James Call: Expert

Goldman Sachs is basically the International Jewish Conspiracy for liberals

2010-04-22T10:30:00.000-07:00

Whoa! Long time no blog! Thanks to Red Bull - IT FUCKING GIVES YOU WINNNNNNNNGS - I'm ready to blog anew.

Reader "Anonymous" asks:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Goldman-Sachs-wants-regulation_-not-laissez-faire-91639489.html

discuss

Yeah, I mean this article basically hits the nail on the head. Some kind of regulation of Wall St. is coming and Goldman Sachs wants to be on the right side of it. It's just like how huge health insurers were all "Yeah we want health care reform too mannnnn" and a year later we all now have to purchase health insurance. Cry me a fucking river for any other burden the health insurers might have to endure; do you know how many new customers that is?

Anyways, like the insurers, Goldman wants to make sure that whatever reform that is passed does very little damage, if any, to their bottom line. In fact, if Goldman lines up behind reform, it's brownie points for them and good PR, esp. after the coming Congressional hearings into their bullshit.

Financial regulatory reform, like health care reform, is probably in a state of "a little is better than nothing." If derivatives are cleaned up, that's a huge advance in the state of affairs. Even if they're only partially cleaned up, it's still probably better than nothing. But if you think the shadows hanging throughout Goldman's casino of doom are really going to be swept away by the sunlight at last, let's just take a look at a small list of fellers associated with Goldman in some way:

- Rahm Emmanuel, Chief of Staff to Prez O., once paid $35k by GS while working as a fundraiser for Bill Clinton.
- Greg Craig, now representing Goldman before the hearings, was Obama's first white house counsel.
- Trez Sec Timmy Geithner is a former Goldman lobbyist.
- Dick Gephardt, Tony Podesta, John Breaux, Santa Claus, the JLA, basically everyone is or was a Goldman lobbyist at some time, or is currently.

These people are the folks "shaping the debate" if you will. Expect a high level of bullshit in these upcoming hearings, a lot of phony outrage on camera with a lot of wink wink nudge nudge off-stage.

Goldman Sachs made a KILLING on the deals that went down when the financial system collapsed, which consisted of betting against their previous advice to their own clients and that the economy would tank. Goldman wants financial industry reform the same way that I want to be able to drink on the job every day for a year and then take two days off and when my Mom calls, be able to say, "Well I've been drinking a lot less..."

Sorry, we have no blogs today

2010-02-04T11:45:00.000-08:00

Instead, read this very good post from James Kwak at baselinescenario.com on taxation and the economy:

baselinescenario.com, February 4, 2010

Europe & Why It's Kind of Fucked Up

2010-02-03T07:07:00.000-08:00

Today reader "Adrienne" asks:

i'd be mostly interested to hear any/all thoughts you have on the EU

...and directs me to the article below.

So glad you asked, Adrienne! I have any/all thoughts on EVERYTHING.

Quit yer bitchin', Zapatero

NY Times, February 2, 2010

Ok. So Obama was supposed to go to the EU Summit meeting in May, for... um... not certain... for kicks? Because they have great museums over there? Point is, he never really said he was going, and now he's definitely not, and Prime Minister Zapatero of ¡Spain! is mighty steamed about it.

Dude. If you had a friend who lived in this crazy loft, and sometimes it was totally the best party ever over there, but normally, there was like, a fistfight, you couldn't rely on there being any cold beer, it was out of the way, and the people who lived there were always pissed about how you were dressed, and always insisted you pay for the pizza that you all agreed was a good idea to order, and this friend invited you over on a Wednesday night when you had just gotten off a 2nd shift, had homework to do, and had to get to work by 7am the next day*, would you go?

Europe didn't fucking coordinate their stimulus with us for SHIT last year, when it was crucial to do so (blame the Krauts for that one), Obama's already been there a zillion times, and there is nothing important whatsoever on the agenda for this May summit. Going is a total waste of time.

The E.U. is largely dysfunctional because they have a central bank and common currency, but they don't coordinate their fiscal policy, so when a country (like Spain, and recently, Greece) gets in trouble, they can't devalue their currency to help out: people are just up the creek. But even though they're supposed to be in a "European Union" of sorts, France and Germany and other rich countries never want to bail out the losers like Spain and Greece, etc. I guess I don't blame them, but then, what's the point of a Union? At least in this country, when Nebraska insists on getting way more budgetary dollars than it deserves or can be justified by any standard of morality, California and New York ante up. Also, we have a common minimum wage and a few other important thingies.

Normally I'm a big fan of the Europeans, and I hate the whole "Europeans are snobby and weak" mentality that fat, lazy, worthless Americans often espouse (there'd be no United States of America without the French navy, and if you dispute that, you are goddamn ignoramus and should move to Russia), but in this case, I do have to say to the Spanish (a.k.a. "The French of Italy"), "WAAAAH WAAAAH WAAAAH, shut up, crybabies."

* In case my analogy isn't obvious I'm equating the 2nd shift/homework/early work day to dealing with health care reform, bailout, stimulus, horrible economy, putting up with Republicans all the time, etc.

Fewer But Still Plenty of Children Left Behind

2010-02-02T08:44:00.000-08:00

Blammo! It's time for more James Call: Expert.

Reader "Damian" today asks me to summarize and give commentary on the Obama admin's new education approach.

No Child Left Behind vs. Children

NY Times, January 31, 2010

Ok so like the No Child Left Behind act was kind of a "shape up or ship out" directive to all our public schools. Tough love: nice in theory, but if you're a cripple, and I take away your crutches, and command you to walk, how much success should I reasonably think you're going to have getting around? The Bush admin didn't really do shit to help schools help themselves, other than to just say, "Here's a bunch of standardized tests, pass them or your budget is cut." This pretty much applied across the board.

The Obama administration is rightly going to back off on that one-size-fits-all approach, probably eliminating the worst of the tests and holding different schools to different standards. For instance, if your school goes from God-awful to Just Fairly Bad, you'll get a nice chunk of education budget change. But if your school is Good and simply remains Good, you won't get any extra scrilla.

Sounds good, right? Rewards progress? The inherent problem is that the schools who have the resources and community support to improve themselves dramatically are already pretty good schools. They're located in good school districts. Of course those schools can improve - they're surrounded by the middle or upper class, not poverty with its attendant chronic social problems. Inner city schools and other failed institutions located in hellholes are going to struggle the hardest to improve at all. They're the ones who need the money the most, regardless of progress, really.

We'll only be able to judge this new education policy in retrospect. To me, it seems like this the big innovations are probably going to bypass a lot of schools, especially as charter schools are rewarded. I dunno, I could be wrong. The education czar, Arne Duncan, seems pretty on point. But who knows. I doubt this new policy will be any worse than Every Child Left Behind Because They Flunk Some Bullshit Standardized Test.

There is some *unqualified* good news though - admidst the so-called "spending freeze," the Education budget is going up about $40 billion dollars, over 2 years. I mean, that's peanuts compared to what the Pentagon gets, but it's better than normal. Which is kind of sad, when you think about it.

My proposal: SWAP the Pentagon and Education budgets. Especially since the value earned back on $1 in education investment tends to come to about $1.30-$1.50, over time. But then, I'm a big liberal commie fag traitor who hates America and our values.

Obama's Whatever of the Union Address

2010-01-28T08:55:00.000-08:00

Welcome back to James Call: Expert!

Today, reader "Janelle" asks, "Let's hear all about the state of the Union address!" You got it, Janelle!

The State of the Union: Kinda Ok, Like, Whatever

FiveThirtyEight.com, January 27, 2010

Obama's first SOTU can be best described as "tepid," or, in polite terms, "Clintonian".

It was a smörgåsbord of small little concepts, some of which are nice but essentially harmless, and others of which are potentially dangerous and stupid, but appealling to lots of people politically.

First of all, the good stuff: smackin' the face of the Supreme Court over that corporate free speech ruling, calling the Senate on their BS, and calling the Republicans on their super-BS...

Now, the bad stuff. First of all, there's this "we should have 'done' jobs first rather than health care reform in the first year" meme that's floatin' around society right now. Everyone who's anyone is saying this. It's kind of like when everyone, including the majority of hipsters, starting saying, out of the blue a few years ago, that they hate hipsters. I mean, do you -really- hate hipsters? Or are you just saying that?

The bottom line is that the current health care system, in which employers provide health care to the vast bulk of the populace, is a burden on employers. Lift that burden, and there'd be much more money to HIRE people with. In other word, health care reform = jobs.

But people are freakin' the hell out, calling for health care reform to be killed right when it was almost at the finish line, and screaming about "jobs" instead. Obama in his SOTU sure doesn't help, waiting 'til more than half way through to make a half-hearted "health care reform will continue" pledge, which is really just meaningless lip service since he doesn't say HOW it's going to continue.

Instead, he's all "tax cuts! small business!" People love to hear these words, but you get 30¢ to the $1 on your average tax cut, especially capital gains tax cuts. Since we're all freaking out about the deficit, are tax cuts really the key forward?

Which brings us to the real stinker in Obama's SOTU - the "spending freeze". This is just about the stupidest possible idea in the world you could come up with. Ok, the vast bulk of "independents" in this country are worried about the deficit. But the vast bulk of "independents" in this country are also morons with short attention spans, who vote Republican, Democrat, Republican, Democrat, basically always with a "kick the bums out" mentality. Sure, kicking the bums out is easy to relate to, but also reminds me of a lot of drunk sports fans I know. Is pandering to these people really ever a good idea?

The bottom line is - the private sector is not investing right now. The government HAS to step in and fill that demand-gap because otherwise ain't nobody gonna have a job. In other words, a REAL jobs program, that will result in hiring, is directly incompatible with a deficit-cutting program. I will probably say this about 100 times in this blog over the course of this coming year: We are not Zimbabwe. We aren't even Japan yet. We don't need to worry about inflation; WE DO NOT NEED TO WORRY ABOUT OUR DEFICIT.

Besides, Obama isn't going to touch the big, huge, swelling programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Defense spending, and Social Security, because those are sacred cows - too much pork in those fuckers - so instead he's going to "freeze" lesser items. Let's assume for a second that cutting the deficit really IS important (probably is in the long run) - this little "spending freeze" is a drop in the bucket. It'll suppress demand and hurt hiring in the short term, but in the long term, we'll still have a ginormous deficit.

So, yeah, I was not blown away by the SOTU. It didn't really contain any surprises. Then again I'm a tough customer to please. I would have liked to hear "the day of negotiating with Republicans is OVER," and "I am pleased to announce my new government-as-employer-of-last-resort program," but then again, I would like a free backrub from Mariah Carey and a private jet made of gold.

Hillary vs. Obama: Hypothetical

2010-01-27T05:46:00.000-08:00

Ok! Welcome back to James Call: Expert.

Today reader "Tore" asks me not to summarize an article, but rather, to just give my opinion on something. Fair 'nuff. But be forewarned that in my usual summaries, all cursing and pontificating aside, I do attempt to somewhat summarize the factual content of the article in question, whereas right now, I'm straight gonna just bust some hypothesizing on your ass.

Tore sez:

I remember you being a Hillary Clinton supporter early on in the primaries. My memory is probably butchering your argument, but I seem to remember you effectively thinking that she would be more of a "take no prisoners" kind of president. Perfectly comfortable with crushing the right and ignoring any kind of attempt at bipartisanship that Obama rolled in with.

My question is:
Given that a) The republicans seem dug in and ready to do whatever it takes to take power again whoever the Dem is, b) Obama surrounded himself with all these Clinton 1 wankers anyway-

Do you think Hillary would have been able to get more done by now? In your "expert" analysis...

Secondary question:

How much of the "scary black guy who might not have been born here" bull shit would have made a difference for her? In your humble what-the-fuck-if opinion.

Ok! Before I get going let me state for the record that I was a Kucinich supporter first and foremost, and when it was looking like Edwards-Cliton-Obama, an Edwards supporter, then a Clinton supporter, then at last, an Obama supporter. Does this make me primarily a racist and secondarily a sexist? Maaaaaybe. But I'd like to think it has more to do with their policy positions, Edward's being more pro-labor and more to the left in general, and Obama's being the most center-right. With that out of the way, let's begin.

So among the President's many functions/powers is the ability to build consensus for legislation using the bully pulpit. As evidenced by the campaign, few politicians are as saavy on television, nor as good at rallying mass opinion, than Barack Obama. By contrast, Hillary Clinton is pretty much a flat-effect speaker. She's not Sarah Palin, but her rhetoric doesn't exactly soar like an eagle to the sea. So that would seem to make the score Clinton: 0 Obama: +1. Except that Obama hasn't really used his rhetoric in this first year. He was pretty much silent/hands off towards health care reform the whole time, leaving Nancy "Not well liked because she's a strong woman" Pelosi and Harry "Just not well liked period" Reid to be the public faces of health care reform, along with Max "Clearly a dick" Baucus and a few others. So I'm going to give Barry O. -1 for not using his greatest tool, putting the score at Clinton: 0 Obama: 0.

Now how about another very important function of the President - to bully Congresspeople into voting the way they want? It would appear that Obama doesn't really do this. Sure, there's scary ol' Rahm Emmanuel, but so what... he hasn't been whipping the House (Pelosi's been doing that) and he's been following his boss' hands-off strategy towards the Senate - ergo, no public option, amongst other things. That's 0 or perhaps -1 points for Obama. Would Hillary have been more effective? Well, she probably would have had way fewer qualms about bossing folks around and threatening to end their careers if they don't get on board, so that's +1 for her, but look at the notoriously undisciplined campaign she ran, and her general miscues as Secretary of State - I'm going to award that -2. So that makes the score Clinton: -1, Obama: 0.

What about the initial bargaining position? We'll never know for sure what Hills would have actually put forth as President. But since we got more or less what he promised us, policy position-wise, out of Obama - and it's true, we did; complaints that Obama "betrayed" his progressive base are coming from people who were not paying attention to what he said and promised during the primaries, people who juxtaposed their own views on Obama, used him a tabula rasa of sorts, which is something Obama publicly recognized - let's assume we would have gotten what Clinton promised us as well.

Well, that's +1 or maybe even +2 points for her, because if you start from a more extreme negotiating position, your negotiations will yield a moderate result. Whereas if you start from a timid negotiating position, as Obama has, your enemies are going to get the better of you. The reason I'll give her +2 rather than +1 points is that, in addition to starting from a more liberal position on health care reform and other issues, Hillary would probably have a much bigger axe to grind with the Republicans than Barack, resentments dating back to the 90s, and if we've learned anything over the course of this last year, it's that it's not worthwhile to negotiate with Republicans - they will use negotiations as a way of fucking you. I suspect, though we'll never know, that Hillary would have realized this from the get-go, and played hardball accordingly. Therefore, +2 points for her, leaving the score at Clinton: +1 Obama: 0.

That brings us to the final tricky question, part two of what Tore asked, really, which is: which is more crippling and virulent, Racism or Sexism? To me, the answer is obvious. Look at the reception of white men to Sarah Palin over the last year, and compare that with some of the outrageous racist bullshit we've seen directed Obama's way. People hate, HATE, Hillary Clinton with a passion, and the sexism is undeniable, but white men (still the most important voting bloc in this country*) see a raving dumbass like Palin and think "she's hot," and they see just about the "whitest," most well-spoken black man on Earth, Pres. Obama, and they still come up with fried chicken and watermelon jokes. The bottom line is, white men may think ill of women, but they are still scared in large part by black men. This would be a -2 for Obama, except for he and his family's intense personal charm, which alleviates the race reaction for the "casual racist," who might like Will Smith but can't handle Al Sharpton, so let's give Obama just -1 for the skin color. That makes it -1 points for Obama, and -1 for Clinton.

That leaves our final score at Clinton: 0 and Obama: -1.

That would suggest I view Clinton as "the winner," but the bottom line is this: a.) we'll never know, and the incompetence of the Clinton campaign team might suggest a lot of unnecessary political drama at the cabinet level that could have derailed her Presidency, and b.) these are basically both pro-market, indifferent to labor, mild "New Democrats". Not at all what this country needs.

This country needs someone who views the market as a rabid dog that needs to be put down, who thinks that bondholders can go fuck themselves, and who is ready to build a new infrastructure for this country for the 21st century.

Until we get that, we're fucked.

Cuttin' Deficits by Meager Amounts, Back to the 19th Century Campaign Culture, and other lousy/borderline terrible news

2010-01-26T11:07:00.000-08:00

Hello my friends! Reader "Kirstin" has not one, but FOUR articles to summarize today for your slacking blogmeister. To compensate for my sins in taking several days off, I'm going to pithily summarize all of them.

Spending Freezes or "How to Make an Economic Recovery Even More Tepid in One Simple Politically Half-Hearted Step"

NY Times, January 25, 2010

So basically Obama has decided that the public is angry over government deficits and wants the deficit cut. This is basically true, this is what a big chunk of the populace is angry/worried about, because no one in this country ever got anything higher than a C- in high school econ.

Cutting gov't spending in an economic downtown, or, I guess, technically, "jobless recovery," is exactly the wrong thing to do. That's because government demand (spending) is making up for a lack of private demand (dudes who employ you and buy shit). Getting rid of gov't spending = less demand = fewer jobs. It's simple, man!

But, you know, cutting the deficit is Super Responsible. And Barry O is nothing if not an Adult Person who Reaches Across the Aisle to do Responsible things. So he's proposing to freeze spending on discretionary items. That's everything other than defense spending, social security, and medicare/caid, i.e., everything other than the huge, ballooning cost items. All the small, unimportant shit, you know, like the budget for the departments of housing & urban development, energy, education, transportation, and justice...

In short, the small items, which support the neediest people, not to mention the future development of our country (esp. education and transportation, also energy, natch) will essentially be cut - after inflation, a spending freeze is a spending cut - while the items that are causing the deficit to balloon will get off scott-free.

It's ridiculous - "fiscal hawks" are still going to slam Obama for being a free-spending communist, because he's not touching the non-discretionary items, while liberals and other people with brains in their head are going to be rightly upset. Saving a meager $250 billion over 10 years doesn't do anything to really address our fiscal "crisis," which is not really a crisis, because it's easily solved by printing more money and then raising taxes should inflation occur, BUT WHATEVER.

Fucking people. And this is supposed to be Obama's "big comeback" for ditching health care reform. Good grief, Bill Clinton II.

If it was good enough for Mark Hanna, it's good enough for the 21st century!

Business Week, January 24, 2010

Oh man. The Supreme Court. Can't wait until they revoke the 14th-16th amendments to the constitution! How about that unnecessary "bill of rights" while they're at it. In interpreting a challenge to a law that blocked the broadcast of a politically-oriented character attack on Hillary Clinton posing as a "documentary" of sorts, the Roberts Court (remember that one scene where the Emperor first shows up in Return of the Jedi?) interprets the law AS BROADLY AS POSSIBLE and strikes down McCain-Feingold entirely, which had limited somewhat the ability of large corporations* to buy as much political ad time as they could.

It's a crude ruling, and goes way too far, but the cynic does have to ask how substantive a difference it will make. Yes, the many small contributions to the Obama campaign are an inspiring story of how many little voices can make a difference. But on the whole, the bulk of his contributors were giving several thousands of dollars at a time, not all that different than before McCain-Feingold. Is our political culture THAT different since McC-F? I mean, we still got the Bush years out of that shit, didn't we? And this pending Return of the Contract With America that seems to be coming up? Yes, it limited some "soft money" style attacks, but still...

However, while I would argue that this is not the end of the world, nonetheless, fuck, what the hell is wrong with the Supreme Court. Corporations are NOT PEOPLE, people. They are highly complex structures and should be regulated as such. And the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money is not free speech. It isn't even fucking speech, period. CAN WE PLEASE GET RID OF THE CONCEPT OF THE CORPORATION AS A LEGAL "PERSON". Aaaarururughghgh.

* You often hear "corporations and unions" mentioned in the same breath, as if they were somehow equals, but unions have nowhere near the purchasing power as corporations, on the whole. Consequently, expect most of the new flood of corporate campaign contributions and political advertising to go to the GOP, for the most part.

The End of Air America

Reuters, January 22, 2010

Well, so much for Air America. It was a nice concept, but the bottom line is: this is a center-right country. The only people who want to hear angry, screaming nitwits are right wingers, who are angry all the time. Liberals are known for having cooler heads and preferring the comedy of Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert. Shit, I'm the only liberal I know who actually LIKES Keith Olbermann. We liberals, as a species, do not get angry. So a "liberal Rush Limbaugh station" was never going to fly, in the long term. Be happy we got it at all.

The Worst Spokesperson for the Gays Ever

LA Times, January 22, 2010

Oh man! Crazy-ass super-medicated Cindy McCain is standing up for the right for gay people to get hitched. Well, that is nice for her, but that's a damn shame for our homosexual friends in Cali, because you couldn't imagine a worse person to represent "moderate Republicanism" than a McCain lady (Cindy or Meghan). Neither of them are the red-meat, NASCAR lovin' Republican that raving homophobes actually LIKE. And further, Cindy has that well-documented perscription pill abuse. Really, really choice for a campaign. I guess I'll change my mind if it works out, but, damn, if I woke up one day and Lindsey Lohan was the new spokeswoman for epileptics*, I'd be pissed.

* full disclosure: I'm an epileptic. But I pay taxes!!!

And that concludes the smarmiest, least informative James Call: Expert to date. Send me your articles!!!

I'm Sorry, We Have No Blogs Today

2010-01-22T12:32:00.000-08:00

No blog today! Send me those articles you want me to summarize! Try again next Monday, i.e., "The angry part of the week," when I will return to form. Huzzah!

Net Neutrality: Actual Freedom for the "Land of the Free"

2010-01-21T07:01:00.000-08:00

Reader "Kirstin" again (where're the articles from the rest of you, schweinen? but thanks, Kirstin) asks today about Net Neutrality, which, in the humble opinion of your Expert, is kind of hard to get excited about, but is nonetheless one of the most important corcerns for the future civic life of this country, and the world. So here we go! (I apologize in advance for this post being more "serious" than "snide")

In Which I Whip Google Again, Because It's Fun and Countercultural

NY Times "Topics," Net Neutrality

NY Times, December 27, 2009

Ok! In a nutshell, currently, you pay your cable bill and you can get on the internet and find anything. And I mean that almost literally: we all know about the porn and the comedy sites, but the internet truly is a cornocopia of useful information, once you wade through all the crap.

This is especially true if you're trying to stay educated on the state of the world. There are about three quality newspapers in national circulation (the NY Times, the Washington Post, and the WSJ, all with plenty of flaws, but, still, indispensible, and pretty good) and television is an utterly contemplible joke with the sole exception of PBS. In particular, television is a source of alarmist short-term news cycle items that spread fear and disinformation amongst the populace. But on the internet, you have baselinescenario.com, www.fivethirtyeight.com, www.newdeal20.org, krugman.blogs.nytimes.com, www.atimes.com, etc. You name it, the information is THERE. If you are a good, Jeffersonian-style citizen, you can go get it. And it's still - unbelievably - basically uncensored.*

So naturally the media barons of the world are not very happy about this "neutral" state of affairs. They would like to start charging certain websites higher rates to provide their content at the normal speed, and let the poorer types suffer. That would inevitably lead to an internet very much like the television, where you could only get msnbc.com, cnn.com, fox.com, with actual, informative websites going the way of public access TV.

The threat is obvious. The rich and powerful will always seek to expand their power at the expense of the weak. I frankly wish I knew a little bit more about the early history of radio and television, how broadcasting channels were diivied up and handed out, and what the public reaction thereto was. I would not be surprised to see a lack of citizen attentiveness towards net neutrality leading to an end to net neutrality, probably sold to us in terms of market "fairness" and "efficiency" (classic explanations for doing away with public goods and putting them in private hands).

But internet provider neutrality is not the only concern. "Search neutrality" is also a big consideration. Google is a monopoly; it controls 71% of the American internet search market. The likely response to this is, "well that's because Google kicks so much ass," and it's true, Google is pretty useful, but most of Google's knicknacks were developed by other companies, and bought out by Google; Standard Oil was pretty kick-ass too, but it became kick-ass by smothering it's competitors, which led to Standard Oil setting the terms. And Google is increasingly setting the terms, putting Google-backed products first in every search result, and shoving competitors way towards the back.

What we need to fear is that Google becomes the CNN/Fox of the internet; everyone who's anyone starts using Google, and getting their news from Google-sponsored websites. This would put the internet on the quick path towards TV-like irrevelance and de facto censorship, where you're hearing about Terry Schiavo nonstop but very little/never about the Employee Free Choice Act, for instance.

Thankfully, the Obama administration seems committed to net neutrality. Kudos for them, and let's hope it stays that way. Attacks on net neutrality are NOT going to be high-profile items, so we who enjoy and love our internet freedom will have to remain quite vigilant about it. In a nation where George W. Bush was appointed President and we didn't rise up and overthrow him, and where the most organized and dedicated protests routinely originate on the far-right, that strikes me as a dubious proposition.

* Let's not even get into the issue of workplaces firewalling off certain websites. Porn and online games, sure, no biggie. But shouldn't it be our constitutional right, if we have to sit in cubicles all day long, to have access to the public information of the internet? It's not like we have time to keep our citizenship up to date when we go home... that whole "come home and get your news from the TV" crap has not worked out so well, since at least the Reagan era forward.

Martha Coakley's Depressing Defeat and the Future of HCR

2010-01-20T08:01:00.000-08:00

Oy vey. It's time for a very sad edition of James Call: Expert, where we summarize the news you can't understand, or simply don't want to read.

Reader "Skinny D" asks this question, yesterday, before the election: "Alright jim so the article I want explained is the one on the front page of todays New York Times about the health care bill. I think I'm completely lost as to what's going on with this thing. Didn't they already pass something like two months ago or did they just pass something saying they where going to think about passing something?"

And then good ol' reader "Kirstin" asks me to summarize this related article, post-election: NY Times, January 19, 2010

Scott Brown Beats All Hope For the Future

Well alrighty then. We have a GOP Senator from Massachusetts. Read it, and weep. What does this mean for health care reform?

The first part of this article is procedural background

First, to Damian's question, let me summarize the process thus far. In your ordinary piece of legislation, one chamber (the House or the Senate) either passes a bill which the other one then passes, becoming law after the President signs it, or both chambers pass similar legislation, and then go in to conference to make a compromise bill, which is then voted on by both chambers. Thus was the health care bill: the House and Senate had each passed their own, broadly similar, versions, which were to go to conference, and then to a vote. It looked like a done-ish deal.

However, now that Scott Brown is elected, and due to be sworn in soon, and has said he'll oppose the health care bill - along with every other Republican in the Senate - there isn't time to go to conference. The Senate will not pass the current House bill, for various reasons (many of them quite stupid, but at least this has been known for some time); either the House can pass the Senate bill, or we can have nothing.

