, Japan took a 15 year hiatus to work out their bad loans. Now fast forward 20 years. American banks have facilitated a domestic buying binge and then moved all that money into complex schemes. Doesn't work out - but do they take it on the chin? Nope. They run to DC, no dice. Then in the next breath they take their debt to foreign governments and offer shares for cover. So you now have our financial institution, after using China to buy our housing bonds rather quietly, these capitalists are overtly going to our enemies to get cash to cover their bad bets.

I'm thinking of Sharon Stone in Casino right now. The end is not pretty. But the mortgage mess is not a quick OD and the screen fades to black. It is you writing a check to Abu Dhabi via Merrill Lynch. Bad enough your $300 gas bill for winter heating goes to them. Or your $3/gallon gasoline goes to them. Now, your house is owned by them and you pay them interest. When the bill comes in Arabic, don't be surprised.

The short version is this. Capitalism works great when anyone wants to set a price in a market that is transparent. Capitalism is not so good when things get opaque. And when you hear words like "leverage" and "collatorized debt organizations" - you best think of some milky haze. The person who loses in the near term are the poor saps who over-reached or speculated ((probably both), but in the longer term we all lose. Even if we don't pay the terrorist governments directly through shares (remember - all those shares get a quarterly dividend), we sell our infrastructure to them by these sorts of shenanigans. This does not occur in one bolus, rather it gets doled out nickel and dime to the enemies via our "valiant" capitalists.

Sounds really weird. But look at this for what it is. Junkies having to pay the bookie -- and when they cannot pay bookie number one they go to another bookie (number two) to kite the loan. Let's face it, the first bookie isn't great and you need to get him out of your hair - but when you have to borrow from the second bookie to pay the first - well, there should be no surprise that our financial system is now descending to the level of ghetto economics. Crack and loans are now analogous. But the crack whore is now Merrill Lynch, B of A, Wachovia, WaMu, etc instead of Strawberry, Tanisha, Evangeline, etc.

It will all end in one of two ways. Either we, the people, foot the bill to shore up the bad boys of capitalism via tax money, or we the people are forced to pay the terrorists a monthly bill (and quarterly dividend) so that the capitalists can go on.

The sad thing is that the WSJ, of all institutions, were the rallying cry for leverage. They know better. But now the WSJ writes about the complexities of the marketplace. Shame on them - the Washington Post or the NYT doesn't know any better - but the paper that embodies true capitalism has turned a blind eye. Vote this year to own the debt through American tax money. We all hate it. But better the devil we know than the terrorist we really do not.

Iowa

Well - we've been here since July. I find Iowa to be an interesting and sometimes strange place. Things that have happened since we last chatted:

1. Job is going well. I LOVE IT.
2. Bubba is doing well. Got a job. Got a raise. No travel. He's in paradise.
3. Bought a house - move in April. The house is fab.
4. Linus has gotten fat. Very fat. Iowa agrees with him. Bubba spoils him.
5. Kitty is fine. Nothing really changes with him.
6. Hot Mama moved to town with her furry child - they are living it up in a fab loft and some $$$ from her fab new job.
7. I'm actually enjoying my life alot more. Academics and I were not the best fit.
8. We've met the DSM gays and we have our gaggle. Good times!
9. Been traveling alot for work and for fun. Enjoying having $$$!
10. Off to Pensacola for a fab vacation in April with Angry and the rest. Boys trip - a weekend away.
11. Had alot of guests pop by. And many more wave when they fly over.
12. Midwest (aside from winter) is really a great place.
13. Des Moines has alot of very cool places - just have to find them.
14. DJ Neal, photo phenom and mix master, has been a breath of fresh air. Love him.
15. The girls in Iowa can drink. ALOT. I'm a rank amatuer here. There is literally a bar on every corner. Could go all year and not hit half.
16. Best bar in town. Kung Fu Tap and Taco. Hands down. They serve only tacos and booze. Biker bar, smokey, rough trade.
17. Rough trade is everywhere here. Lots of fur. A Jimbo wet dream.


Much more to tell. That is just a smattering of the things running through my mind.

Back on track

Hey all

Its been awhile. Long while. But I figured that it was time to get back in the saddle and start blogging again. Jimbo made me a fab banner for my new blog - but I will post it on this one. I'll transition over to the new blog at some point - its got a GREAT name. Jimbo thought it up - Gene Queen.

Love it.

Anyways - enjoy the new content. Lots to think about.