The newest piece of pathetic political theater

This brouhaha over the guaranteed bonuses that AIG execs are getting.

The background is this. The economy sucks. People are losing their jobs/houses/cars/families/minds. Politicians are passing bills doling out more and more money to cushion the fall. Moreover, this money is going to super-rich corporations. People don’t like this situation. They want somebody to blame for it.

In comes the AIG execs who were given contractually guaranteed bonuses in excess of $100 million. These were the guys who sold the insurance contracts on the crappy financial instruments that make our economy go poof – fish, meet barrel! Fire at will.

And so Washington is doing just that. This is a bi-partisan issue if I’ve ever seen one. Everybody wants a sacrifical lamb and they’ve found theirs. No need to worry about the regulators who failed to regulate (resulting in the Madoff scandal and the proliferation of terrible financial practices!)

So what the lame-os in DC want to do is essentially violate the contract these employees had with AIG. And that’s a scary thought. As folks generally learn in Poli Sci 101, the theory is that one of the primary roles of contemporary Western government is to enforce contracts. The rule of law must stand or risk lawlessness and disorder and distrust. Now I haven’t seen these here contracts they’re all talking about, but I assume they’re pretty clear. And our representatives want to tear them up to gain political points. I’m waiting for one courageous lawmaker to stand up any day now and point this out. I want to see a speech like Robert Byrd’s in 2001, saying that legislators hadn’t even read the Patriot Act but were putting it up for a vote anyhow.

This is the pseudo-populist irrational bullshit part of politics that I really loathe.

Democrats love their fags!

Did that title get your attention?!

Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com (still the most interesting political blog and written by a dude whose formulas eerily predicted I believe 48 of the 50 states in the electoral college last fall) examines new data that suggests Republicans are healthier than Democrats.

Moreover, apparently Democrats are 15% more likely to be smokers. This is fascinating. First off, I gotta say, if they took a poll about chewing tobacco, I’m guessing the numbers would tip the other way quite a bit, but that’s neither here nor there.

A few hypotheses:

It’s all those entertainment industry/showbiz types – they all smoke and they all vote Democrat.

Poor minorities are a demographic that smokes a lot and also votes Democrat.

The obvious one is that Republicans have a moral aversion to putting their lips on fags.

Nate Silver’s suggestion was that people in poor health (as smokers have a greater tendency to be) will, for rational reasons, vote for the center-left party i.e. the party of expanded and cheaper health care.

The ironic thing is that, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it Democrats (or at least those crunchy people on the left) who are pushing for more smoking bans and higher cigarette taxes? Then again, what do Democrats like more than paying taxes – some even say it makes them feel patriotic!

Moreover, isn’t it the stereotype that the liberal left that’s always pushing healthy food and exercise and it’s the right that eats the greasy food and lives in the states where nobody gets any exercise and everyone is fat? I think the Freakanomics folks should investigate this!

Chuck Norris – Jefferson Davis of the new century!

Norris is ready for Texas to secede.

Don’t think any legit politician will have him at their rallies anymore – secession doesn’t scream the “God Bless America” message that most folks want. What a weird guy!

Recession solution – just buy a new one of everything!

Our grandparents got through the Great Depression by re-using and repairing old, worn out goods because they could not afford to buy new ones. Of course, this was before America became the place where consumerism is a more valued ideal than liberty.

This recession seems to be all about spending. Spend spend spend. Buy stuff you don’t need – it’s your civic duty.

Speaking of Civics, Congress is considering a bill that provides financial incentives for people to scrap (literally scrap, they want to make sure the used cars don’t go back and compete with the new ones on the market) their old but perhaps perfectly fine and operational used car and buy a new one.

Does this strike anyone as incredibly wasteful? What happened to “Reduce, Reuse and Recycle?” Isn’t that the backbone of the consumer’s part of environmental protection?

This is just another of the irreconcilable paradoxes of 21st century America.

Out of one side of our mouth we say “don’t spend on credit and you should save more.” Out of the other side we say “spending beyond your means is good for the economy and saving is harmful” (at least for the short term, and with things like the stock market and public perception, it’s almost always the short term that counts.)