Now in theory, the House Democrats should just swallow hard and pass the Senate bill, and then "fix" it via a separate bill passed via reconciliation, which is filibuster-proof in the Senate (requiring only 50 votes, rather than 60; now that Brown is the Senator from Ma., the GOP can filibuster anything that isn't done via reconciliation). Then we'd have the beginnings of health care reform.

But - these are Democrats we're talking about. They have the cojones of jellyfish. So already they're huffin' and puffin' about going back to the drawing board, listening to the "will of the people," throwing in the towel entirely, etc. Even liberal as pie Anthony Weiner from NY is saying this! Enough of them have come out and said they'll vote against the Senate bill that tough-as-nails Nancy Pelosi, good as she is at her job (and she's good), doesn't have the votes. Health care, in its current form, barring a miracle, is dead.

Further, in the Senate, Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., has said the congress should wait until Brown is seated to consider healthcare. Some nonsense about listening to the will of the power, or some such. Probably trying to C his A with independents...

Now here's my fucking opinion/analysis.

Dems are toast. They're freaking the hell out about being defeated for re-election this year, but guess what, NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO, they are going to be defeated for re-election this year. This is a 1994-style wave we're looking at. Dems're going to throw in the towel on health care reform, but the angry "independent" voters (see: illiterate morons with the attention span of gnats) have ALREADY turned against them. They can either pass health care reform, and lose, or throw in the towel in an attempt to position themselves as "Republican Lite" ... and lose. As usual, Krugman puts it very well.

Part of the outrage is over government spending. Many Dems are crying about how we should be focused not on health care, but on paying down the deficit. First of all, you cunts, as long as the US dollar remains the reserve currency for the world - and what can challenge it? - our deficits are NOT A PROBLEM. At all. Period. End of subject. The dollar is a fiat currency and therefore deficits are NOT A PROBLEM FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WHICH PRINTS THE MONEY FOR GOD'S SAKE. Secondly, let's assume for the sake of argument we do want to pay down the deficit - well, what the hell do you think the number one deficit problem is, you shitheads? That's right - ballooning medicare costs, which health care reform would have gone some ways to address.

Another part of the outrage is over jobs. That's reasonable, but out-of-control health care costs prevent hiring. Cut down on costs, and businesses will have more money to hire. Prrrrretty simple to understand, folks.

Now let me speak to the "throw the bums out" mentality. I'm all for that. No big fan of the Obama/Clinton brand of Democrat-cy here. But for God's sake, how piss-poor is your memory. Do you not remember what Republicans have done when they were in power for the past thirty years!?!? What the hell is wrong with you people?

In addition to health care reform, Scott Brown also opposes cap-and-trade, amnesty for illegal immigrants, the usual slieugh of Republican nonsense, so expect a further uphill battle - perhaps no progress at all, now that the filibuster is stronger - on those issues as well.

It's truly amazing that Democrats don't grok that by trying to cleave to a centrist viewpoint, they'll just alienate their liberal base and be wiped out further. Their seats are not going to be any safer if they "vote Republican". Hell, their seats won't be any safer if they even FLIP Republican, as evidenced by Parker Griffith, a Dem from Alabama who flipped to the GOP recently, and is being - guess what - primaried by teabaggers. The tea-party nutjobs are running the show right now, and they view former Democrats or "centrists" of any stripe as nothing short of traitors.

These folks are going to lose their jobs anyways - they should, at least, accomplish something that will make them look good in the history books. But it's a safer bet that aliens will contact the Earth, than that'll ever happen.

Taxin' the Banks and Other Ineffectual Measures

2010-01-19T16:52:00.001-08:00

Welcome back to James Call: Expert, your source for Snide Commentary from today's Hottest Young Pseudointellectual.

Reader "Kirstin" asks me to summarize this sonnuvabitch:

Obama Gon' Tax Some Banks Somehow'r'nother

New York Times, Jan. 14, 2010

Ok. I can summarize this bad boy real quick. Prez Obama, a big friend of the banks, is catching a LOT of political heat for the fact that the banks are raking in record profits, and everyone else (you, me, our family, friends, the dudes at the bodega, etc.) are starving/not earning frequent flier miles to death. And this anger is totally justified - yes, we DID had to give banks tons of cash to keep the economy alive, but the banks were supposed to invest that cash in businesses that employ people. And they are not doing that. They are instead just sitting on the money, floatin' bonds at well above the effective Fed rate (basically, 0% interest) and rakin' in the cash. These bonds are regarded as incredibly good investments, because everyone on Wall St knows the gov't won't let any of the big banks go down.

This situation is complete bullshit, so of course, there are cries for a "windfall profits" tax, and that's probably what the Obama admin is going to propose.

The problem is, what critics are saying is true: yes, the banks will probably "pass the tax along in the form of higher charges to their customers," both depositors and businesses taking out loans. Which could cause a small credit contraction. Not that that matters a whole lot, because the banks AREN'T LOANING ANYWAYS, BECAUSE WE DID NOT FORCE THEM TO WHEN WE GAVE THEM ALL THE CASH IN THE WORLD, the pricks, but still.

More to the point, a tax is not really what's needed. What's needed is to put some serious pain on these banks, to ensure that they cannot ever engage in the kind of wretched behavior that got us to this point again. What form should the pain take?

First of all, the banks should be broken up. Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist. All the Lawful Good economists agree on this point. Secondly, the weird derivative bundles and other "innovations," which were the tools used to get us in this huge mess, shouldn't be regulated - they should be straight-up banned. And finally, we need to insist on no overleveraging of the banks. If you're going to have $75 outstanding in loans, you should have at least $25 on hand to back those loans up, not $1 (for instance).

But - Obama is ideologically committed to keeping the big banks intact. He is a New Democrat, a friend of Big Money nine times out of ten. And shame on so-called Progressives for not realizing this during the primaries - can't y'all read??! Weren't you listening to what the man actually said in the primaries??! True, financial regulatory reform wasn't a cornerstone of his campaign, but a general soft line towards Big Business in general was... how can we now be surprised?

Man, this post is already too long. The point is: this tax is totally cosmetic, probably slightly unhealthy, and completely misses the point. The banks don't need a one-time slap on the wrist, they need to be hacked to death by machetes. And that I why I propose we import Congolese irregulars and use them to police Wall St... to set the tone, if you will.

Amen, goodnight.

Why is Chinese so Weird, Mannn?

2010-01-15T13:50:00.000-08:00

Welcome back to James Call: Expert, containing cynical and dismissive, yet truthful, summaries to articles YOU need dissected by an expert!

Today's article comes again from reader DJ Pu Yi. Come on, people, aren't some of the rest of you gonna send something in? Anyways...

It's another Google vs. China article, but the good DJ isn't really asking about that; he wants to know "more about how China talks about these things and the fucked up way we translate their phrases."

I'll get to that, but first, here's the article, and a brief synopsis thereof:

The New Yorker, January 14, 2010

The main narrative surrounding the First Google-China War is one wherein the Chinese people = victims, the Chinese gov't = the villain, and Google = the hero.

But this narrative overlooks the fact that Google isn't leaving China primarily over moral concerns; hell, they've had those concerns for years. They're leaving because they've failed to penetrate the Chinese market effectively, and China just hacked Google to steal American industrial secrets (pretty common practice internationally... Israel, our Staunch Ally and Only Democracy in the Middle East, ha ha ha, has stolen plenty of secrets from us before without major fallout), which is a pretty fugly thing to do, and quite damaging to Google's brand.

So the real casting is: the Chinese people = the victims, the Chinese gov't = the villain, and Google = another, less compelling villian, or if you want to be generous, Google = disinterested assholes posing as the morally righteous.

But now on to DJ Pu Yi's REAL question!

Why is Chinese so fucking weird for us 'mericans?

Well, Mandarin/Cantonese ("Chinese"... there are other dialects as well, but those are the main two) is built on an alphabet of several tens of thousands of characters. That alone is mighty strange. And in Cantonese, the inflection of a word gives a totally different connotation to it... imagine if, in English, when you said "Cow," you meant "cow," but if you said "Cow!" you meant "milk".

But where it gets REALLY weird is when it comes to syntax, baby.

Chinese sentences put the TOPIC of the sentence first, not necessarily the SUBJECT. I.e., "I was hella mackin' on this girl in the library" would be rendered as "In the library mackin' on this girl I was". This seems pretty intuitive and Yoda-like.

But Chinese might drop the subject entirely. It's assumed you know the subject based on the context of the conversation. For instance, in the above, let's assume I was telling you about my week. The sentence might be "In the library mackin' on this girl". You would just KNOW that "I was" doing that. If we had BOTH been mackin' on this girl, we'd mentally insert the "we were".

It gets stranger, from our Western perspective. The Chinese often employ postpositions rather than prepositions. "Club at the" instead of "at the Club," etc. And how about this little twist? You can change the syntax of a sentence to give it extra gravitas. For instance, "I shat my pants" might be a colorful phrase to indicate my own surprise, but "Pants I shat my" would imply that I quite literally had a serious personal accident, as it were.

Or how about this one? In English, we can stack adjectives all we like. "This is a big, smelly, tasty hunk of cheese," for instance. In Chinese, you can stack VERBS. "With you I yell-cry," implying, I yelled at you so much, it made me cry. That's not the best example, but then, understanding complementary verbs is tricky for the Western mind!

There's so much more to get into, but those are kind of the highlights. In any event, you can see, Chinese is a much more complex language than any of our Latin-derived ones, and either we're way better than the Chinese because of it, or vice versa (if you're trying to figure out who's, here's a hint in the form of a question: which civilization has been around without being eradicated for at least 6,000 years?).

---

Please spread the word and send in more articles!

A New Year, A New Format for JC:E!

2010-01-14T06:51:00.000-08:00

Hello my children! It's 2010, the Mayans are coming to kill us all in 2 years, and in the spirit of growth and change I hereby re-launch (sort of) this blog.

The old format, of in-depth answers to a variety of questions, was too difficult to keep up with daily.

Instead, I'll be adopting the "flippant summaries of news items, containing nuggets of truth" approach. You send me articles, I read them, and synopize, in my own snide fashion.

We start today with an article sent to me by reader "DJ Pu Yi"

Google Pulling Out of China, China Not Preggers

Wall Street Journal, Jan. 13, 2010

Ok so basically Google is getting the hell out of China, because China totally googled "American indutrial secrets and Tibetan sympathizers" plus "students" and hacked the hell out of some poor kids (bad), and stole some proprietary info from big American companies (neutral/all's fair in love and capitalism). Google can now sort of claim a moral victory over the evil Communists, and their censorship, except that now the Chinese (people, not gov't) are going to have to use this super-censored search engine called "Baidu," which is Mandarin for "No Freedom For You".

The REAL reason Google is pulling out of China is that it wasn't making any money there; Google can concievably get more money by saying all "look how democratic we are and stuff" than hanging around China, anyways. Please note that our major manufacturers aren't about to split town anytime soon, now that China is the largest market for cars and cellphones in the world...

Also, the general "international business community" is upset because the Chinese are making the business environment more uncomfortable for foreigners, i.e., exactly what the United States did in the 19th and early 20th centuries, which is what led to the USA we know and love today, and Britain too, so the "international business community" can go "fuck itself".

Also also, it might actually be good for the assorted dissidents, students, etc., to use US google instead of China google. Maybe. We'll see.

AND THAT'S THE NEW JAMES CALL: EXPERT.

Please leave articles you'd like me to summarize in the comments section. If you have my personal email, you can use that as well.

China kicking our ass and Ben Bernanke again

2009-08-25T06:48:00.000-07:00

Hey kids! James Call: Expert returns. Still awaiting your questions, but in the meantime, here's some fun updates!!! If by "fun," you mean, "severely depressing". Enjoy!

Today in the Chinese Have Been Superior to Us with a Few Exceptions for About 4,000 Years so Why Stop Now

It looks like the Chinese are poised to kick our ass in the solar panel market. Solar and wind energy would seem like THE industry to be developing, old-school style, to bring America into the 21st Century with a new industrial base, and to generate JOBS. But hey, who needs jobs, right? Especially high-paying manufacturing jobs? Not almost 10% of Americans, right?

Today in Fed Chairmanship

Ben Bernanke has being reappointed. No big surprise there. He's been an usually open chairman, for which he has my respect; perhaps he'll help shatter some of the Secrets of the Temple (everyone go read that book, now, it's way more intense than the Harry Potter franchise, I promise). However, Simon Johnson, who is way smarter than me, has a pretty unpleasant forecast for Bernanke's next term... basically, a new bubble, this time in Asia.

Not sure who SHOULD be appointed, though. Is the Punisher available?

Brazil "Nationalizes" Its (Major) Oil (Discovery), and Liberals Up in Arms

2009-08-18T09:46:00.000-07:00

James Call: Expert here! A reminder: I am still looking for your questions. But for today, I'll just spiel through this haze of claritin some of our more exciting goings-on.

Today in 2nd-World Countries Nationalizing Oil

So, hey, good news! Brazil has declared that Petrobras (Brazil's oil company, and a notable player in the exciting world of oil companies, sort of the "John Stewart Green Lantern" to the international oil industry's "JLA") straight-up gets the rights to the remainder of the massive deep-sea oil deposits off its coast, which were discovered in 2007. About 38% of these deposits have already been bid away, including to foreign developers. The rest is for BRAZIL!

This is pretty huge shit, becaus the world hasn't weaned itself off of oil yet, and these fields are expected to be amongst the world's more significant oil resources for the, uh, remainder of the oil age, probably. Unless the oil age ends up lasting another century instead of just another four to five decades or so...

The risk to whitey (i.e., consumers, globally) is that Petrobras will bungle the extraction process and not get the oil to the market. This has happened with state-owned oil companies numerous times before. Look at Venezuela's PDVSA if you want, or look at Iran, which has to actually import oil when it should be a major exporter. State-run oil companies just don't get the job done the way private companies do.

But: private companies also tend not to give one solitary shit how the countries they operate in fare. For all that output has dropped in the wake of Hugo Chavez's takeover of PDVSA, the profits from that oil company now go to Venezuela itself. There's plenty of reasons to oppose Chavez, but there's no denying that PDVSA is now working for Venezuela and not the other way around.

So I say good for Brazil. If Petrobras can't get the oil out of the ground in time, well then, oil prices will just have to rise, globally, which will encourage investment in the fuels and energy sources of the future, which is much better than relying on a 19th century energy source proven to be a finite resource, anyways.

Today in Health Care Reform

I have to give some props to the mainstream so-called "liberal" media, for actually acting like liberals, for a change, and sticking it to Prez Obama for backing down on the public option. Specifically, Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow demonstrated some real cojones on calling Obama on his shit. A health care bill without the public option is weak stuff, and those shitty little "co-ops" aren't going to cut it.

Perhaps these House liberals will surprise us and not back down in threatening to scuttle any bill without a public option? We can get a bill with a public option through the Senate; we just have to live with zero GOP votes, and use reconciliation. It'll be tight, but we can do it. The question is, would Obama lean on the swing Senators to get the job done?

Nate Silver thinks we're being too hard on Obama, not being realistic (by "we" I mean "we liberals who feel betrayed that he's abandoning the public option"), and Mr. Silver is always worth listening to. However, he's also prone to often take a pro-statist, almost anti-progressive view of how business should be conducted in Washington, and I have to disagree with him. I think Pelosi threatening to pull the plug on the whole bill is exactly what is needed.

I don't think Obama is genuine about wanting a public option, but if he is - and he still says he is - then it's time to do this bill through reconciliation, not the normal procedure, because the GOP is going to oppose the health care bill even WITHOUT the public option. So might as well cut them out of the whole process. The Dems, and Obama, will enjoy a 5-point poll bounce once health care reform gets passed - so sez former Prez Clinton, and I have to give Bill Clinton props for political saavy (most of the time), if nothing else. People will completely forget about "socialism" once they have cheap, reliable health care.

Bye Bye Public Option and other shitty news

2009-08-17T08:29:00.000-07:00

On a day when James Call: Expert is locked in a death-struggle he appears to be losing with a collection agency, it's very appropriate that the public option, perhaps the one policy item we had the most right to feel hopeful about, in the wake of the 2008 elections, is now more-or-less officially kaput.

Today in Health Care Reform

So yeah, over the weekend, Obama and crew (specifically Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius) basically threw the public option under the rug. Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota said that the public option "never" had the votes to pass in the Senate, and Obama et al are basically giving him and his ilk the nod, albeit still ostensibly saying the public option is the best way to go.

Paul Krugman and Nate Silver don't seem too depressed about it; in order to avoid being depressed myself, I'm deferring to their expertise. But we now know that even if health care reform does result in expanded coverage, especially to folks like me, with pre-existing conditions, it's going to do very little for cost, which should be a major concern, and may very well lead to calls a few decades down the line to do away with the entire thing.

The big question now is whether anything will be done to rein in the vicious cycle of doctors charging insurance companies for big-item, frivolous treatments. This will require cracking the whip on both doctors and insurers, and I'm not sure anyone in government has the backbone to do that, at this point. Still, this is one of the major problems driving cost, and to rectify this problem doesn't require spending any money at all. It just requires the will to stand up to these constituencies. Something we haven't seen a whole lot of so far, sadly.

Very, very disappointing.

Why We're in This Mess

2009-08-14T10:23:00.000-07:00

Ok! Today I'm just gonna straight-up QUOTE A BLOG to highlight an overlooked subject... hell, a subject that no one even talks about, for some reason, in this country: wage growth.

In the 1990s, Japan was in the shitter in a manner very similar to where we are today. As someone who currently feels he can't leave his job, because to do so would be borderline suicidal, since there are no other options out there, these 4 paragraphs really hit home. The bolding, italics, etc., are mine. This is from the Conceptual Guerilla blog (the author is "unlawflcombatnt"), and in turn is derived from the book "Greenspan's Fraud" by Ravi Batra:

Japan experienced extremely rapid growth between 1960 and 1975. During that time there was a 168% increase in per capita GDP. Their per capita GDP increased from $2,139 in 1960 to $5,750 in 1975. Real wages increased 217% during that time. Manufacturing productivity increased 264% during these 15 years. Japan prospered and its economy grew during this period because wages, which create demand, kept up with productivity, which creates supply. There was sufficient WAGE-FINANCED demand to stimulate production. And the necessary demand was maintained by consumer income, not consumer borrowing.

After 1975, productivity growth began to outpace wage growth. The result was a much slower growth in GDP. Between 1975 and 1990, productivity increased 3% more than wages per year. During that period, wages increased 27%, while productivity increased 86%. The per capita GDP increase was 64% from 1975 to 1990. Less of the wealth produced by Japanese workers was being shared with them. As a result, business profits soared, increasing money available for investment. This caused Japanese investors to over-invest in both the stock market and housing. Japanese stock markets and real estate values soared as a result of this over-investment. Meanwhile, there was insufficient wage-financed demand to keep up with this capital investment. This necessitated increased levels of borrowing to maintain the demand that wages could not maintain.

By 1990 there was a huge Japanese stock market bubble and real estate bubble. And in 1990 this overvaluation all came crashing down. The Japanese economy has still not recovered 15 years later. By 2003, the Japanese stock market was still 80% below its peak in 1990. From 1990 thru 2002, per capita GDP increased 13%. Compare that with the 168% increase between 1960 and 1975. Compare this latter 15-year increase with the 59% increase during the 27 years from 1975 to 2002. Japan's per capita GDP increased 3 times as much during the 15 years prior to 1975, than it did during the 27 years after 1975. The pre-1975 rate of increase was 5 times faster than the post-1975 increase.

What caused this slowdown? The rise in the wage-productivity gap. Worker income that could have been put to good use buying Japanese goods was siphoned off as corporate profits. Since the benefits of investment capital are limited by consumer demand, the result was over-investment of Japanese stock and housing markets, and maintenance of consumer demand by borrowing.

Now if you look at any US wage/productivity gap chart, you'll notice the gap starts kicking in at the beginning of the Reagan years, and never lets up:

Now, I want to apologize for basically ripping off another blog wholesale, but this is important stuff, for the 15-20 of you who read this here bad boy, and after all, I can't cry over health care reform everyday. This is, actually, in the end, MORE IMPORTANT (or at least, just as) than health care reform, because if wages grew in tandem with productivity, like they're supposed to, a lot more of us could afford to buy health care from our current system (private insurers who charge you an arm and a leg) anyways.

Why Bother Being Democrats? And other musings

2009-08-12T11:41:00.000-07:00

Hey kids! James Call: Expert has a super budy day today, and can't grace you with his bounteous knowledge and esteemed judgment. But he does have some super-groovy links that you should just read for yourselves! Bookmark them, they're borderline important!

1. Iraq's Shiites aren't flipping the hell out as assorted Sunnis (not all Sunnis, mind you) continue to terrorize them (I typed that non-ironically!) Turns out having a theology that is centered around suffering, even more so than Catholicism, is good for building up patience - such as the patience to endure people attacking you for no reason.

2. The mob's goin' after Sen. Specter, who's my favorite turncoat Republican. Ooops! Maybe you shoulda stuck around the Grand Old Party of Xenophobes and Dipshits, Arlen!...

3. After all, more and more Dem Senators are beginning to vote like Republicans on key issues. Sort of makes you wonder what the point of having a Dem majority is, right? Also: when are these folks gonna flip GOP? 2010, if the numbers look right? Time will tell...

4. To counter GOP screams of "socialism," Dems are being encouraged to "villify" insurance companies. Sounds good to me! Private insurers are a bunch of scum whose sole concern is the bottom line, which, as often as possible, means screwing the insured out of proper coverage. But, it is worth noting, insurance companies have some legitimate complaints with doctors bilking the system. Drs. in turn have some legitimate gripes with being underpaid by insurance companies, which thus encourages them to bilk! The losers, of course, are the poor shmucks paying for insurance. Health care reform MUST tackle these subjects, and, strangely, none of the plans out of committee so far touch the subject.

And those are enough links for you. Also, China has a major problem with trash incinerators, but we don't have time for that, and the above of plenty of reading for now.

Live long and prosper or die young and stay pretty!

Fighting Segregtion

2009-08-11T06:16:00.000-07:00

James Call: Expert returns, trying to get high on his OWN supply and not the supply of mankind! Tally ho!

Today in Unexpected Good News

I've been pretty critical of President Obama so far. Despite his (initial) overwhelming popularity, and transcendant political stature, he's squandered a lot of political capital capitulating to the Powers That Typically Be: Big Finance, the insurance industry, Republicans in general, etc.

Still, I think the Prez has the ability to do some pretty impressive and valuable things under the radar of the national media and political party apparati, on issues that people simply don't pay attention to. He's already reversed the trend on stem cell research and signed a major modernized GI Bill, one that doesn't ask our soliders to go kill and possibly die and then come home to enjoy unemployment, potential homelessness, and PTSD.

And today it looks like the Obama administration's shift on national housing policy is bearing fruit, as the Anti-Discrimination Center has won an historic lawsuit in Westchester county ordering local officials to make more housing available along racial lines to the middle and lower class (but not necessarily the "super-poor").

It was found in the suit that despite the availability of plentiful public housing in Westchester county, it wasn't being offered to Blacks or Hispanics. This is a very important point: it's not a matter of Rich People vs. Poor People this time, it's a matter of Whites vs. Non-Whites, and Westchester was basically told to get its shit together and get some more minorities into these de facto segregated neighborhoods.

If it was just Westchester county, this wouldn't be huuuuuuge news, but its thought that this lawsuit will provide a template for future rulings across the entire nation. And that, to me, is very good news. In this country, Africans were bought here as slaves, became "Black" people, and were kept Down on the Farm at the end of slavery by segregation, all over the course a few hundred years. Many folks like to think that the end of legal segregation is the end of the story, but it's not: being Stuck in the Ghetto and limited by lack of jobs and education is every bit as stifling as being Down on the Farm. Lifting black people up out of poverty is the remaining part of the "trilogy" of ending the horseshit that his been, historically, foisted on Africans brought to this country against their will. That's my opinion.

That similar benefits should be extended to Hispanics, and any other discriminated-against racial group, especially of a lower wealth level, should go without saying (but doesn't always, does it?).

Even those who would favor, in theory, increased racial integration get a little queasy at the premise of "social engineering," which is another reason this lawsuit is potentially such major good news. President Obama, or any President (even a "more white" one) couldn't very well make a big hoopla and go before Congress and the American people and try to pass an "Integration Bill". You think the cries of "socialism" over the bailout/health care reform/yadda yadda are bad NOW? I'd hate to see that one.

But do this quietly, while the media and parties are distracted by other huge issues, and put it slowly into place?

Man, that would be a coup comparable to that enacted by the Bush administration, when it basically staffed the entire Judiciary with wacko fundamentalists who had passed political litmus tests. Except, you know, really, really good news, as opposed to really evil, destructive-of-the-fabric-of-our-Republic news.

Call me a communist... I just think that people should not have the right to raise their children away from other children of other races. This is the 21st century, right? I mean, racial pride, at this point?!? The nation state is dying at the hands of global capital - why should we allow the segregation of races? Further, why should we allow people to think that their race counts for anything other than literal sky color and perhaps eye pigment, etc? Genetics has already disproven the premise that your races matters, scientifically, at all. It's just fucking stupid to think otherwise, and it allows the elite who are destroying the nation state with global capital to create pre-nation state-style divisions amongst those said elite would exploit.

Anyways, read the article to get the details.

Today in Understatements of the Year

Meanwhile, in less good news, listen to what this dingleberry had to say about the Obama administration's attempts to negotiate with terror, er, excuse me, Republicans:

"The expectation was that things have gotten so bad in the last 16 years that there would be consensus on the need to act this time," said Howard Paster, who was Mr. Clinton's chief lobbyist in 1993. "That was a mistake, that assumption." (NY Times, 8/11/09)

Gee, YA THINK?!? Dude, you are talking about building consensus with the Republican party, a party that hasn't cooperated with the Democrats in approximately 30 years. A party that will only compromise if you are willing to literally SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT like Clinton was forced to in the 90s.

Cooperate with these people?!? Get a goddamn clue!*

This is why I'm a communist sympathizer.

* Tip o' the hat to Chuck Schumer, too, who is getting more vocal about the premise that "we may have to do this without Republican help" (paraphrased). The Democrats control 2 branches of the government; it is time to finally WIELD that power and stop pussyfooting around.

A Very Important Question

2009-08-07T10:55:00.001-07:00

An anonymous reader asks:

Mr. Call, my wife and I recently enjoyed a threesome with a monied Count, but we woke up the next day naked in Pioneer Square in Portland, Oregon, along with TV's David Hyde Pierce and deceased mathematician David Hilbert. Shouldn't the Count apologize? Or are we expected to contact him and arrange for a second date?