We say “be green, re-use and reduce your consumption: the world’s resources are scarce.” But we also want people to constantly want more and better and flashier and more innovative.

And now we may have a law encoding this consumerist philosophy that will eventually be our downfall.

Vice taxes and public health

In an editorial for cnn.com NY Gov. David Patterson proposes a tax on sugared soft drinks, stating their direct link to obesity.

He compares this to the taxes that have been levied on cigarettes that have resulted in increases in public health.

(Note that one study links diet soda to obesity. Diet sodas will not be taxed under Patterson’s plan.)

Nonetheless, I’m curious why Patterson is willing to do this but not to, say, ban sweets and soda machines from public schools. Many schools allow soft drink companies to sell to their students because the company will provide money these schools need for, say, a/v equipment or computers. Does anyone else find it sad that our schools need to sell out their student’s health for computers? My high school also sold ice cream in the cafeteria. Isn’t the public school the one place where government can get away with limiting access to such things without public outcry? And if so, why don’t they do it?

How about taxing other things related to obesity? Tax cable TV or video games or butter or ice cream or candy?

Or even better, provide tax deductions for gym memberships (requiring regular attendance to be eligible for the break, of course)? Or how about tax breaks for participating in an adult sports program like softball or soccer? Or for purchase of a bicycle? Or if phys. ed. is disappearing in our schools due to student apathy, how about giving extra credit for participation in active extra-curriculars?

Any other thoughts or ideas about this phenomenon?

I think these ideas may need to be taken seriously more and more in the coming years. Diabetes is slated to become a crippling problem for our medical system and these measures may be a good way to begin to try to address this.

Obama’s smoking = a better president?

Ron Rosenbaum at Slate outlines why we should want Obama to keep smoking once he’s president.

Really, do you want the guy with his finger on the red button having a nicotine attack when Putin invades another country?!

Didn’t think so.

Senate update!

Sources say Florida Sen. Mel Martinez (R) will not run for re-election in 2010. This is the second GOP retirement announcement (Sen. Sam Brownback is supposedly not running for re-election in Kansas in ‘10.) A tough open seat battle is a-brewin’ with this one.

While the Dems may not have their fillibuster-proof majority this session (Sen. Saxby Chambliss won the runoff and was re-elected yesterday in Georgia), at this early date there appears to be a good chance of Democratic pickups that year as well.

But look out for 2012 when the first-termers that rolled in on the anti-Bush, Jack Abramoff scandal wave in 2006 come up for re-election. That may be the year the Democratic tide rolls back a bit especially if Obama has a tough re-election due to a hit and miss first term.

Get Your War On!

Dammit, the embed doesn’t work, so just click here and check out the post-election version of the animated Get Your War On. It’s hillarity.

Lizard People!

Examples of the challenged ballots in the Minnesota Senate recount.

Fill in the oval balloting seems to me to be the most straightforward type of ballot but still it seems a lot of people have trouble with it.

Also, Lizard People was apparently a popular candidate this year.

David Plouffe is goanna ask me to donate to his kid’s Softball league now!

Jesus, we got him elected – what more do you want from us?!

Jeffrey –

I have a special request for you.

The Obama-Biden Transition Project is a nonpartisan entity whose purpose is to facilitate the transition to a new government and prepare for the next administration.

In the past, efforts like these have often been very secretive and funded by the D.C. lobbying and corporate community.

But, like in the campaign, we’ve decided to do things differently.

For the first time, transition efforts won’t be financed with donations from Washington lobbyists and PACs — which means we’ll need to keep asking for your help. Your generosity during the campaign helped get us here, but building a more transparent and open government means continuing to rely on a broader group of people to do this the right way.

We only have a few weeks to assess the state of the federal agencies, prepare our agenda, and staff key positions in the new administration. Your support right now will be crucial to helping us accomplish these goals.

Will you help support the urgent mission of our transition team with a donation of $25 or more?

https://donate.barackobama.com/transition

You know that we got here by building this campaign from the ground up. We’re committed to building the White House team the same way.

Thank you,

David

David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America