Second date.

And can I just add, this happens to me ALL THE TIME.

A Very Important Question

2009-08-07T10:55:00.000-07:00

An anonymous reader asks:

Mr. Call, and wife and I recently enjoyed a threesome with a monied Count, but we woke up the next day naked in Pioneer Square in Portland, Oregon, along with TV's David Hyde Pierce and deceased mathematician David Hilbert. Shouldn't the Count apologize? Or are we expected to contact him and arrange for a second date?

Second date.

And can I just add, this happens to me ALL THE TIME.

The Devil's Moon and other topics

2009-08-07T07:10:00.000-07:00

James Call: Expert! Answering your questions with his TOTAL KNOWLEDGE OF ALL SUBJECTS!

Today in the Moon

Reader "Will" asks:

What's with the moon? Why is it sometimes freakin' RED? Also, why does it sometimes look GIANT like it's going to crash into the Earth?

(I may have taken some liberties with Will's exact wording of the question.)

Very good question, Will! I'll tell you why. In a nutshell, the Sun is always shining the full visible spectrum of light on the moon. That's why, on a clear night, the moon looks white: because all the colors (this should be familiar to you Green Lantern fans) are combined into white, and reflected off the moon. Bear in mind one of my favorite science factoids: nothing has intrinsic color, everything is simply reflected light. Smoke some weed and meditate on THAT concept, buckos. Anyways...

The blue/green spectrum of the rainbow consists of shorter wavelengths, and these wavelengths can be filtered out by atmosphere, in much the same way that bass frequencies carry more easily between walls than higher frequencies do (which is why the neighbor doesn't need to turn down their music at night, just their bass, really, though most people don't realize this). So when there's plenty of atmosphere, only the red/orange light reflecting off the moon can filter through to our eyesight.

When farmers are burning the fields to make them fertile again, etc., there's more smoke (atmosphere) in the sky. That's why the blood-red moon is also called the "Harvest Moon". Of course, it should really be renamed the "Failure of Industrialism Moon" because that's what it is these days. You see a lot of Harvest Moonage in NYC, LA, and other large metropolitan areas, because all the emissions from congestion are creating more atmosphere and filtering out the blue/green light.

In short, the more red moons we see, the more pollution we are living amidst!

NOW: why does the moon appear to be so fucking HUGE somethings? This is a simple matter of perspective. The moon is always, to our eyesight, the same size. However, when it's up in the sky, we compare it to the field of the sky, which is quite vast. Therefore, the moon appears small and less significant, something we could easily blow up with nuclear missles to test our manhood as a species. On the other hand, when the moon is rising over the horizon, we may compare it to nearby buildings, trees, etc., which is why it appears berserkly huge at times.

And that, my friends, is your science for today. Please bear in mind the "Harvest Moon" should be differentiated from the "Blue Moon," which you see standing alone, and the "Poison Moon," which you laugh in the face of.

Today in Declining Birth Rates

Hey, two days after I posted my blog, look what All the News that's Fit to Print is reporting on!

Today in Finally Some Good News for the Obama Administration

Whoa, hey, the jobless rate finally DECLINED! In July! From 9.5% to 9.4%!

BREAK OUT THE CHAMPAGNE.

Certainly a sign that everything works perfectly in our system and that health care reform, cap and trade, and financial regulation are all completely unnecessary. I'm sure CNBC would agree with me.

Sorry We Have No Blog Today ♫

2009-08-06T13:37:00.000-07:00

Too much headache, too little time to comment. Real briefly:

Today in Health Care Reform

Paul Krugman catches some flak over criticizing Rasmussen Reports for underestimating public support for health care reform. Unfortunately, while Krugman is right 90% of the time, Rasmussen also is, and on this score, Rasmussen wins. It's one of the most accurate pollsters out there. And public support for health care reform is pretty low.

"John Boehner of Sector 2814. You have been chosen for your ability to instill great fear."

No Baby Boom, No Cry and other nonsense

2009-08-05T06:39:00.000-07:00

James Call: Expert returns to discuss all the latest issues, plus shit that's just plain pissing him off!

Today in Shamelessness

So apparently, some woman on the Taconic Parkway, Diane Schuler, got plastered on vodka and high on pot, and then got in her car, resulting in an accident that took the lives of her daughter, 3 of her nieces, and 3 other innocent people. The NY Daily News plastered a big ol' picture of Schuler on their front page, with the headline "HOW COULD SHE".

Now, one has to ask: if Schuler has any conscience at all, any shred of human feeling in her heart, won't she be living in a personal hell for the next many years? She should never have done what she did, and she should pay the legal price, but unless she's a complete sociopath, the crushing guilt of such an incident is going to be very apt punishment for what she's done.

Is it REALLY necessary for the Daily News to plaster her face on the front page of a paper that is read by millions of New Yorkers, and seen by millions more? Does that serve any productive fucking function? When there are SERIOUS issues afoot - health care reform, rising joblessness, the dangerous situation in Afghanistan - the Daily News is going to waste very expensive front page publication time lambasting some woman who has to live with her grief for the rest of her life anyways?!?!

The people who publish and edit the Daily News should be hacked to death by machetes.

Today in Malthusianism

Reader "Lindsey" asks:

It seems many folks I know are having a baby or have recently adopted a dog. Despite generalized frustration, depression and an economy in shambles, it seems affection is a currency in these-here harsh-times. Do you think that the current economic crisis will spawn a neo-baby boom? Are there any stats available about the current birth rate in the US, and if so, how does it compare to the post-war boom? What are your thoughts? additionally, do you foresee any dystopic/Swiftian implications with this possible neo-baby boom?

To answer, in brief: no, yes, favorably, I'll tell you, and no.

First off, the last recorded data point, around October 2008, indicates a very slight decline in the US fertility rate. After a "baby boomlet" in 2006-2007, births are down slightly. And bear in mind, that's nine months after February 2008, when the recession/depression was just in its first phase. It's continuing full steam ahead, so one would expect the birth rate to decline further.

Now, the poorly educated tend to have more children than the well educated, and we certainly have more jobless folks these days. But these are the newly poor: many are bright enough to use birth control, and in this country, most aren't mainline Catholics anyways. So I would not expect these newly poor to be cranking out the kids. On the contracy, I think the fertility rate will decline further, as people (wisely) decide not to have kids whom they cannot provide for.

Here's a pretty succinct article on the matter.

It's probably for the best that our national birth rate declines. First of all, this is mostly the white birth rate. Latinos and blacks will continue to have a higher fertility rate for the time being, which will level the social playing field a bit. Although, honestly, I'd go for everyone's fertility level declining: we do not need more children in this country. Part of what allows America to enjoy the opulence it does is that the individual American consumes a much larger portion of world's wealth than he/she generates. It's why we're hated across most of the globe, after all. And it's why we have such nice tennis shoes.

That being said, even if we were to experience a doubling in population, from roughly 300 billion to roughly 600 billion people, I still wouldn't worry. This is an incredibly affluent country, and we can take it. The problem is the division of the allocation of resources within the population, not the overall size of the population. The only dystopian effect I could envision is if unemployment hit something like 20% for several generations, leading to a rise in fertility amongst the immobile poor. That would lead to a Mexico-like situation, which nobody wants. But still, hardly an India-like situation.

Honestly, I expect the overall birthrate to decline. Few formerly middle class families are going to want to bring children into the world in this day and age. I could be wrong, but I'll put money on that.

Reality is more frightening than dystopia, of course...

Today in Super-Depressing Crap

MUUUUUUUUUUUUUCH more frightening, negative future-wise, is the slow decline of the American income standard. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, anyone? Read the article at the link. You'll be sad, er, glad you did.

Grant Morrison vs. Alan Moore and Republican Mobs vs. Civilized People

2009-08-04T07:30:00.000-07:00

James Call: Expert, having blown his "month of sobriety" pledge (after a week of sobriety) with drinks last night, is a bit hungover, and therefore will mostly be providing links and brief commentary today. But he's back on the wagon now, so expect more productivity soon!

Today in Very Good but Still Overestimated Comics Writers

You may have heard that Marvel Comics has acquired the rights to "Marvelman," a character made famous by Alan Moore's revisionist, dystopian run on the character in the 1980s in "Warrior" magazine. For those of you not in the know, Moore is the author of Watchmen, V for Vendetta, and From Hell, amongst other works, all of which are top-notch, and none of which have been made into especially good movies. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is in fact an actively terrible movie, although the comics are excellent.

As good as Moore's writing is, when discussing him, many comics fans tend to go a bit overboard, praising Moore as the One True God who can do no wrong, against whom all other comics writers "epically fail". Moore's definitely up there, but there a lot of great comics writers floating around: Dave Sim, Charles Burns, Robert Crumb, Joe Sacco, just to name a few.

Another great writer who is a tad overhyped is Grant Morrison, known for his work on the "X-Men," "Batman," and "Doom Patrol," as well as numerous independent projects: The Filth, We3, and more. Both Moore and Morrison consistently produce "hits". Four times out of five, reading a Moore or Morrison comic, especially a superhero comic, is going to be the equivalent of watching a good hollywood flick, like Die Hard or Back to the Future, and so forth.

Still, rarely is a comic from either writer going to change your life or broaden your intellectual horizons, unless you haven't read ANY literature whatsoever. Every "big concept" that Moore and Morrison touch on have been done to death by authors of books you were assigned in high school, or at least college, long before. Still: judging by a lot of comics fans' praise of the two writers, said fans haven't been doing a lot of fancy book larnin'.

Given the excessive level of praise for the two writers, I therefore find it highly amusing to read a young Grant Morrison rip Alan Moore a new asshole.

Today in Health Care Reform

Well, it's August recess time, so it's time for the GOP to hit the campaign trail and just constantly tear into health reform, screaming "socialism," while Democrats in turn tear into insurance companies, which should be good tit-for-tat.

Except Democrats play nice and Republicans play dirty, so don't expect this to be an even brawl. The chief GOP tactic? Mobs! Bring disruptive little mobs to town hall meetings where Dem legislators are trying to explain health care reform, and ruin them by just screaming the whole time. It worked during the 2000 recount down in Florida, where screaming mobs intimidated the recounters... why not use this tactic to ruin health care reform?

It's gonna be a long, and shitty, 5 weeks.

Sir Thomas More and Ollie Cromwell

2009-08-03T08:57:00.000-07:00

James Call: Expert here, fighting his window-less office headache with another round of questions from our readers!

Today in Whether Corporations Are Good, Neutral, or Evil

I wanted to just quickly follow up on Geoff's question because I didn't get to over the weekend.

In a nutshell: corporations are driven by the profit motive. They are indifferent to the greater good, and thus often create negative externalities, including pollution, products that cause obesity, etc. However, corporations that manufacture goods have two conflicting interests: they want to lower wage costs, on the one hand, which lower the purchasing power of the consumer (never forget that the worker = the consumer! Most Americans seem to, for some reason...), and yet, at the same time, they want to raise the purchasing power of the consumer, so they can consume more (and more expensive) goods!

This has led in large part to the growth of debtor culture in our country, wherein people live off their mortgages, credit cards, etc., while high-paying jobs are destroyed and/or replaced by lower-paying jobs overseas. This allows for a high consumption rate and a low wage policy...

...until, of course, the house of cards collapse, and we're left here. One would think that saavy corporations of the future would push for a 1940s-1970s scenario, with higher union membership (and thus higher wages/benefits), to recreate a solid consumer culture. But, of course, corporate thinking can be as entrenched as any other kind of thinking - for instance, is it rock and roll without sex and drugs? - and therefore, I wouldn't expect this change overnight.

Still, corporations CAN be made into productive, if not "good" entities. And I'd certainly argue that corporations can do what saintly "small business" cannot. I'd rather shop at a Barnes and Noble than most smaller bookstores, I have to admit. And I'd rather buy my soap from whomever makes Ivory or Dove than rely on some boutique, ne c'est pas?

However, financial institutions do not necessarily provide a productive function. They provide a speculative function. If they can be made to bet conservatively, then they greatly aid productive corporations, but if they engage in destructive speculation, then there's no other way to put it: they are BAD.

A big step towards making them behave better might be the reinstitution of the Glass-Stegall act, or something like it. More on that if you kids would like to hear.

And as always, I hope you're reading your Paul Krugman.

Today in Oliver Cromwell and Sir Thomas More

Reader "Damian" asks the following question: "It's not really a question... I just want you to explain to me Oliver Cromwell and how he relates to the other cromwell in the movie 'man for all seasons' about Thomas More, are they related?"

They are NOT related. I forget who the Cromwell in Man for All Seasons is, but Sir Thomas More was a contemporary of Henry VIII (you know, the fat man with all the wives, who started his own fucking church because the Pope wouldn't give him a divorce), and Oliver Cromwell was of course the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth, who overthrew Charles I, monarch #4 after Henry VIII.

Thomas More wrote "Utopia" and was a big ol' Catholic, and this led to problems for him. The Pope would not annul Henry VIII's marriage to Catherine of Aragorn (Henry wanted a male heir which Catherine could not produce, and he was always nailing other chicks, too), because the Pope was being held hostage (true!) by Charles/Carlos V of the Hapsburgs, who was kinda the man at the time - he controlled Spain and Austria, and let's not forget that this was back when Spain was at the height of its New World power - and Catherine was Carlos' aunt.

So Henry was like "F this!" and, after being excommunicated, made it the law of the land that Catholicism, in England, was OUT, and Anglicanism, which is just like Catholicism except lame*, was IN. But Sir Thomas More was a true believer, and so, boom, off with his head. Probably served him right for being a hater against England's Protestants, pre-Henry's excommunication.

By the way, Sir Thomas More and Martin Luther's letters to each other are hella vulgar and LOL-worthy and some dude or gal put 'em on wikipedia, so check 'em out.

* a note: Anglicanism these days is amongst the more benign organized branches of Christianity, so much so that many very conservative African congregations are weighing whether or not to cut themselves off from the Church of England. But it is still lame because what's the point of Catholicism without a Pope? oh well...

Oliver Cromwell was a much more imposing figure. Roughly 100 years after More's time. Cromwell was basically a military guy and a member of Parliament when Parliament got in a spat with Charles I over its prerogatives. Charles was like, "Shut up, I'm the king, leave me along, see you in 11 years," and Parliament grew some cojones and rounded up their own army which took it to Charles, resulting in his execution. This is how the Commonwealth of England was born (not the same as today's Commonwealth, which includes Canadians).

The Parliament ruled for a little bit while Cromwell went and just killed the beejeezus out of folks in Ireland, which was still Catholic (oops) even when the rest of England had Anglicanized it up, and was harboring the exiled royalists. While Cromwell was gone, Parliament dicked around as parliaments are wont to do, and when Cromwell get back, he shut the place down by force, and the Protectorate came to be, with Cromwell declared Lord Protector... for LIFE! He had more power than Charles I ever had.

Thankfully, he eventually died, and his son Richard lost power so quickly they called him "Tumbledown Dick". And then the monarchy came back, under Charles II, but this was a much more mellow monarchy, with Parliament being an almost-equal member of government, so I suppose just like you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, you probably can't make a model for American Representative Democracy without an Irish Genocide or two.

Corporations: Like an Angry Dog, Useful But Best Watched

2009-07-31T09:53:00.000-07:00

Reader "Geoff" writes an excellent question that more or less stumps the "expert" today.

Been reading through your blog, must say I'm a fan! Here's my questions:

Especially during the recession, we keep hearing how awful large corporations are, and how their recklessness and greed has brought unspeakable harm to taxpayers. From finance to the auto industry, even the food industry, everyone seems to be in it for a buck at the expense ... Read Moreof everyone else. Are there any rays of corporate hope out there? Any large, for profit companies who have maintained business ethics, remained transparent when dealing with consumers and have generally not been evil? Or is capitalism really this bad...

Well, ok. It is the way of James Call: Expert to smarmily summarize the answers to questions about which a lot can be written. So I'm going to do just that.

In terms of our current crisis, which is a big one, the truth is that most corporations are actually just fine. Or rather, no worse than usual. Corporations, after all, allow economies of scale that tend to raise our standard of living and employ buttloads of people.

I would argue, and many Keynesians and socialists would as well, that our severely crippled Labor situation in this country is the big problem, NOT the size and scope of corporations per se.

One needs to distinguish between Finance and Industry. Finance has been out of control, and is the "villain" of our current times. People tend to get up in arms and conflate auto manufacturers, for example, with big finance. The two are extremely different. Big Auto actually manufactures a product that is sold on the market. Maybe it doesn't do so very well, and maybe we should be relying on mass transit instead of the automobile now that it's the 21st century for fuck's sake, but still, until the government steps up and invests seriously in mass transit on a national scale, which it seems to lack the will to do, we're still going to need cars. Therefore, the auto manufacturers are making something we need. And employing people at pretty decent wages to do so. I'd consider the Big 3 auto manufacturers, as flawed as they are, "useful" and even "not evil".

Not so much Finance. Of course, without loans from banks business couldn't run. But Finance has been involved in a series of escalating shell games for decades now, essentially one financial institution at a time combining assorted loans and selling them to OTHER financial institutions, and claiming a profit. They aren't actually -producing- anything, they're just shuffling loans around.

And they're also -mixing loans up-, so that the good cannot be distinguished from the bad. So now ALL the major financial institutions essentially have money in every aspect of the economy, rather than having more limited portfolios. This is why institutions become "too big to fail".

So the challenge of our times to is to make financial institutions, moreso than other corporate entities, specifically: 1.) More transparent, and 2.) Smaller, so that when they fail, they don't pull down the whole fucking economy with them.

I could go on, but honestly, there's a much better source for easy-to-understand financial and economic analysis on the internet, and it's The Baseline Scenario, which I read daily, and has great introductory articles on how modern finance, and our economy as a whole, works. Still, in a nutshell: regardless of the very-difficult-to-follow complexities of finance, it all kind of boils down to a shell game and a ponzi scheme played with the entire economy as the stakes.

Finance used to be fine when it was regulated, and the government explicitly forbid severe gambling with the lifeblood of the economy. I can get into this further, later, if you'd like... I'm trying to keep this short and simple.

One last point on finance: It used to be a much smaller portion of our overall economy. Financial earnings in 2007 constituted 40% of GDP, I believe, but don't quote me on that. Used to be in the ballpark of 10-15% back in the 50s-70s.

As for whether corporations are evil, in general? I'd have to say that the corporation is geared towards maximizing profits for the shareholders, and that social concerns, externalities, etc., simply don't matter to the corporation, and that is why the government must IMPOSE such considerations on large corporations. This seems to be true across the board. I'm flummoxed to think of an example where this is not the case.

That's not to say that Google, General Motors, General Electric, Lockheed Martin, etc., can't be useful. It is to say, however, that whether or not they're Good for Society is of no concern to the shareholders, and that's why they have to be closely watched, and swatted down upon occasion.

Even a worker-owned company like Saturn (which I wish I knew more about, honestly) still produces cars, which may not be in the best long-term interests of society, right?

I'm rambling at this point. It's an excellent question and I wish I had a more concrete answer. If you take away anything from this blog post, make it this: at this point in time, the corporations that make your cars and computers, despite the sheer amount of oil they consume, or the companies that manufacture your tennis shoes, despite the child labor they may be employing, are less destructive to the world than Finance, which has us all by the nuts and really seems to care not one jot.

My Top 5 Congresspeople, and Luthor vs. Cheney vs. Corleone

2009-07-30T08:18:00.000-07:00

Welcome back to James Call: Expert, where today we have some questions! Again from reader "Damian". Who is this mysterious seeker of knowledge???

Who are your top 5 congresspeople?

What a good question! It's pretty easy to answer this one right off the top of my head.

1. Representative Barney Frank

Barney Frank is just fucking AWESOME. He is, without question, one of the funniest dudes in the legislature, period. He has made numerous guest appearances on Fox News, where he gives those fuckers better than he gets. He is loud, brash, consistently funny, and openly gay, with a "Yeah I'm fucking gay, deal with it assholes!!!" attitude, which is, to my heterosexual ears, the best way to go about it. Not only that, he's very progressive from your average American standpoint on fiscal regulation. He gives a bit politically, but he seems to know who the bad guys are and how to corral them up. Along with Sen. Chris Dodd (not one of my faves, but still, not bad), he has produced fairly progressive, strong, proposals for regulation of the financial sector, which have, of course, been watered down by the Obama administration. :(

Conclusion: Barney Frank is like the gay Guy Gardner of Congress. He's funnier than a good number of stand-up comics, and in fact, if he had a stand-up routine, I think I would pay up to $50 to see that shit.

2. Representative Dennis Kucinich

Dennis Kucinich is Our Hero, the only Real progressive in a sea of phonies. Bill Clinton declared the party of FDR dead a long time ago, but Kucinich didn't seem to get the memo. It's easy to figure out what's wrong in American politics, but rarely do we hear articulated what is right. The media decided early on that Kucinich was not a viable Presidential candidate, but go back and watch the primary debates from the past 2 elections and ask yourself which candidate you'd vote for, which one is saying the right thing. Obama may be the official Hope candidate, but Kucinich really is the candidate of someone who wants this country to be the Best it can be, to stand up for liberty and justice for all. To stand up for the working man. Sounds corny, but it's true. It's too bad he's written off without a hearing.

OH, plus, his wife is steaming hot, and like 6 foot something. Whereas Dennis is this real small eccentric. Gives us single idealist males hope for the future.

Conclusion: Kucinich represents the best strand of American political thought, and so therefore, naturally, nobody listens to him.

3. Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi is not without the taint of corruption, just like all powerful politicians are. However, she's on our side, and she DOESN'T PUT UP WITH SHIT. While Harry Reid putters around in the Senate, Nancy gets her way every damn time. She is also happy to play the bad guy, which is refreshing, since President Obama (understandably, perhaps) isn't. We'll see how health care reform, cap and trade, and all the other major issues shake down, but if it wasn't for Pelosi, a strong progressive option might not even be on the table.

Recently, Cindy Sheehan, who was an awesome demonstrator and hero of sorts during the Bush years, ran against Pelosi out in California. Look, it's understandable from a purist liberal viewpoint why one would object to Majordomo Pelosi and go with Sheehan, or someone more "clean". But come on, she's a fucking warhammer, and she's on our side on the major issues. I'd never vote for Sheehan over Pelosi, much like I'd never launch a Senatorial campaign against this guy...

4. Senator Chuck Fucking Schumer

Schumer unseated D'Amato, who was a fairly notorious and powerful Republican pig, out here in New York about a decade ago, and he's kicked ass ever since, the Machiavellian way. Naturally he's largely in the pocket of the hedge funds, which is, of course, very depressing. But he has positioned himself, as LBJ did, as the only man who can tell powerful interests how it's going to be, because after all, he is their defender. He represents Wall St. in the Senate, but he's also consistently for notably stronger regulation of finance, to a pretty surprising extent given his financial backing. And when he talks, finance has to listen. He's a strongman and he's got that evil look on his face that makes you think ice runs through his veins and that he wrestles snakes for fun. My kinda guy.

Conclusion: Pelosi and Schumer aren't saints, far from it. But they're badasses who don't put up with any bullshit, typically very canny legislators, and they're on our side. I'd hate to run into either of 'em in an alley.

Senator Bernie Sanders

Finally, I have to go with Bernie Sanders, who is a fucking SOCIALIST. And OUT socialist. Forget being gay, that's like calling yourself a communist!!! He is an independent from Vermont who caucases with the Dems, but in the end analysis, he's a socialist. That's even better than Kucinich! His AFL-CIO rating is 100%, which is a very good thing.

Conclusion: Vermont is the best state in the union.

Who would win in a fight: Lex Luthor, Dick Cheney, or Michael Corleone?

WOW! What a battle. This is a real tough one, so let's assess each of the participants.

Lex Luthor

Luthor is a genius inventor and a very wily schemer. He has no problem acquiring a bunch of kryponite or even inventing a kryptonite variant of his own, fusing it into some insane battle armor, and going toe-to-toe with Superman or Darkseid or any other insanely powerful beings, yet at the same time, he prefers to destroy his foes through intrigue and wiles.

Still, his ego is his downfall. Luthor, like Doctor Doom and plenty of other villains we can name, wants to concieve THE most treacherous plot imaginable. He wouldn't just walk into a room and shoot Superman dead. No, he'd have to dangle his superiority in front of his victim and gloat for a bit first, leading his plots to become unnecessarily weighed down by convolutions, and thus, vulnerable to exingencies. This is why he's bested time and time again, despite often having basically insurmountable advantages.

Dick Cheney

Dick Cheney, moreso than Luthor and just as much as Corleone, is willing to bide his time for DECADES to attain his goals. He simply never goes away and never loses sight of his ultimate objectives. And he has a big leg up over any opponents by allying himself with the most powerful facet of modern society - the military/industrial complex. By being on this side of history, he guarantees himself rock-solid support and far more resources than his opponents. Further, he is a saavy wielder of these resources. And his moral clarity and total lack of insight allow him to sleep at night while preparing torture plans during office hours.

Still, Cheney has one critical, Machiavellian weakness: he does not make himself beloved by the public. It must be said he is a plain-dealing villain. The public perception of heroism, which Luthor often has, is a huge boost to the schemer, who is able to operate in the night so much more effectively than someone who actively inspires distrust, as Cheney does, and who seems to actually revel in it. Because of his outwardly evil persona, there will ALWAYS be someone watching Dick Cheney, which limits his operations considerably.

Michael Corleone

Finally, we come to Michael Corleone, a man who took up the mantle of his father and brought himself, without tears, to a position totally unlike himself, never once looking back. Willing to kill his own brother in cold blood. A man to whom no-one can ever truly be close. Willing to expand his business and his empire using conventions that the old guard would consider shameful, off-limits. And yet, not a man who makes a scene. Corleone tends to pick battles he knows he will win, and he doesn't yap off about it or need public victories to satiate his ego. He walks softly and carries a big stick.

He also eliminates his enemies all at once, not piecemeal.

And that is why MICHAEL CORLEONE is the winner of this epic battle. Because the schemes of Luthor are too convoluted, and the schemes of Cheney are not well-hidden. But Corleone's hand cannot be seen in his actions, and his has no ego to satiate; his ego was killed with his soul years ago, when he adopted his father's role (much to his father's dismay, sadly, which is why the Godfather is such a great flick).

Still: what a fucking battle!!!

Where's Ya Plan At?!? and Sally Floyd

2009-07-29T07:40:00.000-07:00

Welcome back to James Call: Expert!

Today in Health Care Reform

Well, since Baucus still hasn't moved his plan out of the Finance Committee, even though everyone knows what's in it, more or less, Pelosi and Hoyer in the House have decided that -they- can't move -their- bill, and might not do so before the August recess.

That's going to mean the Dems will have no plan to hype during the August recess, whereas the GOP will be able to spend extra time railing against "socialism," and folks, they're ahead in the polls...

More predictably great writing by Nate Silver on the subject today, definitely a "Must Skim" even if you don't want to read the whole thing, and I also strongly encourage you check out David Leonhart's article in the NY Times on why we have to tax health benefits is also revealing, although I don't see why we don't just -mandate- a fee-for-results rather than fee-for-service system (which is what we have now, wherein doctors prescribe expensive and often pointless treatments in order to rake in the scrilla, as opposed to earning money for actually fixing people's health).

Reading about health care reform everyday makes me nauseous.

Today In Housing Figures

Apparently the decline in housing costs is ending. Could be illusory, though. This is probably good for the economy, although the housing bubble was a big part of what got us in this mess in the first place, so...

Today in Comic Books

Reader "Damian" asks "Hey what the hell ever happened to Sally Floyd?"

Sally Floyd was this alcoholic chick reporter who had had a miscarriage who debuted in this "Decimation" mini-series, in which she interviews mutants who have lost their superpowers as a result of "M-Day" (wherein mutants lost their superpowers. You can google it. It was big shit.).

She was a fairly relatable protagonist at the time, but unfortunately her next appearance was in the severe hit or severe miss "Civil War: Front Line," in which Sally accosts Captain America, who was leading the resistance against a Patriot Act-like "Superhero Registration Act," for being out of touch with America by not having a myspace, and not supporting Bushism, essentially.

Paul Jenkins, who scripted this scene, got a lot of flack for Sally's extremely vacuous argument, although honestly, I found her vacuuity alarmingly similar to much of what I hear from my fellow Americans, and therefore, not unrealistic. Still, it did make the character look (cue Larry David voice) pretty, pretty, pretty stupid.

Next, Sally popped up as a reporter at the Front Line newspaper, which veteran Daily Bugle ex-reporter Ben Urich (the feller who figured out that Daredevil was Matt Murdoch, back in the day) founded in opposition to Dexter Bennett's The DB! (which took over from J. Jonah Jameson's Daily Bugle). Or maybe he founded it in response to some anti-Spider Man editorial of JJJ's... I can't remember, and it really doesn't matter. The point is, Front Line is the Marvel equivalent of the Village Voice, I guess, with The DB! being more like the NY Post.

And that's what Sally Floyd is up to. I can't remember if she's working on anything specifically herself these days, and really, who cares?

Sally Floyd is still, as far as I know, hungover.

More Shitty Health Care News and the Metal Men

2009-07-28T06:20:00.001-07:00

Welcome back to James Call: Expert. For the record, I'm not really an expert in anything, just a cranky guy with the NY Times and a blog. Rock on!

Today In Health Care Reform

SUMMARY: The Baucus health care bill sucks and is a political loser.

Well, looks like Max Baucus moved the Senate bill out of the Finance Committee, so we know what it will look like.

It should cost less than $1 trillion, but it includes no public plan and no mandate for employers to purchase health insurance for their employees. It DOES, however, provide an individual mandate, so that you, the consumer, have to buy health insurance. And some, but not all, employers are required to offer subsidies to you to help you buy your health insurance: but only up to 300% of the poverty level, or $32,490.

In other words, if you're earning more than $32,490 a year, you won't get a dime to buy health insurance, oh, and by the way, there's no public plan, meaning no cheap alternative to the private plans floating around. So if you're like most people, earning around $50k a year, you now -have- to buy health insurance, but it's not going to be any cheaper than it is today.

Oh and hey, by the way, with the employer mandate not present but subsidies now offered, a lot of employers are going to drop their traditional insurance plans.

This bill sucks donkey dick, and is estimated to cover only 16 million uninsured.

Now throw the public option and employer mandate back in, and the total cost of the bill comes to about $1.024 trillion. However, it now covers 37 million uninsured. But of course, you're now over the mystical 1 trillion USD price point.

Funny how these "bipartisan" assholes didn't worry about the 1.3 trillion USD pricetag for the Bush tax cuts, which generated a miniscule amount of economic activity (about 30 cents to the dollar).

Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer aren't getting the House plan out there this week. But when they do (next week?) they better damn well have a public plan and an employer mandate in there.

Dems are placing a losing bet on bipartisanship, given that the result of bipartisanship is something like the Baucus bill. Good ol' Nate Silver puts it pretty damn well:

** Just to underscore this point: when it scored a similar bill, the CBO estimated that 15 million people would lose their employer-provided coverage. Most of these people are likely to be lower-to-middle income persons with somewhat tenuous employment situations, a group that tends classically to be swing voters.

Now, how are those 15 million people going to feel about health care reform when they find out that:

a) Although the bill was supposed to guarantee access to health insurance, they've in fact lost theirs;
b) They're required to buy an expensive, private plan on their own, or to pay a fine;
c) They're probably not getting any government assistance;
d) They certainly don't have any Medicare-like alternative to fall back upon;
e) All of this cost the country about $1 trillion dollars.

You think those 15 million people are going to vote for the Democrats again, like, ever?

Today In the Taliban Kicking Our Ass

Here's why the Taliban is kicking our ass. From the NY Times front page. Emphasis mine.

"About four dozen landlords [from the Swat valley in Pakistan, scene of recent heavy fighting] were singled out over the past two years by [Taliban] militants in a strategy intended to foment a class struggle. In some areas, the Taliban rewarded the landless peasants with profits of the crops of the landlords. Some resentful peasants even signed up as the Taliban's shock troops."

Don't fight a land war AND a class war in Asia, folks.

Today in My Foot

There's something wrong with my foot. I think I may need a new pair of business shoes. It's all sore on one side. I sort of think I should soak my feet in warm water at night, except my mom used to do that and I think that would be kind of weird. I also had blisters up the wazoo this weekend, but then, I did a lot of walking.

Today in Last Night's Dreams

More violent nightmares, this time involving a snake that I had to capture. One of my ex-girlfriends was there. Other details hazy.

Today In Comic Books

To get the taste of Zero Hour out of my mouth, I went back and read some of the "Showcase Presents: The Metal Men" book which I still haven't finished, but which totally rocks.

Marvel and DC have published a lot of these "Essential" and "Showcase" volumes, affordable black and white reprints of comics from the Silver Age (the late 50s through the 60s) with more than 20 comics in one volume for less than $20. This is a great deal for completists and nerds.

It has to be said, the Marvel Essentials hold up a lot better over time. Some are completely pointless - don't waste your money on Essential Ms. Marvel; Ms. Marvel has always been boring and pointless - but many of them are actually borderline-essential for the comic book reader. Kirby's Fantastic Four, Ditko's Spider Man and Dr. Strange, and Claremont's X-Men spring to mind. Lots of other good ones, too.

DC's Showcase editions are far more ridiculous. Try reading the Showcase Superman, Green Lantern, or Flash. Try it. I dare you. That shit was just completely ridiculous. These characters have all been revamped to be "serious," but while you can take Spider Man vs. Doctor Octopus somewhat seriously, there is no way in hell you can take the Flash vs. Killer Cloud seriously. Or Superman flying around with a lion's head instead of a human head. Try it.

Of course, some of the fun is in the total absurdity of these early Silver Age comics, but I digress.

The Metal Men Showcase edition is a different deal. Metal Men isn't really a superhero comic. It's a sitcom starting a bunch of robots (the Metal Men) with faulty "responsometers" built by the sexist Dr. Will Magnus. They do fight bad guys, but the point of the comic is in the interaction between the characters, especially Platinum, aka Tina, and Dr. Magnus.

See, Tina has a faulty responsometer and thinks she's a real girl, and Dr. Magnus knows she's "just a crazy robot who thinks she's a woman!" But Tina is always cooking him dinner, and crying, and doing other traditional hypersensitive-woman stuff that just drives Dr. Magnus nuts. And Dr. Magnus (who smokes a pipe, like a Real Man) in turn talks to Tina like men of that era talked to women, i.e., in a meanspirited and demeaning manner. But sometimes he does slip up and call Tina a woman (not a robot) and despite his sexist and anti-robot attitude, he does have a tender spot for her, and always rebuilds her with a "faulty" responsometer whenever she melts down fighting a giant robot or creature made of living chemicals, etc. Needless to say: comedy ensues.

While those two are the star of the show, there's also plenty of yuks from the mercurial (ha ha ha) Mercury, who's convinced he's better than the other Metal Men, and the insecure Tin, who is, in classic corny Hollywood fashion, far braver than he acts.

The linework, by Ross Andru, is great - the Metal Men are very expressive, moreso, I'd say, than characters drawn by Gil Kane or Ditko or Kirby or any of the biggies. And since it's pretty damn hard to take the concept of the Metal Men seriously from the get-go, it's much easier to enjoy the whole shtick, whereas those other old superheroes are supposed to be noble, actual heroes, in some regard.

Definitely worth your $15, but impossible (and unnecessary) to read in one sitting, as there is no over-arching story arc, just a bunch of Tina trying to get Dr. Magnus to take her out on a date, and Mercury bitching about the other Metal Men. OH, and giant robots from other planets.

Today's Recommended Download

"Requiem for Adam" by Terry Riley. Scary stuff! But interesting to listen to.

UPDATE: Today in People Are Fucking Illiterates

Just read this. It's only 3 paragraphs long.

A Brand New Day for James Call Expert (BND for JCE)

2009-07-27T06:09:00.000-07:00

Wow! It's been a long time since I updated this thing, and tried switching to the podcast format, which was difficult to keep up with week after week, especially with only a handful of devoted and lovely listeners. Being stuck in the toil and drudgery of this office, I'm going back to the blog, and hopefully I'll be keeping this sunnovabitch updated daily.

The format's going to be a little different: y'all can email me questions which I will comment on, but if I don't get any questions, I'm going to plow ahead with a few default categories.

Today In Healthcare Reform

SUMMARY: People incorrectly think that the government is going to take over their individual health care, and that it's going to cost a lot of money. Both points are wrong, but that's the new conventional wisdom, and that's why health care reform is most likely doomed.

There isn't actually any new news today, Monday July 27, but in terms of "current affairs," as it were, I think you can mark healthcare reform as either "completely doomed" or "severely fucked".

Nate Silver at Five Thirty Eight thinks the August recess may actually provide a cooling down period for the news cycle, allowing it to shift to some other topic (maybe another slieugh of celebrity deaths, hopefully) and for the "the government is going to take over your healthcare" meme to die out. But as smart as Mr. Silver is, I think he may be suffering from Hopeful Democrat Syndrome, which afflicts all of us from time to time, and may be overestimating the intelligence of the American Public.

Health care reform was favored by a majority of Americans, but now, according to Rasmussen Reports (tied with Quinnipac as the nation's most reliable pollster), a narrow majority opposes health care reform, for the classic (incorrect) reason: that the government is going to "take over" health care, and take away your insurance (provided you have it, which fewer and fewer people do each year). It is irrational, but the power of Fear is greater than the power of Hope.

Let's get one thing straight: the only thing the Public Option will do for you is
lower your health care costs. It's a government-run program that competes with private plans. Your health insurance, if you have it, is not going to be "taken" from you. However, if the public plan, comparatively, kicks fucking ass compared to your expensive private insurance plan, then you might indeed switch over to the public option. And if enough people switch, that might mean the end of your insurance company.

And you know what? Fuck your insurance company.

If your insurance company wants to shape up and insure the sick as well as the healthy, and charge you a cheaper premium, well then, great. Good for them. If they're incapable of offering a better deal than the government, though, one has to ask: do they deserve to live? Isn't the spirit of capitalism that the weak and inefficient die out?

Another fallacy that's floating around and gaining credence - in fact, this is the dominant belief, even amongst seemingly intelligent people (who need to read a bit fucking more... if you have a spare half hour a day and an internet connection, the NY Times is online for FREE) - is that health care reform is really, really expensive: more expensive than doing nothing. It's going to lead to higher taxes, and, well, nobody wants that.

TRUE, except that right now your business is most likely paying for your health care. And because your business is paying for that, it is NOT giving you that money in the form of raises. Instead, you're getting health insurance. So: lift that burden from business by offering a public plan, and your business now has extra money to raise your salary. You pay more taxes, but you earn more money, as well.

Of course, really, the rich need to pay more taxes than the middle class for this to work. This, again, is anathema to a lot of folks, who fail to realize that the rich, especially the ultra-rich, are a pernicious class who should be taxed on general principle, the principle being to stop them from using their money to perpetuate a perenially stratified society. But I digress...

One benefit to the wage-tax (price) spiral outlined in the scenario above is that it is inflationary - just what the doctor ordered given our current deflationary spiral. That's another huge fallacy that's floating around and seems to have credence these days: that inflation is a huge threat. Inflation is the LAST thing we need to be worried about right now. The precise opposite is true: deflation is out of control, as people purchase fewer things, businesses have less money, which leads to them cutting jobs and wages, which leads to fewer purchases, etc.

Alright, I've already rambled on enough. The point is: Kent Conrad and Max Baucus, and the Blue Dog/"moderate" Democrat Senators in general, are your new enemies, for life, and they are the problems, not Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, no matter what the assorted dipshits of the world might tell you.

Today In Obscure Comic Books You Really Don't Have to Read

Other than Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Uncle Scrooge, I didn't really read comic books as a kid (comic strips, that's a different story). I actually got into the habit of reading Marvel comics in my early/mid-20s, aided by the notorious Dr. Damian Lanahan-Kalish. It all started innocently enough, with Brian Michael Bendis' Daredevil and a little X-Men on the side, but years later, my habit is totally out of control, as I read around 15 comics weekly, mostly stuff from Marvel (Spider-Man, the X-Men, the Hulk, etc.) and DC (Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, etc.).

It's part of hipster nerd catchet to read comics, so I can do so without any outward shame, but one does have to have to draw the line somewhere, and one's knowledge of "continuity" can only go so far before one has to recognize that one has a problem. "Continuity," in comic book lingo, refers in essence to the minutiae of where a comic book character is at any point in time, what their status is, whether they're good or evil, still going by Green Latnern or perhaps Warrior, etc.

I think I've reached my personal line in the sand with DC's now out-of-continuity but once-upon-a-time-very-important "Zero Hour".

I have almost Zero positive things to say about Zero Hour, but let me synopsize.

The whole thing starts at at Vanishing Point, which is a physical space station-esque facility at the literal end of time. Time doesn't move there (somehow). That part of the story is fine - Vanishing Point is a totally valid, cool, sci fi concept. It doesn't even matter that Rip Hunter (or some other dude named Hunter?) has been done up to look EXACTLY like Cable, who, you will see if you google, is one of the most ridiculous comic book characters of all time, or that the other protagonist present is the completely forgettable Waverider, who can ride the waves of time but still manages to never know what the hell is going on.

It's when you find out who the first villain of the piece is that the story begins to diminish in value in terms of how you, the reader, are spending your time. That villain would be Extant, who is - get this - a combination of one form of Waverider, plus the heros Hawk and Dove, but not normal, mainline Hawk, but a Hawk who knows that in the future he will become the villain Monarch, and seems just, uh, totally OK with that prospect.

Have you ever heard of Hawk and Dove? No, right? Or if you have at least heard of them, do you give two shits about them? I'm gonna guess "no" again, right? Then why in God's name would you care about a villain who is the combined, future form of both these characters? Unless you were, of course, given one, by cohesive writing. But Zero Hour doesn't bother with trivialities such as "establishing character" or "contextualizing story elements for the reader". Nope, it just plunges full steam ahead, as Extant begins destroying time, for some reason - both the past, and the future.

Of course, Extant isn't the REAL big baddie. That would be Hal Jordan in his Parallax guise. Hal Jordan, formerly Green Lantern, has gone all hella evil, and now exists in a somewhat Evil God-like state. But hey, check it out, he wants to atone for what he's done in the past by destroying the universe and recreating it as a kind of paradise. For this, he needs Extant (reason unclear).

He actually succeeds in the Destroying the Universe part of his plan, but then who shows up to stop him but Superman, Green Arrow, Green Lantern, etc.: the Good Guys. But hey, get this... the Good Guys are trying to STOP Parallax. He's already destroyed the freakin' universe, but Superman puts his foot down: "No, Jordan!!! You can't play God!!! You're not God!!!"

Hey Superman: THE UNIVERSE IS FREAKIN' DESTROYED. Hal Jordan here wants to at the vert least create -a- universe. Wouldn't that be nice? And he has the power to create one without genocides, without war, without every unnecessary death and ounce of suffering that's even gone down. But in your book, that's Wrong. Because Good Guys Don't Play God.

It is the ultimate expression of soppy, moralistic, DC superhero writing, and a big part of the reason why there are just as many Punisher and Wolverine fans as there are Superman fans these days. LET HIM RECREATE THE DAMN UNIVERSE, SUPES. Please.

Anyways, needless to say, Parallax gets taken down, and then something happens - can't remember what, and who cares - and the universe gets recreated. Mind you, before he's taken down it's quite unclear that this is at all possible. At the end of the day, everything goes back to normal, with a few small exceptions, which are now completely irrelevant, as two later Reality Altering events have occurred ("Infinite Crisis" and "Final Crisis"), rendering "Zero Hour" moot.

Oh, and the Spectre and Metron are involved.

My conclusion: don't read this, even if you're a continuity obsessed nerd, like I am. It just doesn't matter at this point to any of the characters involved, it makes little to no sense, all the characters are written in a vaguely irritating and absolutely unlikeable manner, and they dressed Rip Hunter up to look like fuckin' CABLE.

For a much more gratifying Pathetic Nerd experience, read this article on Legend of Zelda continuity.

Today's Recommended Download

Make sure you have a copy of "Chase Me" by Confunkshun in your music collection. Might I also recommend, also by the woefully underrated Confunkshun, "Ffun" and "Got to be Enough". I even have a soft spot for the incredibly syrupy "Love's Train".

Today In Last Night's Dreams

Last night I had totally crazy dreams. It started out with my looking for a new apartment, I'm pretty sure, in this mythical part of town that's supposed to be Oakland, I guess? Except it looks nothing like Oakland. In any event, I can't remember most of the dream, except that at one point the Black Widow (a Marvel character) died an especially gruesome death, eviscerated by a madman with a butcher knife. I saw the whole thing in real time, and woke up sweating and horrified.

Good Time to Buy Property?

2008-10-10T09:41:00.000-07:00

James Call: Expert. Smart! Sassy! Government employed!

Reader "Mandy" asks: Should poor people like myself start investing in property now that prices are down? Or is now the worst time to apply for a loan?

In a word, nope. Don't invest yet. Home prices have not hit bottom. They should be hitting total rock bottom most likely in 6 months. The question is, will you have a job in 6 months? Maybe if these central banks get their shit together this weekend and the TED spread narrows, businesses will stay afloat. But don't count on having a job 6 months from now if you're working in a non-essential business sector.

However, yeah, soon... 3-9 months from now... good time to invest in home prices if you got that sort of money. ESPECIALLY in places like the suburbs of LA or the Bay Area, parts of Boston, etc. Those property values eventually will rise again. Don't bother with Podunk nowhere exurbs in Missouri. We're not likely to see a return to full value for those properties until inflation causes literally every commodity and property to rise in value.

As for applying for a loan... I'm not sure you're going to get a loan. Banks are loathe to lend to each OTHER, let alone you. If your credit is top notch and your income is considerable, go for it, but like I said, wait a few months.

This is a fantastic time to invest in oil, though! That will go straight back up as soon as this credit crisis begins to resolve. Far quicker than real estate.

RECOMMENDED READING: I would stay away from most conventional investment magazines and websites for the time being. They helped get us into this mess. Stick with the economist, the NY Times, the WSJ, more clinical sources. Check out the "Naked Capitalism" blog and follow the links around.

Turkic is a language group

2008-10-10T09:31:00.000-07:00

Reader "Alex" comments:

Turkic is basically a language group, not an ehthicity - thouhg mnay groups are ethnically close as well, of course.. an unreltaed but culturally intersting note: took Aidan to the nearby park to play baseball.. local Kurds ( large population in nashville, since we're so close to Kirkuk) were having their post-ramadan Eid feast/party/pinic.. a group of 30-40 year-oldish men set out a nice rug on the grass and sat, crossed-legged and played some sort of vicious gambling game , with much earnest and loud discussion... all we needed were a winged Bulls and some water-wheels, et voila! Kurdistan!

True true. That's because the "Turks" who come out of the Caucasus quickly interbreed with the assorted groups they subjugate. I'm sorry if I didn't make that point more clearly in my earlier post... and it's true! Those Kurds don't fall far from the Assyrian tree. Same region, after all. Very ancient bloodlines course through these conquered peoples. Unfortunately, they're all YHWH/God/Allah worshippers now and have turned away from the ancient Gods. Oh well, a boy can dream.

What those Kurds are doing in Nashville, I really don't know, however. And why are there so many Armenians in LA? Someone explain that to me.

RECOMMENDED READING: I know I already mentioned The Great Game series by Peter Hopkirk, but let me just endorse it again, along with The Cartoon History of the Universe vols. 1 and 3 specifically.

Fouding of Germany

2008-10-10T09:00:00.001-07:00

James Call: Expert! He isn't getting laid, because he's writing this blog! But he is still smarter and better than you. And all his opinions and facts are 100% accurate.

Reader "Damian" asks: When and how did Germany become a country?

Oh man, what a great question! Germany's unification is one of the most ass-kicking unifications of all time, and features one of my favorite practitioners of realpolitik, ladies and gentlemen, let's get a big round of applause for... OTTO. VON. BISMAAAAAAAARK!

Ok, so, back in the day, Northern Germany was the big nastay Kingdom of Prussia. Berlin was the Prussian capital, I'm pretty sure, and Prussia also stretched all the way out to Bonn (future Western German capital). In the Seven Years War, in which Frederick the Great invaded neighboring Saxony, Prussia kicked the asses of Russia, France, Austria, and Sweden, all at the same time. This marked Prussia as the military badasses of Europe for the next century and a half. Oh, except when they totally got their clocks cleaned by Napoleon Bonaparte, but that's a story for another time.

Point is, post-Napoleon, the old Holy Roman Empire (don't even BOTHER trying to understand that nonsense) was dissolved and a "German Confederation" was in its place. Problem is, these assorted Krauts really didn't have too much in common. The Prussians and the Frissians and the Bavarians were like Californians, Nevadans and Coloradoans. I.e., similar, but they'd hardly say that about each other. The Bavarians in particular were known for their foul manners and low breeding. These people didn't like each other so much.

But what these little states all had in common was that they were tired of being pushed around by France, Austria, etc. They were also the "workshops of Europe," really the birthplace of modern industrial development (along with England the U. S. of A.). During the tumult of the mid-19th century, communism was born here! Karl Marx was a German through and through, the good kind, the intellectual who called for states to be abolished and the workers to run the world. Sigh. A girl can dream, can't she?

But little dinky worker's revolts don't build big countries like Germany. Nope, modern warfare builds countries! So when Wilhelm I of Prussia named Bismark Chancellor in 1862, what did Bismark do, other than rapidly modernize the military and start laying down rail (later VERY important)? He started invading his neighbors.

In three successive wars, Prussia kicked the ass of the Austrians, the Southern German states, and France. Definitely the coolest war was the Franco-Prussian war of 1871. This was the first war to really rely heavily on rail (discounting the US Civil War, of course). While the French relied on traditional infantry and cavalry, the Prussians used railways to quickly reach the front - and managed to conquer all of Northern France, including Paris.

Of course, Bismark wasn't a barbarian, and that's what makes him so great. He let Paris go free and most of France return to the French. In exchange, he got recognition of a whole new country: Germany.

And that's how Germany was born! Iron and blood! That, and Bismark's top-notch ability to build alliances and take down ONE enemy at a time: Austria, then France, etc.

Germany was KEPT ALIVE by Bismark's crazy mad diplomacy skillz. He was able to make the peace with both Russia and Austria, to keep Germany's traditional enemy, France, isolated (Bismark was only on good terms with newly-unified Italy, as well as Britain).

Of course, when Kaiser Wilhelm II got the helms of the state, he totally disregarded Bismark's advice and was all "We can take on France and Russia at the same time! Get out of here, Otto!" Which any Risk player can tell you is a totally asinine strategy to pursue, but that's what he did, and then we got WWI, and then we got the Nazis, and then we got WWII, and then we got Kraftwerk, and I guess it's all good, but Wilhelm II should have listened to Bismark... maybe France would be owened by Germany today.

p.s.: Don't get me wrong though, Bismark was virulently anti-worker and wanted to completely crush the socialists, something he was not able to do, as vigorous socialist and communist parties and movements continued in Germany well up into the 1930s, when they were finally snubbed out by the Nazis.

RECOMMENDED READING: Play some Castle Risk! Try basing yourself in Germany and keeping yourself alive against both Russia and France. It can't be done. Or read any military history of the 19th and/or 20th century. They're all say the same thing.

Nukes and the Prisoner's Dilemna

2008-10-10T08:35:00.000-07:00

James Call: Expert! Smarter than you! Also handsome!

Reader "Amy" requests: "explain the prisoner's dilemma and comment on whether you think the USA is increasing the risk of nuclear war by having WMD. "

Oh, the prisoner's dilemma. A great dilemma, one of my faves.

Ok, the premise of the dilemma is this: two people are arrested, and throw in jail. They alleged committed or were planning a crime together. The police separate them, and offer each a deal: if you testify against the other prisoner, you go free and he/she stays in jail. If NEITHER of you testify, you both stay in jail for a little bit, but eventually go free. But if you BOTH testify, the jail term is longer.

Classic game theory shit, nice thing to teach schoolchildren. Sets you to to understand "nuclear deterrence" and "mutually assured destruction" (MAD). MAD basically states that if you're facing down a person with nukes, and vice versa, one of you is going to have to be batshit insane to launch a nuclear attack, because that will end all life on Earth forever, and no one wants that. The point of war is to win, not for everyone to lose.

Thankfully so far nukes haven't gotten into the hands of people who literally want to blow up the Earth. But they will, one day, if we don't get rid of them.

Look at Hitler. During his "downfall," he wanted Germany itself to burn. Kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out. Imagine if he had had nukes! That would have been it for the Earth, potentially. He was genuinely crazy enough to use them. Most world leaders are NOT, but that's why I keep saying you should read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. It CAN happen here, ladies and gentlemen.

But assuming no madmen are around, MAD works very well. Imagine if there had been no nuclear deterrence during the Cold War!!! Holy fuck, that would have been awesome!!! It would have been the bloodiest, and largest, land/sea/air war of all time. World War III! That would have ruled so hard.

But the pinko commie rats didn't want to blow up the Earth, nor did the yankee imperialist swine. That's why the Cold War wasn't really a "war" at all, it was a gentleman's agreement to divide up the Earth between two "opposing ideologies" (questionable at times).

However, since nukes are so freaking powerful, you really don't need too many to achieve MAD conditions. Let's look at today's nuclear powers. For good measure, let's include those who are unofficial or former nuclear powers. So that gives us: the US of A, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, France, England, Israel, Nouth Korea, and South Africa. Soon to include Iran (yay, go Persia!). Now, let's say each of those powers has 10 hydrogen bombs. That's a total of 110 hydrogen bombs, discounting Iran. That's MORE than enough to create pollution so severe that mankind is almost totally eliminated. Let's crank it up to, say, 30 bombs per world power, and you have enough destructive force + radiation to end life on Earth. Period.

So where the WMD issue becomes a problem is when you exceed the MAD threshold. I'm not sure how many thousands of nukes we have left in this country, but we do have thousands: more than enough to destroy the Earth many times over. Now let's say we get sloppy and let a few nukes slip - you can sell those fuckers for a pretty penny.

Now one of those nukes ends up in the hands of a suicide bomber.

OOPS!

And that's the problem with the prisoner's dilemma/MAD... that you can go too far with it. Most of our nukes, I maintain, were built with profit, rather than strategic, motives in mind. There's money to be made in selling missiles to the government. But eventually, when central governments melt down - like the USSR's, like Pakistan's often does - nukes get loose. And then you REALLY have to track them down. It's one thing for North Korea's petty dictators to have a bomb. But what about the Taliban? Can you imagine that shit?

But keep deterrence levels manageable, and they're excellent: look, so far, no WWIII. If we ever figure out how to "defeat" nuclear weapons, you can expect another serious land/sea/air war. Hopefully, this won't happen in our lifetimes. Nor will the madmen getting the bomb. But that's a more likely scenario: it's all just a matter of time.

RECOMMENDED READING: I would just watch Dr. Strangelove over and over. Also, anything on Henry Kissinger, a master of nuclear deterrence theory.

Is global warming manmade?

2008-10-10T08:32:00.001-07:00

Welcome to James Call: Expert. I am smarter than you and I'm going to tell you how it is. Shut up and listen.

Reader "Amy" asks: "is global warming man made?"

Yes.

Does the Earth have natural heating and cooling cycles? Yes, of course. However, they occur over HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

Meanwhile, the increasing pace of icecap melting directly correlates to the amount of man-made carbon in the air. Carbon traps heat and melts shit and fucks us up. It's well documented.

The "scientists" who dispute this are crackpots and/or paid off by special interests. It's that simple.

EDIT: Ha ha, reader "Liz" informs me that I shouldn't refer to the scientists who dismiss the manmade nature of global climate change (not warming ... I just prefer to use "warming" 'cause I was raised with it) as "crackpots," or even paid off. And it's true, I'm being a little harsh. After all, the Earth does seem to heat up significantly and cool down about every 100,000 years, and the last time it was really hot was about 100,000 years ago. Nonetheless, the significance of the change within ONE CENTURY, which is a blip in terms of the Earth's timeline, would seem to indicate that the large amount of carbon in the air, belched out by indsutry, has heated our world significantly.

But that's not to say that everywhere is just going to get HOT, which is the problem with the term "global warming". Global Climate Change is the correct term, because what's really going to happen is the weather is going to get more intense.

RECOMMENDED READING: Any basic science textbook. Plus, watch "Nova".

On Energy

2008-10-10T08:24:00.001-07:00

Reader "Adam" writes:

While your right that transportation, communications and basic utilities infrastructure in this country, much of which has been steadily decaying since the depression, are desperately in need of updates and repair, I don't see how you can endorse the use of atomic power. Even if you ignore the possibility of nuclear catastrophe (which is certainly plausible given the complete lack of government oversight, rampant corruption and incompetence in America) atomic power plants have never been efficient. They generally end up losing money and require government bailouts. Obtaining and refining uranium takes a lot of energy. So does transporting and storing the resulting toxic waste. Atomic power plants cost hella money to build and can only be used for a limited amount of time before they need to be replaced. Unlike power from solar, wind, tidal (etc) sources which are essentially limitless and cause little to no environmental destruction. These would not require the centralized corporate monopolies that currently control our public utilities. Of course these technologies aren't efficient enough yet to support our decadent American lifestyles, but if we spent a fraction of what we spend securing the last of the world's fossil fuels on "alternative" power sources, we'd be way closer to weaning ourselves off these power sources which are fast becoming completely obsolete. Yeah, Obama says he's all for atomic power, but he also supports offshore drilling, ethanol and the mythological "clean coal" all of which will be environmentally disastrous and wont do dick in the long run for our "fuel crisis".

Well, you're quite right. Nuclear waste disposal is a serious issue. I still stand by nuclear as a quality alternative to clean coal, which would indeed be a disaster, and especially ethanol, which is already a disaster in some ways.

And that's the real problem with Obama, in my view: he's already in the pocket of Midwestern agricultural interests who want us to rely on 2:1 (output to input) corn ethanol, when 6:1 Brazilian sugar ethanol is readily available... and besides, ethanol PERIOD shouldn't be used, it's a pollutant just like oil, and solar and wind are coming of age.

I disagree about the monopoly issue, though: it's never too late to start cornering the market on solar and wind. After all, both solar and wind will require a vast new upgrade of the national energy grid to be efficient. Such a massive undertaking will require the power and coordination of the federal government. And the federal government can be very easily swayed by a few wealthy individuals. After all, that's by and large how the oil industry came to power: wildcatting, followed by local monopolies, followed by larger monopolies with government influence.

I think this the most likely future of the solar and wind industries. However, I'd rather have clear energy monopolies than dirty energy monopolies. And monopolies -can- be regulated in a way that decentralized energy perhaps cannot.

What I'm trying to say is, in the course of setting up the energy grid, solar/wide/tidal monopolies will probably come to be, simply due to how the access to gov't game is played.

RECOMMENDED READING: The whole sleiugh of oil industry books I've mentioned, but especially The Prize by Daniel Yergin. The Economist is a great place to read about the new energy industry, but bear in mind they take a very free-market-booster approach, so read between the lines. And there's so much reading on how monopolies are born and come to influence gov't that I really don't know where to begin. Revisit your American Pageant or whatever and read the bit about the breakup of Standard Oil back in, what, 1911? I think it's 1911.

Summing it Up: Late September

2008-10-02T08:12:00.000-07:00

Ok! As we move into a whole new month for James Call: Expert, I'm going to quickly sum up what's come so far. Some of you have noted that my posts are a bit long and maybe difficult to follow. So just read THIS post... I'm about to break it all down into soundbytes for y'all.

What caused our financial meltdown?

Years of no oversight of finance, the growth of finance as a portion of our entire economy, all of us counting on our homes and credit cards instead of, say, earning a healthy wage, and this fucking sleight-of-hand chop-chop BS called "CDOs" in which really bad loans were bundled with good ones to look fantastic. And the heavy reliance on finance heavy hitters, even old, respectable ones, on said BS.

Is John McCain's little "suspending his campaign" gambit gonna work?

I (sort of) called it - it did not. It just made McCain look stupid. Like everything else these days.

Who won the debate?

I was more or less right about this too. After all, I am very, very smart, and better than you. The debate was not a game changer. Obama is now said to be the winner of the debate, based on the visuals. Only racism can stop Barack now... or maybe an attack on Iran?!? That would fucking ROCK.

What is the best starting class in 2nd Ed. Dungeons & Dragons?

The cleric. Good balance of fighting abilities and the "cure light wounds" spell. Also, a great angle around which to base a character.

Is the "Invisible Hand" a borderline theological concept?

Yeah. It's a handy thing to toss around at cocktail parties, but the mofos who take this shit without any grains of salt sound like Communist Party functionaries. Or, hardcore Catholics, I guess.

How has insta-polling affected our politics?

By making the candidates less "stern leader"-like and more "pandering buffoon"-like. But good pols still understand the importance of "staying the course". Notice the hit Obama took when caving on FISA, for instance.

Assorted ridiculous questions

The Dove is just a glorified Pigeon. It's an Angel Rat with Wings.

Are we headed towards super fun Nazi time?

Probably not. But who knows, we could get Obama '08 and if he turns out to be Jimmy Carter II, Palin in '12, and lord knows that would be terrifying, would it not? But we didn't go (all out) Nazi under Dubya, so I still sort of believe in America.

Do we really need this bailout?

Yep, to keep business running. But it sucks. At this point, it truly is a "crap sandwich". It's a terrible fucking bailout. Can we please just nationalize this shit like they do in civilized countries?

Jews in Georgia? And ... UZBEKS?!?

Jews are everywhere! Especially the former Soviet Union. And, yeah, Uzbeks. Weird. Gotta a wicked sweet name for their ethnicity: "Uzbek". It just rolls off the tongue.

...And with that all said on done, please, BRING ON THE QUESTIONS!

Still angry at having to work as a file clerk,
James Call
Expert

Central Asian Trivia Time

2008-10-01T07:34:00.000-07:00

James Call: Expert here! Back with some very fun questions from reader "Erin". Standard Disclosure: Please bear in mind that there are way more "expert" folks out there than I! But they're not as good drinking buddies.

Georgian Jews?!?

That's right baby, Georgian Jews. Now I don't know the exact history of Georgia's Jews, although I'm pretty fucking certain that a healthy dose of them were frontline Bolsheviks back in the days, because Stalian and a lot of the other first-gen Bolshies were straight outta Georgia, and the Jews, with a long history of often radical intellectualism, tended to go for things like "the overthrow of a feudal autocracy by the vanguard party of Communist revolution" all the time. In fact, it's fascinating to look at the early Zionists and see how thematically close it was to various strains of communist thought.

But, while I don't know the internal migratory history of the USSR very well - and there was a fuckload of it, while Stalin and others were all "Hey, Siberia needs more starving Azeris," etc., I'm willing to bet a lot of those Georgia Jews go all the way back to the good old days of the Khazars.

(p.s.: Turns out I was totally wrong about my first guess. I thought it was the nearby Uighurs, who converted to Manichaeism back in the day. Let's not even go THERE, girlfriend.)

The Khazars were your basic horseback riding fun loving subertribe/kingdom back in the day, back around, oh, 900 AD, I want to say? Back when Russia was around but way before Peter the Great made it into that familiar shape we've all come to know and love - The Russians used to be centered around the Principality of Moscow and a few other towns, and didn't really become a force to be reckoned with until they starting fucking the Ottomans (today's "Turks") around the 14th and 15th centuries.

Anyways the Khazar down there were doing their Turkic thing, just trying to stay alive, and of course you always had your Christians, Jews, and Muslims trading with these assorted Turkic groups, located as they were between China (rich), Persia (pretty rich), Byzantium (also pretty rich), and Europe (piss poor but featuring some handy crap such as woolens, etc). And apparently some notable Khazar military figure named Bulan starting banging this Jewish broad, and next thing you know he's all, "Fellow Khazars! Let us embrace this fantastic faith centered around a Holy Land that is way the fuck far away from us and has nothing to do with our lifestyle up here!"

And the other Khazars were all, "Hold on, cowboy," so Bulan convened a sort of grand argument between Jewish, Christian, and Islamic notables. And they all made their points about how great their YHWH-centered religions were, but in the end of the day the conversion probably came down to money and geopolitics, such as they were: The Christians could offer trade with the shitty Christian world (well, Byanztium would have been handy), the Muslims could do Arabia and Persia (muuuuuuch better), and the Jews could do ... drum roll please ... BOTH!

Because ever since the Christians came to power in Rome, the Jews have occupied a weird position of being the Chosen People let also flawed, and all throughout Rome up through the period of Islamic ascension and the rise of the Middle Ages, Muslims and Christians have alternately persecuted Jews and used them as go-betweens. Besides, Jews have tended throughout their history to be great world travelers and traders... there were plenty of Jews in the T'ang Dynasty of China, for instance...

So the Khazars went Jewish, and presumably did alright for themselves, although, where the hell is Khazarstan today? They are still out there, somewhere, you can bet your tuckus.

So I don't know if those Jewish Khazars, close as they were to where Georgia is today, are related to Georgia's Jews, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Next question!

now, i am also curious about the uzbeks, since the very best meal i had all summer was at the uzbeki restaurant....

Uzbeks Uzbeks Uzbeks... I got Uzbeks on my mind. I don't know much of the history of Uzbeks specifically, except it's important to note all these types are basically Turks. Not Turks from Turkey... it's a weird distinction... the most famous Turkic groups of all time have to be 1. The Mongols, 2. The Ottomans, and probably 3. The Seljuks, although there's so many other bitchin' Turkic groups. Fuck, the Afghans used to be Turks; they're just Turks who settled down.

You may note that a Mongol looks nothing like an Ottoman. That's because the Turkic groups were small, horseback riding types. They were always great conquerers, and to a lesser extent, traders, but once they actually conquered something, they had to intermarry to really dominate a place. And that almost never worked out for 'em. You can't hold down China, Persia, or Asia Minor very long. Their ancient and far-out cultures will always reassert themselves above barbarism.

Anyways, Uzbeks, I assume they're pretty old at this point. I DO know a bit about modern Uzbek politics, though, and it's great fun.

First off: ever hear of the "Northern Alliance"? They were our proxy in the invasion of Afghanistan (our invasion, not one of the other invasions). They consistented to a large extent of Uzbeks and Tajiks, from Uzbekistan and Tajikstan, natch. They were not Pastun like the rest of the country and therefore couldn't really do squat without the help of NATO. They also do not rule the country today. Although they got the opium supply flowing again, after years of Taliban repression of the drug trade. PHEW! Those illegal opium dollars are very convenient for helping our intelligence agencies purchase small arms for paramilitary groups.

Also, Uzbekistan is totally filled with natural gas, and part of the Project for a New American Century clique's New American Century totally included this ridiculous 1,000+ mile pipline to go from Uzbekistan through Afghanistan and then through PAKISTAN to the Indian Ocean. Ha ha ha! That's like say, "Hey, I live next to three crackhouses, I wonder if I can run my laundry line through all three of 'em" and expecting nothing to go wrong. Here, check out this map:

Gotta admit I'm not too up on the last few years of coup-related activity in Uzbekistan. I know they have the standard "radical Islamic student" problem that pretty much all those countries have. Remember: the age of the horseback conquerer is over, so Central Asia's a pretty sad place now. It's where Russia meets Islam meets China, with some Americans (who are on course to get kicked the fuck back to the Western hemisphere where we belong) mixed in.

I also know that Islam Karimov was the dictator of Uzbekistan for many years, and now it's some other guy. It's your basic post-Soviet totalitarian dictatorship.

I finally, I know that "Trans-Caspian Pipeline," to bring natural gas to the Indian Ocean for Exxon or whatever, is toast. It's a "pipe dream" you might say. HA HA HA! Since we've so royally boffo'd everything in Afghani- and Paki-stan these last few years, the Uzbeks have thrown down with their old overlords the Russians, and will be supplying their natural gas to our pals in the Kremlin from here on out.

And that's all I know about the Uzbeks. I should go get some Uzbek food too, I bet there's hella good lamb involved.

RECOMMENDED READING: For easy and VERY entertaining reading, start with Larry Gonick's Cartoon History of the Universe vol. 3. All of you should read all three volumes of this anyways. It's your defacto primer for the history of man. I am dead serious. And it's funny as hell. Also strongly recommended: The New Great Game by Kleveman Lutz. Sooooooo wickedly good. A few years old at this point, but really explains the hell out of the struggle for power in Central Asia, which is a large part of the impetus for our invasion of Afghanistan in the first place. It's all about the pipelines, baby! Also, check atimes.com out ever so often. They're great for this sort of coverage (it's short for "Asia Times Online"). Oh, and here's some online book which looks really good and from which I fact-checked my Khazar/Judaism info (glad I did that! I would have had Manichaen egg on my face! Would have been ashamed to show myself at Columbia U. parties, etc.) http://books.google.com/books?id=t-SSqtsGaGwC&pg=PA293&lpg=PA293&dq=uighur+judaism&source=web&ots=KmhC6l7NZT&sig=cvbd8FGz3DXq1Cho6T1VHz4GuU8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPP1,M1 ... Mom, Dad, I want this book for Christmas.

Do we really need this bailout?

2008-09-30T03:44:00.001-07:00

Welcome back to James Call: Expert. Standard disclosures: I am not truly an expert, I just know more than you (maybe). And I do not proofread or fact check this thing unless called on it. Because I don't have the time.

Today reader "Mike" asks:

Do we really need this bailout?

It's a good question! The answer is "yes," because investment has frozen up. In essence, banks have all moved their resources into treasury bonds, and the yield is way down. I have to admit here I can't really keep my numbers straight in my head. I have been reading in the Times and online that the yield on these bonds, since everyone is going there, is about 0%. I.e., it's the modern day of equivalent of taking your money out of the bank and sticking it under your mattress. But then, the 30-year treasury is still at 4%ish. But... that's 30 years to hold on to that shit.

BTW, if my prior posts on this subject were too long winded for you to read: DO NOT WITHDRAW YOUR MONEY. The FDIC protects your deposit. For real.

Banks are so risk-averse that they're buying madd treasuries and that means there ain't no cash for nothing else. Your deposit is safe but the money from the banks to the businesses you work for is not. I saw the apocalyptic "3 million jobs lost in 6 months" figure from some economist, who I hope was just trying to scare us, 'cause, Jesus Christo. But payrolls are gonna be cut, big time.

We need to inject capital into the banks to get liquidity going again. This is what we did in the New Deal; it worked. It worked slowly, over time, but it did work. We also need to root out the toxic assets and get some oversight crankin' so we're not "throwing good money after bad".

Now - the big question is - what kind of bailout do we need. I'll just try to keep this short. I read a real eye-opening post on "naked capitalism" (google that shit) yesterday, basically calling for the nationalization of the banks. Not in the real rabble-rousing commie way, but, just as a business proposition for the government. That's, in essence, what Sweden did, I believe - took over the banks, sold off the crap, and eventually sold the bank back, earning a profit for the government. I think. They may have retained shareholder interest in the banks... I'm not sure.

The Dodd/Frank/Paulson plan, which has been replaced with the "Crap Sandwich" plan full of GOP horseshit, was along these lines. While the banks wouldn't be seized outright, the government would receive equity shares in the banks it bailed out. In essence, should these banks become healthy in the future, we (the people, as through our government, in theory) make cash on the deal. Again, probably 10 years down the line, but it could be worse.

Some of that money (20% of profits made) was gonna go to affordable housing - but, you know, "affordable housing" = "public housing" = "negroes" and also = "socialism", so the House GOP totally flipped out and axed that provision.

This "naked capitalism" post, and I don't want to overtly plagirize here, but it basically said, since the FDIC already insures deposits up to $100,000, why not just lift that cap and make the FDIC insure everything. Then get the FDIC, the FBI, and whomever in to investigate and inventory everything. I mean every fucking bank. And the ones that are solid get a little slap on the wrist for diddling around with CDOs but do get to retain their banks, while we sell off their toxic assets over time... and the banks that are up shit creek, the government completely takes over, sells crap off and restructures the bank, and then auctions it off, but not to the same people who had run the bank into the ground in the first place (the government can seize failed banks and run them on its own terms via the bank bridge facility of the FDIC, introduced back in the S&L days - a great provision!).

This plan also really doesn't require taxpayer funds. It just requires the Fed to put up a huge chunk of cash as a good-faith jesture. Again, this cash doesn't enter circulation unless it's really called for. Now, I suppose this is a terrible idea if the banks are just fucked fucked fucked beyond our wildest beliefs. But, I don't think they are... right? The real problem with this plan is it's political aspect - it's temporary bank nationalization, really really solid and good for our democracy, but "socialism" nonetheless. People hate that crap in this country, residual Cold War culture BS. Same with a single-payer system for health care: should be done, but is "socalistic" and therefore we're gonna get some watered-down compromise, maybe, someday.

No matter how it's done, the bailout is needed. And it's gonna suck, as taxpayers, to do this shit. But if we just buy up the bad assets and let these banks off the hook for bad behavior, restoring their credit in the process, then we really are "socializing risk and privatizing profit" like everyone is saying to sound all smart. HOWEVER, if we sell the bad assets and then retain at least partial government ownership of these institutions, then the whole financial sector - which has come to dominate, and on several ocassions royally fuck our economy up - will now be earning money for the people.

That's not to see the people can't spend their profit on dumb crap like tax cuts for the rich or bunker-busting nuclear missiles, but, hey, it's a start.

I would oppose total nationalization because that probably does discourage "innovation" and "risk taking" blah blah blah blah blah, but partial nationalization would be a great deal, because these banks will still want to make money, even if they have to share some of it with the government (direct via shareholder stakes, as well as taxes). A bunch of whiners will cry over the lost money, but it'll still be an assload of money. If someone buys me a car, for free, but says I have to share it with my cousin out on Long Island too, do I really whine about that shit? It's still a free car.

In short: yes, bailout needed, but needed for the future is a sizeable direct federal government stake in our financial institutions, no matter how commiefied that may seem. This will cost a lot right now, but if done right, can earn us profits sort of for good, until some rich fookers get rid of it in when Jenna Bush is elected President or whatever.

RECOMMENDED READING: Track down that "naked capitalism" post. Keep up with Krugman's blog at the NY Times website. Really consider giving Wall St by Doug Henwood a shot. I wish I knew more about Sweden's bailout history, and our own shoddy S&L past. It's on the list, for sure... P.S.: GREAT article in politico today about why the bill failed. Read it! http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/14108.html

The Debate & Our Weimar Republic

2008-09-28T06:32:00.000-07:00

James Call: Expert here. Just wanted to update on a couple issues I mentioned earlier.

First off, the debate results are in from rasmussen, and it looks to confirm what the "insta-polls" night of said - basically no minds were changed by the debate. Further, rating were unexpected low. Lower even than Bush-Kerry! That, I personally did not see coming.

Next: I dismissed out of hand a reader's allegory about the road to National Socialism the other day, and while I still doubt we're headed down that path, let's just say that with the federal debt likely to top $11 trillion by 2010... well, debt repayments - to FOREIGNERS - was by and large what drove Germany to Nazism. There were many other factors, but that was an important one.

Now let's be fair about our federal debt situation - most of the debt is held by US Gov't agencies themselves - a little over half the total debt. Of the remaining approx. half of the debt, only 25% is actually held by foreigners. And just who are those foreigners? Are they the evil Chinese and oil-exporting terrorist Islamofascist nations we keep hearing about? While those players are involved, the largest foreign holder of our debt is Japan, then China, yes, then Britain, and then a variety of evil Mecca-facing freedom-hating terrorist regimes.

So really - foreigners control only about 12.5% of our debt - one eighth. Not that big a deal, and one might thank them for helping keep our debt-driven economy aloft!

oh - also - re: Pakistan... is Zardari with us, or with the Taleban? The War Nerd has a great article up today about the recent bombing of the Marriot in Islamabad which touches on these issues. Please read: http://exiledonline.com/war-nerd-islamablog-day-3/

RECOMMENDED READING: I think everyone owes it to themselves, at some point in their lives, to read William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. It's a mind-blowing story, and the ultimate lesson is, "Yes, it CAN happen here." We tend to segregate our view of nazi history, in our modern culture, into "the holocaust just sort of happened and it was terrible" and "you have to be strong and not appease dictators". Understanding HOW the Nazis came to power, how the holocaust really came to occur, the importance of debt forgiveness, and so many other lessons that can be derived from this stunning and appaling history is crucial, in my view, to understanding the course of human affairs. It's also just a mind-blowing story.

More James Call: Dumbass

2008-09-27T18:13:00.000-07:00

Readers "Damian" again, and "Kirstin," continue to ask me questions the answers to which I simply don't know. But I'll give it a shot for shits and giggles.

How are Pigeons and Doves related?

Look, a dove is basically a white pigeon, and it's total discriminatory bullshit that people call pigeons "rats with wings" and view the dove as symbolizing peace or whatever. Can we dream of a better world and leave this racism behind us? Also, "Dove" means "Where" in Italian.

Oh and I wanted you to explain why the hell they taught those Dolphins to sing the Batman theme.

Because people are retards! Come on, why not hook electrodes up the amazing brains of the dolphins and translate the electrical impulses into MIDI (Musical Instrument Digital Interface) information and quantize (push values to the closest absolute value, rhythmically) that shit and then release a slammin' post-modern album? People would rather hear the fucking stupid "Batman" theme, that's why. I want to kick Bruce Wayne in the nuts after hearing this.

RECOMMENDED READING: There was this awesome book about North American wildlife in my house when I was growing up, but I don't know what happened to it. Read that.

I promise to return to issues about which I actually know something very soon.

Some Ridiculous Questions

2008-09-27T17:03:00.000-07:00

James Call: Dumbass here, to try to answer some questions I really don't know the answer to at all. I'll try my best!

Reader "Skinny D" asks:

1. Why do we call eggplants eggplants?

Dude, that is a good question. Is it because they were used as a substitute for eggs at one point? Is it because they're sort of chewy, like a hardboiled egg? Is it because of their shape? I don't even know where eggplants come from. Outer space, probably. Next question.

2. What is the meaning of the word psychotropic.

Oh man. I almost know the answer to this. Ok, I think it has to do with the experience of sensation, not eyesight (I think) but touch, and taste, and smell. Like if you take a "psychotropic hallucinogen," it's going to make your skin feel tingly and your sense of smell really intense. Right? I don't really know. Tropic, tropic... fuck, what is the word root of that bitch. It definitely doesn't have anything to do with "the tropics". If only you can asked me to define "Star Tropics!" A great NES game by, I believe, Capcom. "Psycho" does definitely imply that it interacts with your mind (your psyche).

3. What the hell is this? See attached picture.(I honestly have no idea, I found it while searching for MP3's of Walrus sounds)

Ok, that's NOT a meerkat, nor is it a bonobo money. It appears to be some creature native to Southern Africa, however... the red earth there is fairly unique. I suppose that could also be the American Southwest, but do we really have crazy shit like that down there? I know we have scorpions and walking sticks and praying mantises, but not this crazy thing. It looks like a member of the money family, which is my least favorite animal kingdom (or whatever) around. Sorry I don't have a better answer for you. Looks like it's having a good time, though!

RECOMMENDED READING: No clue.

Insta-Polling

2008-09-27T16:25:00.000-07:00

Welcome back to James Call: Expert. Your source for on-the-go knowledge.

We have one last question from "Zac" today. By the way, be sure to check out his fantastic blog - link on the side!

How has (instant, continuous) polling changed American politics?

This is kind of a loaded question, to be honest. The obvious answer is that it has increased the level of pandering and triangulating exponentially. And this might be the truth; look at the issue of offshore drilling, over which Obama and the Dems totally caved when the poll numbers came in around 60% in favor. That's just one example of many.

But I do think that truly saavy politicians realize that pandering to polls only goes so far. The Presidency is a vestige of the Monarchy, and the essence of the Monarch is like a Father to his Children. People like to be spoken down to, to a certain extent, by their political leaders. We like to assume they are smarter than us, and they can tell us how things are going to be, if they do so in a loving way.

Look at Ronald Reagan and his political hero, FDR (strange, but true!). Both were products of their time, of course, but each also took firm if somewhat risky positions on certain issues. This was regarded as "boldness". Look at McCain's position on the surge. It was deeply unpopular. The thing has turned around, and now he polls well on this issue.

On the other hand, look at McCain's jumping around over the financial meltdown in the last two weeks. He's been trying to follow the polls on a daily basis. Consequently (and ironically, hipsters), pre-debate, he began to receive a real drubbing at the polls. People can still smell insincerity. At least, the punditry can. And we get our news, our worldview, from them. It's sickening and anti-democratic, but that's a post for another day.

For the record, I fucking love polls. I follow them like crack cocaine. In the end of the day, they carry some merit, but it's best not to lose one's mind over daily polling, or even weekly polling necessarily. And the politicians who take it slow and steady tend to do better than "flip floppers" who lose their shit over polls.

And that's my two cents.

RECOMMENDED READING: Dunno, really. fivethirtyeight.com !

The Invisible Hand of the Market

2008-09-27T10:29:00.000-07:00

Hi everyone! James Call: Expert here, to continue answering reader "Zac"'s questions. See prior posts for my expertly answer!

Standard disclosure, before I continue: I am not really an expert. I am just a cranky guy who reads the paper too often. And I am looking for proofreaders and fact checkers! I do not have the time to provide this service for this blog myself. After all, I am employed! And I have parties to go to! So if you notice any really blatantly wrong shit in my blog, please, call me on it in the "comments" section. I -will- respond, and rectify my mistakes.

Now, onwards to Zac's second question:

Is the "invisible hand" (a metaphor often invoked in arguments favoring free-market capitalism) a theological concept?

In a word, yes. At least, the concept that the "invisible hand" will perfectly allocate resources to create the most equitable and just possible scenario is patently absurd.

There are a few reasons why this is so, but the most pertinent, and one which John Maynard Keynes pointed out quite eloquently, is that information about the market is imperfect. The laws of supply and demand that Adam Smith and whatshisname Ricardo (David?) pointed out ARE laws indeed, although no one has ever really written them in equation form, mostly because both supply and especially demand are somewhat ephemeral. What people are demanding at any given moment might be driven not by personal need but on by the perception of desirability, something we're seeing in the housing bubble (R.I.P.) of today, and as far back as the Tulip Bulb bubble (I'm fucking serious) in Holland of the early 17th century.

The "invisible hand" does work perfectly if you're willing to accept human misery. For instance, a resource rich nation may not want for food or housing supplies; instead, they may want, for instance, cheap tennis shoes. But the labor market of said country may be too well organized to provide cheap enough labor, meaning some market overseas will offer cheaper labor to produce the tennis shoes, driving the domestic labor price down in competition, and producing a global race to the bottom that is very familiar to all of today (or should be).

So the total pursuit of supply and demand does not produce optimal conditions for the worker. In theory, it produces optimal conditions for the consumer, but the big problem is that the consumer is the same person as the worker. In theory, as your wages sink, so will the prices you are paying: wage and price "deflation," a term we don't use that much, but should (and not somthing I'm making up right now, by the way. This is a real fucking term).

Of course, this "invisible hand" depends not only on perfect information - knowingly exactly what people want and exactly who can supply it - but also a totally uninterrupted global trade system, uninterrupted by weather, piracy, or most important of all, politics and resource distribution. If we could wipe clean mankind and start over with a truly classless, property-less global society, we'd STILL have the problem that certain areas of the world would possess more oil than others which possessed more corn, etc.

Of course, then, we'd be trading perfectly, right? Except monopolies are naturally erected to defend select resources, and should corn be in more demand than oil, the oil-owners are a bit over the barrel, aren't they?

Besides, have we ever had a classless, de-stratified society? It was better under the hunters and gatherers I suppose, but ever since mankind introduced agricultural society, which requires the division of labor, there's been inequities within society, inequities which cannot be addressed by the invisible hand, since it will tend to favor those with monopoly power - and these people can acquire and defend their monopoly with force.

Of course, the owners of resources must pay their enforcers and they can't starve their market out of existence, lest they lose all their clout. But they certainly emerge as the winners, which is why Marxism is such a natural response to the "invisible hand". Yes, the "invisible hand" can be said to exist, but it's not a benevolent hand, it's an erratic and shaky hand that occassionally smacks people down for no morally good reason, sort of like the "Master Hand" end boss in the Super Smash Bros games.

Implicit in advocates of "unfiltered" Adam Smith and David Ricardo thought (once again I mention our anti-pal Milton Friedman) must accept a lack of basic morality in their economic programme. It's very much "the strong shall survive, the weak shall die". It's Social Darwinism.

But it ISN'T really the state of nature, and the reason should be obvious. As a species, in addition to the wheel and currency, we humans have invented MORALITY. And the social contract. It's in our genes to, on a certain level, defend the pack from the excesses of the few. Don't get me wrong, it's also in our genes to say Greed is good, Greed works, You got to Live for Yourself, Yourself and Nobody else ♫, but then again, we do have these Golden Rules and Ten Commandments and what not...

And then tends to be because, in collective action, we achieve so much more than we do on our own. Now we all tend to accept this is the case in terms of government - even modern libertarians accept the need for a federal army, for instance. But when it comes to economics, there's this strange disconnect, we must let the "invisible hand" govern indiscriminately, and it will allocate resources perfectly somehow... but note it always takes concerted government action to put true free market policies into place, and note how it's always a disaster...

Really, look to our Articles of Confederation period for a relatively clear example of lack of centralized economic order. Also look to the Gilded Age, although there certainly was governmental interference in the form of land grants to speculators and union-crushing aplenty during this time... you could say that's not an example of an unfettered free market in place. But then, we'd need no government whatsoever to let the hand go free, and that leaves us at the mercy of those who would organize, just like the agricultural societies of yore eventually wiped out the hunters and gatherers.

This is a massive question you've asked and my rambling answer is pretty insufficient. But yes, I would answer decisively that "theological" is a great term for the "invisible hand" concept, because unless there is no central government, or even local government, the market is not truly free, and when is there never any government? Even armed bands of brigands impose a government of some sort. And of course, the invisible hand cannot see what is going on globally on a supply and demand level, so even without government, it's operating in a vacuum of knowledge that's going to lead to errors of resource allocation.

Really this is a pretty insufficient answer to your question. Let's just say that I cannot think of a single example in human history when a totally unfettered market led to anything other than chaos, human suffering, the enrichment of the few at the expense of the many.

RECOMMENDED READING: Well obviously both The Wealth of Nations and Das Kapital, neither of which I've read in their entirety. Beyond that, there is a wealth of literature on this vast subject. The aforementioned Wall St by Doug Henwood goes into the assorted free market "equations" which have been put into practice by free marketers, and the resulting failure thereof; the book explicity makes the point (to which I subscribe) that you cannot separate economics from politics and governance, and the economics is not a science in the sense of chemistry or physics, as it is largely governed by human psychology.

Obama the Centrist

2008-09-27T09:10:00.001-07:00

James Call: Expert here! Back again to sock my mildly informed opinion to ya.

DAMN, yo, can I get paid to blog for a living? Good questions keep pouring in. I don't have time in the workday to answer all this shit!

Our next THREE questions come from reader "Zack". I'll break this up into in separate posts as per the popular demand:

Is Senator Obama's "center tack" a temporary election-season tactic--so he can win the presidency and then govern from the left--or has he already abandoned what Paul Wellstone called "the democratic wing of the Democratic Party"? (For me, his vote on the FISA bill was a key moment in the "center tack.")

In a word, Obama's centrism is genuine. Obama is widely, and wrongly, credited with being "the most liberal member of the Senate". He put it himself very well last night: "heh heh, for the most part that's just me voting against George Bush's wrongheaded policies".

Obama's record speaks to a centrism that makes Hillary Clinton look liberal. His record on regulating the nuclear industry, for instance, is a bit frightening. When it came time to pass legislation curtailing the activities of nuclear power in Illinois, Obama talked tough, but at the insistence of power company Exelon, Obama actually turned a draft of a bill he was working on over to Exelon to proofread. Does that sound like a liberal thing to do? Are we gonna let Exxon have a "looksie" at our energy bills in years to come? "Hey guys, just look this over, and if you got any problems with it, just kinda sharpie that shit up, it's cool, add some stuff if you want."

It's not liberalism - it's bullshit. It's Bill Clinton style bullshit, specifically.

Don't get me wrong - I'm still for Obama - there are a lot of good reasons to be so - but it's mostly because he doesn't seem totally off the rails in terms of deregulation, and budget discipline.

But yes, despite the animosity between the Obama and Clinton camps (which I can only image is very personal, at this point), philosophically, they are little different. Obama's "structured" market approach to health care will help the middle class, a -bit-. But in the end, we need a single payer system. FDR called for it; Truman kinda got punked on it as the private sector stepped in, social-contract-wise, to guarantee employment-based health care. McCain's plan might actually destroy this aspect of the social contract, and Obama's will alleviate it somewhat, but the real solution is a single-payer system. Yes, my libertarian friends, this is socialism, and it is precisely what we need.

The FISA bill vote was, I believe, political triangulation. But let's bear in mind that Obama literally comes from the University of Chicago. Sure, he taught law there, but he talked to the economics department quite consistently. There was a great NY Times Magazine about a month and a half ago, with the chief article titled "Obamanomics". I strongly encourage ALL of you to google and read this article - it'll take you an hour to read.

I'd be very concerned about the U of Chicago influence on Obama. Those Friedmanites have had their way with our country and world for over 4 decades now, and the results have not been pleasant. I'm very cheered, however, that Obama seems to have a solid and genuine focus on updating our infrastructure, not only our highway system, but more importantly our power grid. Everyone who reads about the issues knows that oil is on the way out, all rhetoric aside, that drilling isn't going to do shit, and that ethanol... that way lies madness (although the ethanol lobby should become, and remain, very powerful for decades, based on corn production in Iowa and elsewhere. And yes, Obama is in the domestic ethanol industry's pocket. Note his endorsement of corn-based ethanol, with a 2:1 energy yield, as opposed to Brazilian sugar-based ethanol, at a much cheaper 6:1 yield - that is, energy output units for every unit invested). But solar, nuclear, and wind are the way of the future, which poses challenges or our outdated energy grid - remember those rockin' blackouts, a few years ago? Expect way more of those - and Obama understands the importance of not only upgrading the grid, but also, I hope would, protecting the domestic wind/solar/nuclear industries, I would hope. He seems to... we'll see.

Obama also seems to understand that the financial regulatory system of the New Deal is necessary and called for. It certainly is. And I feel he will push for a reinstitution of these regulations.

But on the whole, I would expect Clinton administration II from Obama, not really the change we need but perhaps less overt barbarism than a Republican administration. Certainly we might well have been better off under Edwards, or, you know, the unelectable Dennis Kucinich, who fucking actually gets it, who understands that the "free market" isn't just just because it has the word "free" in it.

In short, I believe Obama genuinely is a centrist/rightist, not the liberal that his foes AND supporters make him out to be. Another nurse coming in to administer a bandage to the bleeding patient who have been hacked to death by Drs. Reagan, H. W. Bush and W. Bush. Not the solution we need to remain the world's economic engine and chief world power, but certainly better than additional hacking and slashing of our nation.

RECOMMENDED READING: The "Obamanomics" article in the NY Times Magazine. Also, a while array of literature on Milton Freidman's monetarist/U. of Chicago teachings vs. Keynesian thought. Just google that shit! A good (if emotional) place to start to is Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine. Everyone should read this book! There are problems with it, structurally, that make it open to attack by rightist critics, but it really is an eye opener and a fairly good documentation of why "totally free" markets are completely fucked. But hey, for a totally different point of view, go to reason.com and check out the well-educated (but, in my opinion, pretty off base) libertarian POV there.

The advantages of the cleric

2008-09-27T08:06:00.000-07:00

Welcome back to James Call: Expert, in which I tell you how it is. Neither fair nor balanced nor even especially accurate.

Today, reader "Tore" asks:

In dungeons and dragons, what is the most advantageous character to start as (in your opinion) and why?

This is an excellent and thought-provoking question, and touches on one of the top issues of the day.

Let's briefly review the 5 basic D&D classes available to the beginner:

- The Warrior (normal fighter, Paladin, Berserker, and Ranger)
- The Mage (with its eight standard sub-schools)
- The Cleric (along with the Druid)
- The Rogue (the Thief and the Bard, as well as the Ninja)
- The Psionicist

Let's also mention the Attorney! This is a holdover from the 1st Edition; 2nd Edition onwards discontinues this class, although I think it was reintroduced for the 4th edition, which was just released 2 years ago, if I'm correct. Or maybe it's still on the 3rd edition, who knows. I'll be basing my assumptions on the 2nd edition, which we Gen X-ers grew up with.

First off, any character starting off starts off at experience level 1. The different classes have different levels of experience point accumulation; depending on the campaign and how the Dungeon Master distributes experience points, certain classes may rise to higher levels more quickly.

A level 1 fighter begins with one ten-sided die of hit points. That's up to 10 HP potentially; that's not too shabby. Of course, if combat is especially brutal, that could amount to two short sword blows, and you're toast; depends how you're equipped. But warriors get a decent amount of starting funds, and all kinds of weapon proficiencies. It's not too hard, if you're smart, to get up to the 2000 experience points (XP) needed to progress to level 2, and get another 1d10 of hit points.

However, the fighter is constrained by his lack of other skills. These can be overcome, but there will be no hiding in shadows or climbing walls for the fighter. Mostly just hackin' and slashin'. There are some non-weapon proficiencies you can (and should) use to overcome the fighter's "clunkiness". So the fighter is a pretty solid starting choice. Of course, as the game progresses, the fighter remains a fighter whereas the other characters go on to be truly spectacular.

The Paladin is a fighter/cleric, in essence, and I want to discuss the cleric before getting to the paladin, arguably the best starting character in the game. The ranger we can mention in passing - a fighter with some limited thief skills, and some assorted nature-based shit. Again, a decent choice, but the Hide in Shadows and Move Silently scores of the ranger are so limited initially that I find the ranger to be of little use. Again, perhaps this was fixed up for 3 ed.; I don't know.

The mage is a lot fun to play, but quite fucked at level 1. With only 1d4 (4-sided die) of initial hit points, the mage can be killed in one fell swoop, and must avoid combat at all costs. If you manage to keep yourself alive, as a mage, over the course of a truly massive campaign (I'm thinking 3 "story arcs" or about 18-20 sessions), you are going to end up with by far the most powerful character in the game, capable of reshaping reality itself to a certain extent. But try staying alive when your Dungeon Master is quite literal about the rules of combat - something I always try to avoid as a DM, as it sucks the fun out of the game. Plus, the initial funds of the mage are quite limited, and if you play with the "material component required for spellcasting" rule, forget about it.

Let's touch brief on the pscionicist, another character, like the mage, who can become insanely powerful, but is even MORE limited from the get go than the mage. The pscionicist is your worst possible 1st-level character. It "costs" so much, without getting into it, just to establish contact with another mind, you can barely do squat until level 3 or 4. A great high-level character, though.

Now, the Rogue. What a fun character class to play as. With 1d6 HP, a decent balance between weapon and non-weapon proficiencies, and the abilities to move silently, climb walls, pick locks, etc. etc., the rogue is very diverse, a ton of fun to play as, progresses decently and can stay alive through fight or flight. Especially if you sort of specialize when you allocate your skill points at the beginning. Who can overstate the importance of moving silently and hiding in shadows? Just pick out some kind of range weapon (crossbow is ideal, if allowed) and go into total sniper mode! How can you go wrong?

And let's mention the Bard, the funnest character of all in a lot of ways, a character who must survive with his wits, but has limited access to theif abilities AND to spell casting. Bards tends to be the most dynamic characters in a campaign, anyways. They are just a ton of fun, and while they should avoid fighting, they can survive in a scrap if they need to, and bust out some magic missiles from time to time. Plus, their charisma - by requirement - is through the roof. Very appealing for the liar and con man in us all.

But now let me close the argument by voting for the Cleric as the best initial starting character class. The cleric has an impressive 1d8 of hit points, decent funds, a great character motive to follow at all times (the religious impulse), and above all, all good clerics can CURE LIGHT WOUNDS from the get go, at least once a day. So if the cleric takes a near-mortal short sword or arrow blow, he or she can just cure his or herself. Only once a day, mind you, but as you rise, you increasingly gain more spells, and the cleric ends up being mighty indeed. Plus, the cleric is not a lousy fighter. This is by far the most "stable," well-balanced and less fatality-prone starting character. And that is so important, assuming the party is all starting out at level 1. Plus, the cleric can cure other party members.

Now let's return to the Paladin, a sort of "super-class" combining the best of both the fighter and the cleric. Though limited a bit in spell-casting, the Paladin has all kinds of other nutso abilities that really just push them through the roof. The problem, however, is rolling up the initial ability scores required to be a Paladin. If your DM oks you to just allocated points however you want, you may be in luck. But if you're playing by the book, it's very rare you'll have the ability to be a paladin. And let's be honest, a paladin can severely misbalance a party. While the mage is running around hiding and casting one spell a day, the paladin is off kicking ass.

Of course, it all depends on how much you bend the rules. I personally bend them a lot, because the point of D&D is to provide equal parts laughs, action, and drama, in my opinion. But for the by-the-books types, gotta roll with the paladin.

The First Obama-McCain debate and more housing woes

2008-09-26T22:46:00.000-07:00

James Call: Expert! Not really an expert in anything, I am simply slightly better educated than your average American. Hey, let's face it: it's not hard. Just read for half a fucking hour. Onwards!

Our first question comes from "Kerrianne":

Who won last night's debate?

Well, that depends on who you ask. The polls won't really reflect this event until early next week. Fivethirtyeight.com's analysis is a narrow win for Obama based on certain key moments, but most of the mainstream media are saying it was a very narrow McCain victory, although certainly the "liberal" pundits are saying Obama while the "conservatives" are saying McCain. My personal analysis is that while Obama squandered an opportunity to deliver a knockout blow to McCain, the debate doesn't really change anything. I'll explain why below.

First off, full disclosure: I am for Obama. I hope this will not deter any of my right-wing friends who may happen to be reading this blog. I am for Obama, but politics is an art that I savor. Last night I watched the debate with people who kept flapping their liberal gums off and I couldn't hear half the fucking thing. I was so livid. Anyways...

It's important to realize that the punditry determined ahead of time that McCain would have "won" the foreign policy part of the debate no matter what. That John McCain is a foreign policy expert. As I've tried to explain before, this isn't true; Obama is very well versed in foreign affairs; John McCain doesn't know some basic facts. I'm sorry to harp on the leader of Spain issue, but I knew who Zapatero is, and I'm a fucking 29 year file clerk and musician.

If you don't want to read this whole bit, let's just say: McCain won vocal delivery, Obama won body language, McCain appeared angry and frustrated but also more passionate, while Obama came off as cool but also timid at times.

The narrative is that McCain is the foreign policy leader, and this is his campaign strength. He plays to the basic Reagan/Bush I & II "being a strong leader is attacking people with bombs" narrative. It's very effective for the average American who doesn't read. After all, "we'll fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" sounds like a more secure policy than, well, we'll negotiate but not concede. Again, it isn't true, but what's true doesn't matter in politics. It's what's easy to understand. And Obama's foreign policy is not as soundbite friendly as McCain's (Soundbites are something Obama should be working on in general, and I honestly don't know why David Axelrod and whatshisname Plouffe aren't more insistent with him on this point. I also wonder the extent to which Obama has taken the time to watch the Reagan-Carter and Clinton-Dole debates).

Last night's debate was supposed to focus on foreign policy, officially, but in light of the economic meltdown, the economy had to mentioned. It was mentioned in the beginning, and right again at the end. Obama narrowly "won" these sections. Nonetheless, I feel Obama lost an opportunity to really go for the jugular, to call McCain on his campaign shenanigans of the past week, and to really ravage him on the issue of the economy. Instead, Obama demurred to Jim Lehrer and stuck to the script. I consider this a mistake because polling at rasmussen and elsewhere shows that the economy is the top concern of 44% of voters (around there), followed ny national security at only half that amount (22%). People are losing homes and jobs; do they give two shits about depressing-ass Iraq anymore? Not so much.

Obama in general missed a lot of opportunities to really rip into McCain, and in terms of language, McCain won the debate, for the most part. McCain constantly kept saying "Obama doesn't understand." He used that phrase at least 3 times. He also called Obama slightly naïve. This reinforces (perhaps) the "Obama isn't ready to lead narrative". Obama was very wordy, which perhaps deflected that message. He seemed prepared, but he should have spoken more slowly. That is what McCain did well: spoke slowly and delivered easily digested sound bites. Obama came off as more litigious. His language was also far too moderate. Most of the time he said McCain "misrepresented" his views. He would have scored far more points by saying, Olbermann-style, "Senator, you are LYING." That was my biggest wish for last night, that I did not get: for Obama to simply say LIAR, LIAR, STOP LYING over and over again. People respond to simple language!

Further, it would be a good opportunity to rile McCain himself up. In terms of body language, Obama clearly won last night, including the foreign policy bit. McCain came off as condescending and looked like he was getting pisssssssssssed whenever Obama nailed him. Obama came off as cool as a cucumber, and he finally stared directly in the camera for a bit, thank God. Plus, his smile is killer. He's gotta smile more often and speak slower. And check out McCain - it looked like his fucking head was going to explode at times. Seriously, watch clips of the debate where Obama is ripping McCain a new one, gently, and just watch McCain flare up. Honestly, this is why Obama should come on stronger at the next debate. I want to see McCain turn around and say "Listen you nigger, you don't know what you're talking about!" McCain's temper is legendary and off-putting in same way Nixon was off-putting. Obama's gotta taunt him a little bit more.

McCain did deliver the one kinda misty-eyed part of the night, about some mom of some soldier who died, but who cares. The debate was not a game changer. Obama won the crucial parts, while McCain won the foreign policy bits. The spin is not going to change.

And let's assume McCain gets, at best, a 5 point bounce come Monday, based on this debate, and the two are neck-and-neck again. Well, credit is frozen, and this coming Friday, a tremendous amount of people are getting laid off. I would guesstimate at least 100,000, although I could be wrong. There might also be a bailout bill by tomorrow, which will dominate the airwaves. It sounds like the Dems are caving to the House GOP and introducing some very piss-poor elements into this bill, meaning the bill will pass in a bipartisan manner but both parties will be in the doghouse with voters. Neither Obama nor McCain should endorse this bill.

I know the Congress genuinely wants to get the markets running again, but if I were Pelosi and Reid I would just say "fuck it" and let the bill collapse until we've got a new President and Congress - guaranteed to be far more Democratic. As an alternative to this, the initial funding of $350 billion being offered should be cut back perhaps to $50 bil, half the size of the past stimulus bill. Why risk political suicide over a terrible piece of legislation anyways? The markets are still fucked - credit is gonna be frozen or slow for at least 2 years.

Bottom line: the debate did not change the narrative. McCain still looks like an angry child and Obama looks like a weak adult. Obama needs to "seal the deal" by speaking more slowly, with far fewer pauses, and in more digestible soundbites. Just get the man stoned and make him watch the Clinton and Reagan debates, for fuck's sake. Oh well.

RECOMMENDED READING: fivethirtyeight.com has initially polling in that will cheer the Obama supporter; I hope they're right. But I'll be staying tuned to Republican-weighted rasmussenreports.com in coming days for sure. Always prepare for the worst!

Our next question comes from "Tore":

Can you explain in james call layman terms (full of expletives and funny analogies) why the housing market is so fucked right now?

I'll give it a shot, you cunt.

Listen - I tried to explain this last time... all the liquidity (free cash) from the dot com bubble had to go somewhere, and the forces that be settled on housing - who knows why, market mob mentality probably - and decided that the value of housing would only ever go up.

So banks decided they could lend to even dumb fucks like me, people with lousy credit, because I mean hey, even MY house was going to keep raising in value, forever and ever, into the sky. Even if I lived 90 miles from my job in the middle of the country in a place nobody likes.

You could, until recently, constantly refinance your mortgage - take out a new loan and use it to pay off a large chunk of your old mortgage and go forward in life with a lower interest rate. Especially since the Fed Funds Rate, the kind of "master" interest rate for the whole country, was so low under Alan "Mother Brain" Greenspan, pretty much everyone could be all "Wheee this adjustable-rate mortgage means I can keep up with my house payments because my house value keeps rising, and totally supplements my shitty income from working in a sub-par job that I have because the union movement has been totally destroyed in this country" (a topic for later) and life was ok, although it was ALL based on debt - as well as personal credit card debt, a lot of the time.

And here's the thing - because mortgages were sliced and diced and repacked into CDOs (see last post), the rising tide lifted all boats, including the shitty ones, and the eventual rapidly falling tide sunk all boats, including the very sound ones. People with fine credit are rapidly losing value on their homes because the market has effectively decided that all homes are worthless.

There have been a few little bubbles where this is not true, and these are typically places people actually want to live. New York, San Francisco, Boston and a few others have been largely safe because people will always want to live in these areas, because shit actually happens there, and they are nice. Even then, we are now seeing falling real estate prices in SF, Boston, and finally even here in the Big Apple! (although losing 30,000 financial jobs in a couple of months doesn't hurt, either)

When will the market bottom out, so we can start buying homes (those of us with money or good credit, that is) and wait for the value to rise back up? No one knows. Part of the bailout plan is to use "reverse auctions" to determine the actual eventual value of toxic housing assets, which the govt will then acquire for slightly below that value, eventually making a profit, although this new house GOP throw-money-at-the-failing-banks-for-free strategy certainly fucks that up a bit.

But the bottom line is that no one really knows what these houses are worth anymore. Certainly there are some undervalued ones in the East Bay of SF and some still overvalued ones outside of Indianapolis. It will take years to sort out. Meanwhile, we're going to see the rise of a lot of multi-family homes in houses designed for the typical nuclear family, a few very clever real estate entrepreneurs make out like bandits eventually, and a severe tax burden for the rest of us. I do not expect the real estate market to pick up for at least 3 years, perhaps more like 5, and if we ever do get a "boom" again, not for another 10 years. And, hey, shouldn't we avoid more of these "booms"? Will we ever learn our lesson?

This is why history and economics lessons are so important - why Americans should get 30 minutes paid time off during each day of the workweek to read the newspaper. Of course, that's a Commie fag Old Europe idea, so instead I encourage all of you to read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Gibbons and just get ready for that shit.

RECOMMENDED READING: Just everything I posted yesterday. I don't know of any good books right now specifically on the credit woes affecting households on a micro rather than macro level. Hey, just talk to your family and friends! They're all losing their houses, pensions, and jobs, aren't they? No reading necessary, baby!

Expert out!

The coolest financial meltdown and Presidential Election EVER

2008-09-26T03:48:00.000-07:00

Hi everyone! Welcome to Day 2 of "James Call: Expert". Please bear in mind, for those of you joining us for the first time, I'm not an "expert" in anything. I just drink a lot of coffee and check politico.com every 13 seconds. I've read a lot of financial books, too. But basically I'm just a cranky file clerk. Thankfully with a job! Those are gonna be even more scarce pretty soon.

Anyways, we got two great questions yesterday, which I'm going to roll into one "super-question" since they are quite related. But first, I'd like to touch on the "how to get Al Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan" question from yesterday.

I had suggested we should pay some informants off to locate Osama et al, but in light of something I read in The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein (amazing book - a bit emotional at times - a quick read and a real mind-opener - everyone should read it), I think I may rescind my comments. Since we've been paying people thousands of dollars for Al Qaida operatives for a few years now, and they just keep kidnapping peasants etc. and shipping them off to us, and since we don't have anyone who speaks the local languages over there or know what the fuck we're doing, we keep giving slimebags money to sell us innocent people, who end up in Guatanamo or Bagram - hundreds of them - people with no info whatsoever.

So I guess that leaves the only "solution" as "really occupy the country and Marshall Plan that shit". Which, for the record, would have justified the Iraq invasion in my opinion: If we had left it a richer, better, more secure country than we found it. Which we didn't - instead we totally ruined the joint. And since we're undergoing this financial crisis and the political willpower for years of war no longer exists, I don't think success in an option in Afghanistan. Instead, I think we're going to lose both wars and thank God oil is slowly losing it's importance, because we just need to get the fuck out of the whole region for at least 2 or 3 decades.

Anyways, on to today's questions:

"Greg" asks: "Please explain the recent sequence of events that caused the current
economic crisis that is veering towards National Socialism."

and "My Mom" asks: "what is your opinion about McCain's tactics re:
canceling the Presidential debate Friday night, with his "country first"
excuse? Is it brilliant (though terrifying) politics or is the death of
his campaign?"

Well! I'm writing this first bit at 7am, one hour before I get my NY Times for the day, and the information contained within that will be outdated within a number of hours, anyways. But... I can begin answering these two linked questions. GO TEAM!

Let's answer my mom's question first, as it is MUCH easier to answer:

The McCain gambit: will it be effective?

In a word, in my opinion, no. He "suspended his campaign," which is total bullshit (he interviewed with Katie Couric that night, and appeared alongside Bill "The Traitor" Clinton), and which Letterman called him on. McCain didn't suspend his campaign at all. And I'm not a ratings expert, but I assume a good chunk of the American swing voter populace still watch Letterman. And I mean, Letterman is a Republican, is he not? Here's a pretty fun Repubilican-oriented guy calling out the head of the GOP for his bullshit move.

What McCain really wants to do is weasel his way out of the debate tonight. It's sort of a damage control thing. The debate is supposed to be about foreign policy, but everyone knows it's not going to be about that, and Jim Lehrer, God bless his heart, confirmed so in an e-mail: "I am not restrained from asking questions about the financial crisis. Stay tuned!" Gotta love the guy.

This debate is/was widely expected to be the most watched political debate of all time, more so than Reagan/Carter, which would put viewership above 80 million Americans. Now, McCain doesn't -gain- anything by skipping out on the debate, but he perhaps -minimizes damage- by not being seen as a doddering old fool in front of the dashing young man. That was always going to be the threat, since, let's face it, Presidential elections come down to how voters "feel" about candidates, largely, and those feelings are informed by visual information, not anything written or logical.

But - had McCain debated, and of course, lost, the mainstream media narrative would have been "McCain, as expected, won the debate, but Obama did surprisingly well," since the media have long decided that McCain is an expert on foreign affairs, which is untrue - he can't delineate between Sunnis and Shias, for instance - whereas Obama really is quite well versed on foreign affairs. In fact, while he's often described as the most "liberal" member of the Dems who competed this year, that is a total lie; he is the most rightist of any of them on domestic issues. It is on foreign affairs where Obama truly shines. That is his selling point, although the media, both mainstream and "alt," do not really depict it this way. But it's the god honest truth.

So - by claiming "he has to be in Washington to help fix the financial crisis," McCain can dodge the bullet of appearing just like Bob Dole did opposite Bill Clinton in 1996 - old, doddering, not in command of the issues, tempermental. However, what about the alternative?

If McCain does bail, Obama gets to go stand before Jim Lehrer for an hour or more (90 minutes, right?) and just EXPOUND. He basically will get widespread recognition for acting like an adult. That will be the narrative. Obama is an adult, and McCain is a coward. And as details of McCain's alternative bailout plan are leaked, the narrative will be McCain is a coward AND a fool. It would be a bigger win for Obama to actually debate, and kick Johnny boy's ass, but it is still an unqualified win for Obama, giving him that "reasoned leadership" edge he is often accused of lacking.

Of course, there's the alternative that liberals are worried about: McCain will stay in Washington, a compromise will be passed, and McCain will say "I made this happen! I'm Presidential!" Except, the problem is, this shit is not going to happen. And by injecting himself into the bailout's crafting, McCain has actually potentially subjected our country to a true collapse, a true Great Depression II.

How? It's simple. The political temptation for the GOP is to get the Dems to pass the bailout bill, along with a few sacrifical (East Coast) Rebublicans, and let the majority of the house GOP vote against it, and come back in 2010 with Republican Revolution II, saying, "The Dems voted for the biggest bailout in history! That's not fair to the taxpayer!"

Except that Nancy Pelosi doesn't have a brain made of jello, so, she insists on a bailout package that passes the House and Senate with wide bipartisan support.

But the house GOP is rallying around McCain for election season purposes. They're saying no way, Jose on the pretty fucking reasonable Paulson/Dodd/Frank compromise. BTW, for the record, the original Paulson plan was pretty scary and unreasonable - we'll get to that below - but he did effectively cave on all the major issues, mostly because the Bush White House has zero, zip, zilch political clout left.

So - the house GOP is going to doom the bill - but the Dems are in no rush to incorporate the bullshit GOP "alternative" into the bailout, because they too have to face voters in November, and they're not anxious to lose their seats. So what is going to happen?

That's a big question. Some sort of executive action of a pseudo-dictatorial nature? Don't rule it out, folks, the Presidency's power has been inflated beyond all good measure over the last century. But equally likely - no bailout deal. No compromise. And the continued collapse of major financial institutions, the total freeze of credit, and of course, massive layoffs. Great Depression II. Just like it happened the first time, when Hoover limped trotted out a sort of soft New Deal that never got off the ground.

And with Wall St. and Big Business generally livid as hell at the GOP for wrecking the economy, they are more than even behind the Dems. Mainstream media narrative (with the exception of Fox, but, maybe even them... I wouldn't be too surprised...) shifts to "McCain is selfish, foolish, and puts his Politics above Country" and "Obama has his head screwed on straight." Obama's victory in November is very narrow, just overcoming the "Bradley Effect" (which is the unstated racism we can expect, probably cutting somewhere around 5% nationally against Obama's poll numbers, the white folks who will never vote for a black man. Sorry, fellow liberals, that shit is real).

And then we get started on a New New Deal? Wouldn't that be something?

In the meantime, we all lose our pensions and our jobs. Enjoy!

UPDATE: It seems McCain will go through with the debate! I guess he decided to try to look less like a childish asshole after all. Prepare for your ass-kicking, John, it's coming tonight!

READING RECOMMENDATIONS: Just keep reading the Times, plus politico.com, rasmussenreports.com, wonkette.com, drudgereport.com, fivethirtyeight.com, and maybe some others to brighten your day.

Please Explain the Recent Series of Events that is Driving us to National Socialism

Silly liberal! This isn't driving us to National Socialism. This is driving us to Great Depression II. Come on, cheer up! We might get a New New Deal out of this shit! After we all lose our jobs and maybe our homes too, of course.

There are a lot on the left and right saying "nazis" and "commies" right now, but I don't think those are the right allegories, mostly because the Congress is finally Not Gonna Take It from Bush & Co. I guess it's possible that we can have some armbanded types in the future, but I think we need a real geniune Weimar Period first. Honestly, I have to say, I think the analogy is overplayed and inaccurate, and should be avoided. It allows the "mainstream" types to say, of those of us who would like reform, that we are "fringe wackos".

Let's get real: this is a total financial collapse. It has happened many times in American history. It's a very American/British phenomenon. But I am MORE than happy to try to explain how we got here. It's a wild story!

Ok. In order to understand the current crisis, you must understand that after the shit hit in the fan in the first Great Depression, three very important reforms were instituted, among others: the introduction of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the legal separation of Commercial and Investment banking (more below) by the Glass-Steagall Act, and the creation of "Fannie Mae" and "Freddie Mac" (Federal something something something, who cares, everyone calls them Fannie and Freddie) to help facilitate both affordable home ownership AND liquidity in markets. Phew! WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS MEAN, THOUGH, EXPERT you ask. And rightfully so. Onwards!

First off, when one refers to a "Commercial Bank" one is referring to a bank such as Citibank, Chase, Washington Mutual (R.I.P.), etc. This is a bank where you, the average schmuck, deposit your paychecks. You might get a mortgage loan from these banks as well. Businesses - the infamous "Main St." everyone is talking about these days - also deposit and acquire loans with/from the commercial banks. Including not just the saintly "small business," but also the villified "big business".

Investment banks deal in capital market transactions. This gives me a headache just trying to describe what that means. Basically, investment banks deal with investors, both individual and including hedge funds, mutual funds, and pension funds - your 401(k), baby! They also trade and sell cash and securities. They're MUCH more liquid than commercial banks, and much less stable. But the rewards, the yield, is much higher. Commercial banks issue stable loans and earn a little bit of return, slowly, over time. Investment banks can gamble and either lose or win big.

Back before the two kinds of banks were separated, banks were not commercial/investment... they were just banks. And they could gamble YOUR savings away on some stupid investment and lose it all. Which is what they did, and we had a bank run, and, fuck. Everyone was broke. So the FDIC was created, which is a government guarantee that your savings are insured up to a certain amount. And Glass-Steagall was instituted to lower risk.

Now, people are sayin "This shit could be Great Depression II". And they're right, but it'll be very different, because FDIC is still with us. You're not going to lose your (most likely paltry) savings. But in the late 90s, Bill Clinton tragically helped repeal Glass-Steagall. The differentiation between Commercial and Investment came to an end. And that's why you're not gonna lose your savings, you're gonna lose your job. I will explain below.

We also need need to explain Fannie and Freddie. Whenever there's a financial crisis, people don't know what the good investments are, so people hoard their money and no one invests in anything - this is what's known as a "credit crunch" or a term now being tossed around "credit FREEZE" (oh shit, bitches!). It means banks are not loaning to businesses, or to each other. Or, voila, to you, of course.

But what Fannie and Freddie, originally gov't run, are set up to do is to buy mortgages from banks, giving these mortgages government backing and making them an EXCELLENT investment. This not only means that home ownership was incredibly stable, a good investment, and rose for many years, but that for every mortgage a Commercial Bank sold to Fannie or Freddie, it freed up cash to invest elsewhere, stimulating the economy. This is "liquidity".

Now, in 1968, LBJ sold off Fannie and Freddie, which became Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs). This raised cash for Vietnam and made some bearish investors very happy. These were now private companies with public backing.

Sounds scary, right? Except Fannie and Freddie had very high standards for their lending practices - and continue to do so. They would not buy mortgages from people with bad credit. Period. So the privatization wasn't really that bad. Fannie and Freddie continued to function as before, except now that had a CEO and shareholders, who were making money but nothing on the level that a big company's CEO would make.

What Fannie and Freddie began to do wrong in the late '90s was: insufficient capitalization. They did not sell enough stock to maintain their balance sheets; that's why a government bailout was needed. But Fannie and Freddie were largely a victim of the housing bubble.

Skip back to the late '90s. At this time, Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress repealed Glass-Steagall. That's right, Bill Clinton, the "New Democrat," by and large turned his back on the New Deal, including this crucial risk-preventer. Soon the Commercial Banks were investin' in capital markets left and right, and soon there were just... banks. Not commercial, not investment, just banks (although some retained their historic roles).

The tremendous power of the former Commercial Banks could now be used to really make the markets crank. The dot com bubble really took off. And voila - it turned out to be a bubble. Too much cash was floating around withou the bottom line in place. So we had the recession of the early '00s.

But - that cash did end up going somewhere. It went into the next bubble, housing. This was made possible when some shrewd mofos figured out a couple of things. First off, since everyone was deciding real estate was a 100% win investment, that the value of homes would only ever increase - mass psychology is, by and large, what guides a given market, especially a very "free" one - banks started to figure that could issue "subprime" loans, i.e., loans to people with bad credit, figuring even these people would be able to pay off their mortgages because house values were just gonna keep increasing, right?

That's stupid enough, but the real chicannery came down to a new financial "instrument" the commercinvesto banks were now engaging in - the mortgage-backed CDO (Collateralized Debt Oligation). What this was was a sort of bundled investment, almost like a derivative, which included well-rated mortgages (AAA) and shitty, subprime mortgages... and most frighteningly, many other assets, including municipal bonds and other pretty valid, stable investments.

These CDOs flew around from bank to bank and a lot of traditional investment banks made the most money off of 'em. Housing prices just kept rising and rising and kept our economy somewhat afloat for many years. Certainly, some of the biggest banks to fail recently made a killing off these bundled investments, at the time, but essentially no one actually knew WHAT they were trading. They didn't know the extent to which subprime mortgages underlay these fancy-sounding, impressive CDOs.

It's like - what if I sold you a "Certificate of James Call: Expert" that included some of my favorite CDs, a couch, a usable hard drive, a bag full of cockroaches. But you had no idea what my Certificate meant, just that you could keep trading it for other certificates for more money everytime.

Well, we need to segue for a second into another trend of the '90s and '00s - the growth of the exurbs. Huge growth of suburb-like communities detached from any urban center. The ultimate logical extension of white flight, made somewhat feasible by telecommuting, amongst other things.

Except - in the end analysis - with oil prices through the roof, competition from abroad in so many traditional fields, and the threats to credit card holding consumers - who the fuck really wants to live in, say, Victor, Idaho? Or in the middle of Kansas somewhere, not on farmland but in a little suburb-like town? The answer: no one. Any moron with a brain could see this was a bad investment from miles away, and that eventually, housing prices would come down.

But see, here's the fundamental problem, and a big part of the reason why we're ALL fucked, not just Wall St. Since the late '70s, and especially the non-stop Friedmanite Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush years, finance, which used to be outweighed by manufacturing 2:1 in terms of the size of our economy, has grown to encompass 40% of our economy. Essentially, the shifting around of assets, not the actual PRODUCTION of ANYTHING, accounts for nearly half of our economy. So when a bubble collapses, it's much harder to ride out. We're all living on credit, including the businesses who employ us. This style of living demands a constant bubble, and when bubbles keep getting bigger and more ridiculous, crashes come much harder.

What's a real shame is that, since this subprime loans were sliced and diced and packaged up and spread throughout the whole financial system (worldwide, I hate to say, just like the first Great Depression), no one can identify the "bad" mortgage holders and the "good" ones. So people are, in essence, panicking, driving housing prices through the floor, and the good borrowers are being taken down with the bad ones, just as good loaners are in danger of losing out along with Bear Sterns and everyone else.

THAT'S why Fannie and Freddie fell - that and their insufficient capitalization. It's mass psychology. People with good credit who bought houses during the bubble are getting slammed, and are no longer credit worthy, so they're falling behind in their payments, and Fannie and Freddie had to apply for a bailout. If they had just collapsed, that would be the end, potentially, of affordable housing in this country. It will also seize up liquidity (well, this has happened, though, to a huge extent).

Now let's quickly review the fallen in these last tumultuous few months. First, their was Bear Stearns, a classic investment house who played the housing bubble/CDO game hard. They gambled big and totally collapsed - sort of amazing. JP Morgan Chase (proving to be a big gambler, and potential winner, in this whole thing) snatched up Bear at firesale prices. Bear is gone... one of the most notable names in American finance... gone. Incidentally, this sale to JP Morgan was done largely at the behest of the Fed (ah, the Fed. We'll "go there" in a minute).

How did Bearl? A BANK RUN! We haven't had a real proper bank run in a while.

After Bear came Fannie & Freddie, taken back over by the government, a market-reassuring move... but not reassuring enough, because next to fall were Lehman Brothers & Merrill Motherfucking Lynch, the dudes who made the "bull" in "bull market" famous! Yep, looks like Lehman and Merrill had some more of that subprime collateralized crap floating around, and while the rest of their capitalization was stable, people decided to sell 'em short and BAM! Down they went, Lehman just into bankruptcy and Merrill into a very cheapo buyout by Bank of America (slick move, BoA).

Let's stop and look at that term I just used: selling short. "Short Sellers" are currently either benighted villains or woefully misunderstand Randian heroes, in the public eye. I don't want to get, or give you, a headache by fully explaining short selling. Let's just say that it involves selling something you don't fucking own. Defenders of short selling defend it on the grounds that short sellers point out flaws in companies that others might miss. And, to an extent, this is true. But there's little regulation of short selling (or, well, there was. Treasury has now exempted over 800 stocks from short selling, in a bold, overlooked, and hotly contested move).

Let me offer my own analogy for short selling, and why I come down against short selling as currently being practiced, to take down firms that SHOULD be solvent, such a Lehman Bros and Merrill Lynch. Let's say we're having a loft party, and it's a great fucking time, we're all getting high and listening to music, etc. And I'm there, and I just -happen- to be a building inspector. And I notice the supports of the roof are rotting.

The responsible thing to do would be to say to a few people, "You know, I think we should get out of here, maybe. The roof is not in a good condition." And if they start freaking out, calm them down and say, "Dude, the roof MIGHT not collapse, but let's not take a chance. Let's go to the bar down the street." And then the party might slowly mellow out and disperse.

Now let's assume, instead, I start screaming at the top of my lungs, "HOLY SHIT THE ROOF IS GOING TO COLLAPSE!" Then, everyone runs to the doors in a panic. People get tramped and the shit is just no good. When Merill Lynch can be taken down in a couple of days, that's what short selling is like. I don't care how they defend themselves, they are part of the problem.

Ok. Now let's touch on our central bank, the Fed, which can sort of control our money supply. Obviously the Federal Reserve Bank and it's chairman (currently Ben Bernanke) are closely watched by economists and market types. And should be watched as closely as the President by every American, but I digress. When the Fed lowers its interest rates, banks can borrow money - from the government - cheaply, and liquidity flows. Laissez le bon temps rouler. This is what happened under Alan Greenspan, and look, we got this housing bubble.

At the end, fearing inflation, Greenspan cranked the fed funds rate back up, and then bowed out of his job, revered as a God of Finance. Then poor Ben Bernanke got the job, and things went fine for a while, but to prevent the shit hitting the fan, Ben tried cutting the rate down from 5.25% to about 2%, hoping to spur liquidity. Perhaps this sent the wrong signal to the markets, who started freaking the fuck out instead, but I can't blame Ben for trying.

The Fed has been largely impotent over the unfolding crisis. It just can't inject liquidity into a market where no one knows what a good investment is anymore. That's the panic in a nutshell right there. People are making bank runs on really pretty solid institutions. The government had to step in and sort of bailout AIG, formerly highly respected, now history (I think Barclay's is getting a chunk - the rest are "toxic assets," i.e., subprime CDO junk). Morgan Stanley narrowly avoided a panic, and, who am I forgetting? Well, Washington Mutual, as of this morning, is toast, it's investors non-reassured by the politicking going on over the bailout bill currently - all McCain's attemps to skip out of a debate with Handsome Young Black Man - way to put country first, John!

Now, let's recap. We still have the FDIC, so none of us are going to lose our savings, if we have them. And a bailout is guaranteed, so the stock market is going to stay in place, most likely, though I could be very wrong about that. Nevermind that, accounting for inflation, the market is way down from the end of the '90s... let's just stick with the absolute, not the real, number... hovering around 11,000.

What's going to happen instead is that credit is going to dry up. The final two true Investment Banks - Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley - are asking the government to regulate them as per commercial banks. It's amazing, and not a happy result. They want to remove risk, and who can blame them, but they also won't be doing any serious investing sometime soon. Meanwhile, while JP Morgan is making out nicely, even collassal Citigroup, the 800 lb. gorilla, has a sizeball chunk of questionable assets and will not be agressive in its lending anytime soon.

They're moving all their investments over to treasury notes, which have about a 0% yield at this point. Basically, credit is frozen. So where are small and big businesses going to get their money for payroll in these coming months? The question is: from either in-house, or nowhere. Except major layoffs and downsizings coming soon, to an Election near you!

This is in addition to our own personal finances, which are fucked. Many of us are screwed by the adjustable rates on our credit cards, and our mortgages. We're about to lose our jobs and we have major debts to pay off. Our 401(k)s are other seemingly safe investments are also, perhaps, toast. What we need is a classic cry heard throughout America, Britain, and Australia throughout history - and it's why I reject the Nazi or Commie scares of both the left and right. We need debt relief! This was the cry of the populists in the Gilded Age! We need debt relief and we need it NOW.

But we are not going to get it.

Treasury Secretary Paulson walked into a real shitstorm in Congress this week with his $700 billion bailout plan, which many experts say could really end up being $1.3 trillion. He demanded, among other things, that no review or oversight by courts or other bodies be allowed. Legal immunity! I swear, only in the Bush administration.

His plan also proposed to buy up the CDOs, the toxic assets, and just have taxpayers pay for them, so that the banks could get their good credit back, but does nothing to address the credit of the consumer, who is, hey, also the taxpayer... oh, and, we haven't mentioned this in a couple of decades, but also the worker.

Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, God bless 'em, said, "Politely go fuck yourself Mr. Paulson," and he did, indeed, totally cave, amazingly, probably because President Bush is the lamest duck of all. The Paulson/Dodd/Frank plan did NOT include the ability of those with mortgage woes to get their rates adjusted by court - very sad - but it did, at least, revoke the legal immune, grant oversight, and ensure that the bailout agency was buying not only the bad assets, but also equity shares in the institutions they're buying them from. There's a word for this: nationalization. A lot of dumbasses flinch when they hear this word, but hey, it's been done before and it WORKS.

It's not total nationalization anyways... it's just the government acquiring a stake in these banks, ensuring that some day we can sell this stake off and maybe make a profit, on behalf of the taxpayer. Of course, part of these profits were pledged to DEBT RELIEF. Oh boy. Debt relief! Fuck, are we just going to keep electing Republicans who drive up debt and then Clinton-style Dems who act on debt relief and temporarily recapitalize our banks and get credit flowing again?

Still, while I object to much of the bailout, it's crucial to free up capital to get it to businesses who employ us. Because where else are they going to get the money for payroll, equipment, etc? They really don't have it. Main St. relies almost entirely on Wall St. for this kind of funding. So a bailout is ugly, but necessary.

Furthermore - the bailout package restores New Deal regulations to a large extent. And by God, that's what we need.

In terms of ushering the bailout package through Congress, it all looked good 2 days ago. One would think what would happen is the Bush admin would try to get the Dems to vote on the package and most of the GOP would sit it out, running in 2010 claiming the Dems presided over the biggest bailout of all time. But Pelosi and Reid will not be sacrifical lambs, and they demanded wide bipartisan approval.

And by God, they almost had it, until McCain flew into town saying "hold on a sec," and giving the house GOP an opportunity to scuttle the whole thing. It's not that McCain has a plan - he doesn't - and the House Minority Leader Boehner plan is to just give these banks a ton of cash with no new regulations - because, hey, that's working so well right now, right? I know that when someone robs my computer, I try to get his address so I can send him a laptop, myself.

Anyways... credit is dry. Financial institutions have died. We don't know what the bailout proposal is going to be exactly; we only know we need one. The Dodd plan was pretty good. The GOP House plan is pretty terrible. Worse than the S&L bailout plan. God only knows what comes next - hopefully real regulations, including a sensible approach on short-selling, more restrictions on CDOs and derivatives (a sad tale for another time). We're getting an exectuive salary cap, which a lot of people are calling bullshit, but, are restrictions on drunk drivers bullshit, even if most drunk drivers don't get into accidents?

But all this shit is gonna cost up to $1.3 trillion potential, so don't expect that "health care" or "victory in the war on terror" or "new highways" you were expecting anytime soon.

Good time to invest in oil, though! That shit ain't a bubble!

I hope this has been informative. If I write any more at this time my arms will fall off. This has only skimmed the surface, but I hope it's made some of you more interested in this meltdown. I'm going back to obsessively scanning the websites now. Please feel free to leave comments, attacks upon me personally, or further questions.

RECOMMENDED READING: Holy fuck, there's an ocean of it. I stand by Paul Krugman despite what many people say. He might have been wrong on globalization and Iraq initially, but he's more than acquitted himself. All his books are worth reading, and they're easy reads. If you only read the newspaper twice a week, read his columns on Monday and Friday in the NY Times. You can skip basically every other weekly syndicated columnist in this country, in my opinion. Some of them may make you feel warm and fuzzy but none of them give you the facts you need to know.

Also read Wall St. by Doug Henwood. A bit dense, but indispensible to understanding some of these financial instruments. The Shock Doctrine, mentioned above, is only tangentially related to the subject but still helps you understand the larger debates about Keynesianism vs. Monetarism we're about the get into... well, many of us are already into it. Anything by Joseph Stiglitz is a must read. Three Billion New Capitalists by Clyde Prestowitz paints a new way forward in a statist way that I respect. And I eagerly look forward to reading Bad Money by Kevin Phillips, a fantastic author and former (now disgruntled) Republican with a great grip on how finance has ruined things in the past few decades.

There is much more to read and recommend... I barely know where to start. Keep reading The Economist from time to time to get a scholarly but Wall St. perspective. And read Secrets of the Temple by William Greider if you want to understand the Fed, monetarism in practice in this country, and whether inflation is necessarily always a bad thing and a strong dollar always a good thing, especially if you're in debt.

2008-09-25T07:38:00.000-07:00

What an exciting debut for the world of your personal education! I received four quality questions yesterday, and I will attempt to answer them all right now, based on my expert knowledge of the issues.

Our first question comes from "Amy":

1. can you explain to me what this whole palin troopergate investigation is about?

Sure, you bet! "Troopergate" is a classic example of someone mildly abusing executive power, but unfortunately, it's an abuse of power you can't help but be mildly sympathetic to - even if you hate Sarah Palin.

The basic story is that Sarah's sister was married to some abusive asshole, who was a decent state trooper but a pretty shitty husband. I'm not sure if he was physically abusive or just emotionally abusive - I think it was the latter - but obviously, the dude was not a good brother in law. The sister and this asshole trooper split up, and he might have kept harrassing the sister (I'm not sure about that bit, you can google that crap). Point is, Sarah got this dude shitcanned.

Oh wait - looks like I was wrong - this "gate" is about as interesting to me personally as "travelgate" (that is to say, uninteresting). What Sarah did was put pressure on the state police chief [CORRECTION: my mom points out he was the Public Safety Commissioner - my bad], some guy called Monegan, to fire the brother-in-law, named Wooten. Monegan was like, "No, sorry he's an asshole but he's a good trooper" so Sarah was all "Ok have fun getting a new job Monegan bye bye" and shitcanned him.

Let's be honest - this isn't really the most scandalous Governor behavior of all time, even though it is unethical to be honest. I do think if Ellie Spitzer has to lose his job over fucking some hookers Sarah Papay should get her ass booted out too - but this is Alaska, where "the machine" is still pretty fucking powerful, whereas New York State has a pretty stable two-party system in place where Governors can't get away with shit like that.

The real troopergate scandal is that Sarah and the other Repubs up there have tried to derail the investigation into it. Certainly the Alaksa Dems, and they are a growing force indeed, would love to have this investigation be ongoing in the 39 days left until we elect our sacrificial President, but the investigation has already been pushed aside. It's been authorized by the legislature, so they can push it off until post-election, which is a done deal at this point, although I don't think they managed to shitcan the guy who started the investigation (Mr. French, dunno his first name).

Point is: troopergate is gonna be about as effective as travelgate, i.e., something that makes Dems cranky even though they don't really understand it, and won't bother Repubs or your ordinary "swing" voter very much at all, and eventually it'll be forgotten because there's already WAY better Palin scandals out there, such as the fact "bridge to nowhere no thanks but money to nowhere yes please gate" and the fact that she can't speak English, just like our Dubya.

READING RECOMMENDATION: all the major news networks are gonna keep up with this shit. I stand by the NY Times for printing the most thorough investigations of this sorta BS, regardless of who originally prints it. And I'm sure wonkette.com will have plenty of comedy on the issue, as will gawker.

Our next THREE questions come from "My Dad":

what should be done in the Pakistani border region/Pakistan situation in general?

Whoo, that's a good question. Gotta admit I haven't been following the Pakistan/Afghan situation as well as I would like since Terrifying Election and Financial Meltdown '08 started, but if I was unemployed I'd know every last detail, and I still know enough to provide y'all with an "expert" answer.

First off, you can't understand what's going on in the Tribal Areas without understanding the history of the region from WAY back when. Let's start with the BCs, when Aryans (the real ones, not the phony German ones) swept out of the Caucasus high outta their minds on hallucinogens with some bitchin' war gods and conquered the most fertile shit they could find, Northern India (basically the Indus and Ganges river valleys). They pushed the original people down south, where the Dravidian culture flourished in obscurity and CONTINUES to do so to this day. Very important!

The Aryans absorbed some of the dravidian gods, mixed in their own, and became Hindus. They stopped conquering things and instead built one of the most impressive civilizations of all time. That was all cool and shit 'til the muslims came to town. I gotta admit I can't recall when Mahmoud of Ghazni first swept down and brought Islam to Northern India, but he did so with some considerable damage. This is around 1000 BCE or so.

Still, India's just too fertile for even a crazy ass monotheistic religion like Islam to be all violent for too long, and soon, under the Mughals and others (plenty of good invasions during these years), India in assorted forms was a classy world power, with lots of good architecture and a whole new religion, Sikhism, which fused Islam and Hinduism (how the fuck they did that task is pretty impressive, too). So basically, Northern India remains mostly Hindu but is dominated by Islam for a long time.

And bear in mind when we say "India" we are including "Pakistan" and "Bangladesh" in this shit. They are part of India until the 20th century. This is a very important thing to bear in mind.

Anyways, the British come in (some other Eurotrash too), wreck the shit and make India the "Jewel in the Crown" for a long time. And of course, when they leave, BROKE as SHIT after WW2, which is why the British Empire collapsed btw, they leave a big fucking mess. India is still united, but assorted antagonisms between Hindus and Muslims break out. When I implied earlier that India under the Mughals was peaceful and prosperous, I meant relatively. You can't stick two religions in the same room for too long without them trying to kill each other. Only China's ever really done that shit for an extended period of time. See Ireland and contemporary Iraq for some more awesome inter-demoninational fighting.

Point is, the Brits leave and the Hindus are sort of ostensibly in control, but they agree to split up into Hindu India and Moslem Pakistan (incl. Bangladesh). Sounds ok, except there's still a fuckload of muslims left in northern India. It isn't too long until 3 motherfucking huge wars are fought in the latter half of the 20th century between India and Pakistan, one of them resulting in the peeling off of Bangladesh from Pakistan (because they're all, "Yo, we're way the fuck over here and it floods all the time, what's up with you guys" among other issues).

So now we get to the good shit, the meat of the contemporary issue. Pakistan is run alternately by pretty damn corrupt civilizations, including the first Bhutto, and the Pakistani military, rated then as now as highly efficient and well maintained. Zia al-Huq deposes Bhutto right when the commies invade Afghanistan.

A note on invading Afghanistan: it can't be done. I mean, it can get invaded, but then the invader is going to get his ass kicked so hard by the Afghanis that there is just no hope. The British tried twice, the Russians tried once, we're trying it now, and there's just no fucking way. The Afghans are seriously hardcore. Way harder than much of the muslim world. Plus, that terrain is intense and hella mountainous.

Ok, so, the commies invade Afghanistan in the '80s, and Zia's all, "Yo, can I get a little jihad in this joint?" and then the Gipper and this crazy-ass Congressman Charlie Wilson (a Democrat, FYI) are all "Hell yeah! I'll bring the hookers and here's a huge ass shit-ton of small arms". So the Russians get their asses kicked, but when it comes time to reconstruct Afghanistan the Gipper and George H. W. Bush are all, "Oops, sorry, major financial crisis caused by our last decade of binge spending, sorry, can't help ya bye." And the Afghans, who are pretty much cousins of the Northern Pakistanis (the "tribal areas") are all "WHAT THE FUCK," and Zia gets toppled (assassinated? I can't believe I can't recall this offhand) and guess who takes over? My homegirl, Bhutto's daughter, Benazir - the lady who got shot last year.

Ok, so, Afghanistan kinda middles along in the 90s, a total mess, and Pakistan does alright but tensions with India continue (including some MAJOR riots and destruction, mostly in India proper, on both sides of the aisle, fighting over temples which the Hindus see as holy and the Moslems see as pagan - and to be fair, there's blame on both sides but the Hindu violence is WAY more grisly and destructive). Benazir Bhutto is majorly corrupt and her coalitions keep collapsing to a dude by the name of Nawaz Sharif.

A word about Bhutto and Sharif - while Zia al-Huq is in power, all military ruling that shit, Bhutto is off in, I believe, London (maybe Paris), being all Western and plotting to return to power (or, rather, return her family to power). She's well educated and well liked by elites and buys nice handbags, etc. Meanwhile, Sharif is a classic Reformer Muslim, sort of like a Protestant Populist in this shitty country. I.e., he's the "clean" government type opposed to the excesses of the West as well as military rule, etc. The coalition of gov't keeps swinging back and forth between Sharif and Bhutto this whole time, and they both are totally corrupt, but additionally Sharif's foreign policy moves are kind of nuts and bring tensions with India to a head many many times.

Another historical note - Pakistan, esp. under Zia but just in general - is a major recipient of American aid, while India, though much more democratic than Pakistan, gets Soviet aid. Of course, this is no longer the case, but does explain the tensions - massive arm sales to both over the years. Now America sells arms to BOTH countries! We are crafty fuckers!

So Bhutto and Sharif keep dukin' it out and eventually the people are kinda "fuck this," at which point guess who steps in? A name you might recognize: Pervez Musharraf. And guess whose protege he is? You got it, Zia al-Huq! God I love this kind of shit.

Anyways, Musharraf combines the best elements of maintaining order while everyone starves with a totally horrible foreign policy and respect to civil institutions. His dismisses the independent judiciary, which, despite Pakistan's problems, is right up there with its military in terms of respectability - Pakistan produces more lawyers than any country in Asia, if I'm not mistaken, and Pakistani attorneys are well regarded by bar associations here in the US of A.

So life continues to suck for your average Pakistani, and what's going on up in Afghanistan? That's right, those leftover mujihadeen we thought it would be SUCH A GOOD IDEA to ARM THE FUCK OUT OF during the Soviet-Afghan conflict... the Taliban! My fave! They totally sweep over Afghanistan, bringing their intense value set with them, and impose order.

Now, Afghanistan has been sucking even worse than Pakistan all these years. Afghanistan is majority Pashtun, but up north there are some Uzbeks and Tajiks and other things, and everyone's all, "Can we stop starving to death and being looted by assorted factions, please?" so the Taliban's all, "Sure, we can use these American arms and NEW arms sent by our pals in Pakistan, which is also basically Pashtun in the North, to totally conquer this shit and lay down the law." And they do so and it's all good. Until, of course, some rich Arab called Osama bin Laden starts this crazy "Al Qaida" thing going and says to the Taliban, "Can I crash with you guys? I'm a hella nutso extremist too."

And then funny - and deeply misunderstood - thing about that proposition is, that the Taliban is all, "Well, maybe. Just cause we cut the arms off of women who wear earrings and whatnot doesn't mean we want to associate with nutjobs like you, we're more about the 'ruling Afghanistan' rather than the 'global jihad' thing," but what the hell, Osama's got street cred and when the pro-American types get in touch with the Taliban to turn Osama over, they give it serious consideration, but the offer just isn't sweet enough.

But the point is: the Taliban is incredibly popular for providing stable gov't to your average Afghan at last, except for the Uzbeks and Tajiks up in the north. And they get the aid flowing from Pakistan via the Tribal Areas, right over the Khyber Pass from Afghanistan and again, basically the same people - sort of like the people of Pennsylvania giving aid to the people of Delaware. The Taliban also cut opium production, a major source of funds for covert wars on all sides, down to zero. NOT a popular move with our military!

Then, Al Qaida does 9/11 and we understandably lose our shit, and TALIBAM! those fuckers, to quote the NY Post. Which is all cool and shit except once again, we do not rebuild Afghanistan at all, and we don't even finish off the Taliban, we just push them over the border into the tribal areas!!! AND we put those fucking Uzbeks and Tajiks in charge of the "Northern Alliance," which is like putting a black man in charge of a war against white people in the Rust Belt. It's just one of the stupidest possible moves the West can make, but bear in mind, this is the Bush administration we're talking about here.

We also declare Musharraf a major ally in the War on Terror, but the problem with that is that Musharraf's career largely depends on support for the Pashtuns of Afghanistan, just like Zia's did! He doesn't want to be involved in this War on Terror bullshit at all - he wants high tensions with the Indians (especially up in Jammu and Kashmir - ever hear of that? The Appalachians of the Subcontinent). So he pussyfoots around for the last 8 years and accomplishes nothing.

Then, because EVERYONE in Pakistan is unhappy at this point (including the Southern Baluchis, who I can't even get into right now because let's try to stay focused here, but let's just say they want to secede too - Pakistan's got secession fever). One of the most inflammatory things Musharraf does is dismiss the very popular Supreme Court and try to pack it. No no no, weak military man, bad PR move. The students and lawyers, who are well respected by the average Pakistan, are pissed as hell, and the end of Musharraf is near.

Benazir, smelling fresh blood, comes back from exile and starts saying, "Remember how life sucked slightly less under me? Well, I'm back!" and than Sharif is all, "I'm still here too." And it's just a matter of months before Musharraf goes.

And then - BAM! Bhutto is shot. By who, it's unclear, but Musharraf tries to play it like Prez Bush after 9/11, using it as a political opportunity to say "We must restore order and keep military rule forever." Except he seriously misplays his band. Bhutto, a sort of inept, corrupt lady in real life, becomes a martyr. And that is IT for Musharraf, especially after America says "Well, sorry Pervez, you're on your own." (Bear in mind this is post-2006 election America, an American which is angrier and more pissed off than the warmongering America of the first part of our new century).

So Musharraf is out, and Benazir's widow, Asif Ali Zardari, is IN with the Bhutto dynasty party, the Pakistan People's Party, but Sharif's Muslim League-N (which is such an awesome name for a political party, btw) is also in. And here's where I get to FINALLY answering your question:

Zardari, corrupt like his ex-wife, is wanted on corruption charged by the judiciary. The central demand of the popular alliance that brought down Musharraf is "restore the judiciary". But Zardari knows that if they do that, they're going to throw his ass in prison. So Zardari pussyfoots his way around the issue, and Sharif, smelling blood himself, walks.

And this is where my expert knowledge of contemporary Pakistan comes to a close. This happened in the summer sometime, and I've been so focused on McCain-Obama and our Wall St. woes that I know very little about what's up with Pakistan right now. I do know that our military/intelligence folks are keeping friendly with another top general, named Kayani I believe. Because this is the problem with Pakistani civilian government: it always collapses. And then the military has a justifiable excuse to step in and run the shit.

So can Zardari keep his act together? Who's going to take the place of Sharif in the government? With the Muslim League-N out, it's going to be very rough - imagine if the GOP walked out of our government. Sure, the Dems could RUN the place but roughly a third of the country would feel the government is completely illegitimate.

Meanwhile, how is the US handling the hunt for insurgents/Taliban types in the Northern tribal areas? Piss poorly. We're dropping bombs on "the insurgents," including over the border area, which is just killing innocent civilians left and right. Meanwhile, the Taliban has several very lucrative operations going for itself up there, including mining. But most of all, they have popular support. They can say, "We're not the assholes dropping bombs on you from automated predator drones, but if we get a chance we WILL kill them for you."

Meanwhile, back in Islamabad, the Pakistani capital, what can Zardari say to the relatives of the folks in the tribal areas? He's supposed to nominally be on the side of the US in fighting the terrorists, as it were, but what the fuck, the US is literally KILLING random villagers up there. It's no good.

So here's how I'd get the Taliban and Al Qaida: NOT with bombs. Use SEAL units in conjunction with local operatives. We have basically no local operatives, Pashtuns on our side, up there. But imagine if we basically pulled out, stopped bombing the villages, and put feelers out saying, "Want to earn 1,000,000 USD? Bring us the head of Osama bin Laden." The Taliban may be well-loved up there, but Al Qaida are just a bunch of irritating troublemakers who get local villagers bombed. Besides, they're Arabs, man. And the Afghans don't care about no fucking Arabs. So, let's stop giving money to the ISI (Inter-Services somethingorother, Pakistan's CIA) who are institutionally committed to supporting the Taliban from decades of first fighting the communists and then just carrying on, and get the our own intelligence agencies more directly involved, hire local folks to point out the Taliban, and then, send in the SEALs.

But to hire those people, we need to improve our rep, which includes getting OUT of Afghanistan for the most part, recognizing the Taliban and stabilizing relations with them, perhaps some direct non-military foreign aid to Pakistan itself so Zardari can say, "Look, I'm bringing home the bacon!"

But we may just be fucked. Between our blanket war on Islam, our support of an unpopular dictator (Musharraf), the institutional problems within Pakistan, and the fact that the Taliban provides protection and stability (if at a brutal price) to the local population, and the borders between Afghanistan and the Pakistani tribal areas are so porous, we may be fucked. Our best bet is to skip the bombs, stop talking tough about both Islam and the Taliban, and improve our intelligence service - to do stealthily in the night what we are failing to do by beating our chests in the daylight. At best, it will take years. I hope someone out there is keeping track of the nukes. I guess in a pinch we could back a coup by Kayani, but that just sort of repeats the cycle, doesn't it? Besides, that's fucking evil, backing another dictator.

RECOMMENDED READING: There's so much, holy crap. Again, the NY Times has great daily coverage of this shit. I would strongly recommend The Great Game by Peter Hopkirk for a good history of the British failed invasions of Afghanistan. The New Great Game by Lutz Kleveman also includes great coverage of the current situation throughout all of Central Asia (see question below!) and is a brisk read. Really, so much has been written...

2. what can be done to bring equitable balance in terms of the Russian Fed's increasingly total control over Euro gas/oil supplies?...

Another good question. There are so many options, but let's point out two big trends that are going to reshape our world in the next two decades first.

First off, oil, and to a lesser extent natural gas, is on the decline. Oil will be gone, period, by the mid 21st century at the latest. For all practical purposes, probably more like 2030. So Russia's dominance of Europe will probably continue for about 20 years, which sucks, but Europe is moving relatively aggressively to wind, solar, and nuclear, so it might be more like 10 years.

But in the meantime, if we decide we really want to go head-to-head with Russia (which begs the question "Why?" even though it'll be fun to read about, for sure), we do have options. Unfortunately, the most valid options seem to like in the Caspian Sea, and run through our fucked-up little buddy Georgia. And then through Turkey. This is the infamous "BCT Pipeline" (Baku-Tbisili-Ceyhan. Google maps that shit).

Both Georgia and Turkey are directly involved in this pipeline, and, guess what? They both have major problems nearby. As Russia has recently demonstrated, Russia can kick the crap out of Georgia any time it feels like it. We're gonna rush a bunch of arms to Georgia now, pre-WW1 style, just to ratched up tensions with a nuclear power cause THAT IS A HELLA SMART THING TO DO. But the Russians will still be able to fuck up that pipeline anytime they feel like it for at least a couple of years. And meanwhile, the Turks still have to deal with the Kurds, something the civilian government there is much less likely to do. If there's a coup in Turkey, which, like Pakistan, has a strong secular military gov't tradition, then perhaps we can get a little genocide-type action goin' on in Kurdistan, but now that the Kurds themselves have a (disputed) soil of oil (Kirkuk, Iraq) it's gonna be easier for them to back up an insurgency in Turkey.

The point is, the really ridiculous BTC pipeline is sort of fucked. So where else does Europe get it's oil?

Perhaps from... dun dun dun... The ARCTIC CIRCLE! Massive new oil deposits are being discovered under the Arctic these days, and it's also getting easier to extract oil from shale, meanwhile the whole Arctic Natural Wildlife Refuge might be gettin' raped pretty soon, esp. if President Palin gets elected, but probably under our boy Barry too, I hate to say.

But the Europeans aren't as crass about their capitalism (well, except the Brits) as we are, and they're less likely to be all, "Hmm, let's continue to base our entire infrastructure on a resource that will just be GONE in 20 years" than we are. In fact, France and Sweden are on the cutting esdge of nuclear fusion research, which we refuse to endorse because we're cheap assholes when it comes to non-military R&D these days, but, if gotten right, will be the penultimate energy supply for the entire world, and could very well take "resource wars" off the maps (except for FRESH WATER, but that's an entertaining post for another day!).

But they're not there yet, and bottom line is: fusion isn't ready, wind and solar and clean nuclear are on their way up but not totally there yet, the BCT is unreliable and the Arctic isn't tapped yet. The rest of the world's oil is going to China, India, America and elsewhere. Russia is going to be able to dictate the terms to Europe by and large for at least a little bit here. But all Russia really wants is its traditional Tsarist empire back. And can we blame them? And do commuters in Germany and Spain care enough about the Poles not to buy Russian oil? European carowners are much more acclimated to spending buttloads of money on gasoline than we are. Their consuming habits are not going to change just 'cause the oil comes from Russia.

In other words, we are largely "leverageless" over this issue at this point, and besides, who gives a crap. We shouldn't be fucking around with Russia anyways - don't we have a War on Terror to win?

RECOMMENDED READING: So much, oh my God, reading orgasm. Everyone owes it to themselves to read The Prize by Daniel Yergin. That's just a history of Oil, and it will change your mind on everything - you'll come away a Saudi Arabia fan, for one thing (yes, I know that's quite a claim, but trust me - without those Saudis you would not have had a Nintendo as a kid). The book mentioned above, The New Great Game, is also top-notch and has direct bearing on this subject. I love The Economist for their detailed coverage of this shit, but just bear in mind their editorial is very Chicago School, and the last thing we need is more Chicago School/Friedmanite/monetarist asshattery fucking the world up. But you can read through the bias and get the info you need. Finally, Crossing the Rubicon by Michael C. Ruppert is eye-opening, though it wanders a bit and engages in sub odd sub-plots which aren't really needed. Also, do yourself a big favor, if you don't want to read a whole book, and just hit http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ from the back. It'll take an hour of your time, tops.

3.) and now for something completely different, yet thought provoking, at what era in mankind's history did maritime travel become widespread?

Golly! That sounds like a trick question. Maritimie travel has always been pretty widespread. This isn't my chief area of "expertise," but I do know the polynesians who would later become the Indonesians and Filipinos were top-notch shipbuilders and employers as far back as the 2nd millenium BC, bringing goods from as far as Korea down to East Africa.

Back then, your basic marine routes were Japan-to-Malaysia, Malaysia-to-the Red Sea, Red Sea-to-South Africa, Red Sea-to-Mediterranean, and Mediterranean-to-Western Europe and North Africa. In the Americas, you didn't get a lot of sea travel, to my knowledge. Not to say the Americans weren't great back in the day - they were. But they had no horsies and they didn't do sea travel.

In this period of limited sea travel, aside from the Polynesians, you had some other notables: the Indians were always good at it, assorted Arabs (both pre-and-post-Islam) did it too, and the Romans took it to an art form (though I prefer the Greek naval battles of antiquity). The Mediterranean was a "Roman Lake" for a millenium. After the Roman Empire fell apart, it was never again to be a lake - rather, it was a liquid wall between Europe and North Africa.

Gotta give props to those Vikings for making their way over to Greenland and Vinland. Crazy ass malnourished fuckers, great real estate agents, too, in a way ("Join us over here! The land is lush as hell! Trust us!") History might have been different if the Viking response to the Native Americans had been "trade" instead of "kill". But whatever, the Vikings died, and fuck 'em anyways, they refused to adapt wherever they went. They could have learned from the Inuit up in Greenland anyways, who had their fishing down pat.

The real navigation story that we're all fond of is the era of big Galleons, which began under the Chinese in 1421, when four admirals set out in craft that were the (larger and more impressive!) precursors to the Nina, Pinto and Santa Maria (Pinto? That was one of them, right?). The problem is that these admirals just went and checked the world out - and I do mean the ENTIRE WORLD, all of the Americas and Africa, everything but Australia I think - but instead of enslaving the local population and taking the land, they just kinda traded some shit and left. The Emperor of China was, of course, pissed, since that shit was expensive, and resulted in an isolationist policy for the Ming Dynasty, one of China's very foreign policy mistakes of history, and a major one that would lead to the ascension of the West over China in later years.

Well, Columbus and Pizzaro and all those sick fucks didn't make China's mistake... although they did use their maps, traded up through the Mediterrean basin into Italy and elsewhere. They set forth and conquered the New World and the rest is history. Good navigation at this time, great sea-era travel, but again, the Chinese did it first! So did the Vikings, sort of!

Then of course you have a whole buncha centuries of great sea battles, but frankly, are they as cool as land battles, really? They just involve a few ships chasing each other around and sinking. Does that compare to the coordinated cavalry assault, my friends?

Nonetheless, sea power was the decisive power for a long time. It's certainly how Britain did it's shit... that and manufacturing... Once Europe had its galleys, the old trade routes were destroyed. The Ottoman Empire, located in the classic trading spot, totally bit the dust and just declined and declined and declined. India and China were actually conquered, putting them out of the race. And besides, it brought the extraction of resources from the New World into play, which really did change the balance of human history permanently. I don't use that word lightly.

But still, the "greatest" era of martime power is actually -today-. Sure, we rely on planes and rockets now to fight our wars. But these are the days of miracle and wonder. This is the era of globalization, and sea traffic by volume has never been higher.

The average meal travels 1,500 miles before it reaches your plate. Our manufacturing is all overseas, at this point, for the most part. Battling over fishing, naval routes, etc., is still as tense as ever, one notable example being Japanese whaling, and of course the PIRATES of the Straits of Malacca - no, I'm not making that shit up, PIRATES in SPEEDBOATS with fucking uzis (or whatever cool gun replaced the uzi) these days. Overseas shipping is big business! This truly is the greatest era of maritime travel. And it's all relatively well regulated, too.

Don't expect to see any major sea battles anymore, though. Or any major land battles. It's all about police action against insurgencies these days. Probably some nutjob will use a nuke someday and that will be it, game over for the nation state. The nation state is dying, and death always sucks, and it's sort of a painful death with no family reconciliation at all, wherein certain family members are getting cut out of the will (i.e., workers, small farmers), but the era of big traditional warfare is done.

And that means maritime travel will remain intense, as long as there's enough fuel for the ships, and peaceful. Until we invent teleportation. Which is, yes, underway - small amounts of matter have effective been "destroyed and re-created" over small distances already.

Next cool era of exploration and exploitation: outer space! Horray!

RECOMMENDED READING: 1421 by Gavin Mendies is kind of dry, to be honest, but it's an eye-opener. I mean, Columbus really didn't do that shit. Beyond that I don't really know. The Economist will definitely have bits about the modern-day pirates, and the volume of shipping. I'm sure there are many great books about the European explorers, who were all demented and vicious, but I haven't gotten around to reading about them yet. Like I said, it's election time! Wheeee!

Mission Statement

2008-09-25T07:35:00.000-07:00

Hi! Welcome to James Call: Expert. For those of you who don't know me, I'm a 29 year old musician and file clerk with way too much time on my hands (I work for the government), who does his best to keep up with the news and reads about politics, theology and the like in my spare time, unlike the majority of Americans, who are mouth-breathing cows who should be slaughtered.

The premise of this blog is simple: send me questions on topics you may want clarified for you, and I will do my best to answer them. I'm not a real "expert" per se, just a cranky file clerk who's got today's NY Times in front of him at all times and thinks "Secrets of the Temple," for instance, constitutes easy, relaxing reading, and good fun!

So please feel free to send me your questions, and I will provide you with "expert" answers.

Regards,
James Call: Expert