The Nappy Cat Chronicles

Probably the worst thing in the modern world is the ability for the items that we write, or say, to be recorded.

Why is this a “problem?”  Well, it’s not really a problem, per se.  However, it will make your brain work doubly hard to keep the cognitive dissonance alive.  Don’t believe me?  Well, while you do not have to, you also probably never will.   But, if you are reading this far, maybe you are willing to go just a little bit further.

Why don’t you try this link, from a man who thinks that Sarah Palin hit a “home run” during the Republican National Convention.  Now, there are just as many examples of this on the Democratic side regarding Barack Obama.

So, how does the problem apply?  It’s simple; most people latch onto a political party and in doing so, end up going whatever stupid direction that party takes them.  By the end of the journey, all they can do is win some sort of contest where they go, “I’m not as bad as so and so.”  And with that, the standards for government will continuously de-evolve into oblivion.  All so that some one or some party can win and say they don’t suck as bad as someone else.

For example, how can someone who is an atheist still call themselves a Republican?  This would be akin to me calling myself a “Lincoln Republican.”  At this point - with names like “Roosevelt Democrat”, or Jacksonian Democrat” - we are just keeping up political party pretenses with sub sections so that we can have the ability to lie to ourselves, saying we are different, while at the same time latching onto the larger party structure so that we can claim victory when “whatever your political party” wins.

One blogger that I know of specifically who gets out of this mess, other than my colleague Will, is IOZ.  The catch is that in order to view the debate constructively, we need to realize that the debate is the better part of a sham.  The arguments we hear on television are on the margin.  Nothing is going to stop American hegemony. 

The problem does have itself one benefit.  Well, at least it’s a benefit to cognitive dissonance.  One way in which political parties work so well for us is that politicians can always be blamed.  The beauty of the modern American political system is that takes away any real responsibility for where we are now, or what we have done to get here.  Forget that the masses voted for these people, or that the system had been engineered in a manner to solicit our attention and active citizenship.  In the end, it’s quite amazing how a system designed to empower people inherently allows us to have the ability to give away that same power.

It only takes five minutes of looking into history to see that what we celebrate as “Christmas” has little to no Biblical reference.  It has essentially turned into a national “Gift Day”.  Our lack of realization in this is merely a triumph again of cognitive dissonance.

For anyone who asks me what I think of Christmas now, I send them this:

Does anyone remember Al Dunlap?

I would be lying if I said that I investigated him on my own by watching the news while I was in college.  Truth be told, he was shown to me by Charles Elson, at the University of Delaware through two books.  One, written by Dunlap himself, was entitled, Mean Business.  The other, written by John Byrne, Chainsaw.

Let me be the opposite of George Will here, and get to the point right now.  Al Dunlap is everywhere, and still a part of an ethos that has a hold in…how do I word this…a sizable amount of young Republicans.

For those not in the know, Al Dunlap became famous for saving bad companies and making good companies great - as he put it.  Well, it was slightly more complicated than that.  Truth be told, his equations for success were simple.  Dunlap would come into a company with a few of his trusted cohorts, cut jobs to the point where the business would be profitable for a year or two, and then sell the company to someone else and let them deal with what is left of the firm.

How does this apply to our current economic situation?  Well, with all the job cutting going on, this does not mean that production is falling by the same amount of jobs.  When a nice round number is given for a firm to cut jobs this shows that they probably haven’t thought so much about who is going to pick up the slack.  Rather, they simply figure that “someone will pick up the slack.”

In the rush to maintain shareholder equity, the hope is that your firm has a CEO who is thinking about their decisions now, and how they impact the firm later. 

What’s going to happen though when we get out of this current economic scenario?  Al Dunlap had a very fickle habit of taking credit for things that were not necessarily in his locus of control.  Famously, he would take credit for the new products a company would make.  In reality, he would clamp down on R&D as soon as he got to a firm, taking credit for new products that were already in the pipeline before he got there.

When this economy comes back, it will come back quite strongly.  The proper credit for any firm’s future success will most likely be muddled and nebulous.  So, while I am worried about finding a new job now, I also have to fear those whom we may lionize when we get out of this.

Recently, I noticed a commercial with a woman that was using the song, “Hot Child in the City.”  I don’t care what Nick Gilder says, but the core of the song is about a hooker.

Now, I’m not railing against people who choose the career path of prostitution, but I am railing the producers of commercials who make song choices without much forethought. I’ve done it before with a Mercury Milan commercial.  And I love Morningwood (the band), but why would you pick a song where the main theme is the band (Morningwood) spelling out M-O-R-N-I-N-G-W-O-O-D repeatedly.

Who knows, maybe this just keeps proving that we can so easily be lost on the groove, we forget where the lyrics are going.

Don’t let the title fool you.  I’m not stating that charity is irrational.  However, the many ways in which we go about it can be irrational.

Take Starbucks for example.  Today, they are donating “5 cents to the Global Fund for every hand-crafted Starbucks beverage sold.”  Now, instead of bringing out an easel with charts and graphs discussing deadweight loss, there is a much simpler way of relaying to you why this type of charity works.

In a short, simple phrase: We, human beings, are irrational.

Let me put it this way.  What if I were to go on television and try to tell you that I wanted to organize a day in which nobody bought a Starbucks’ coffee, and instead, spent the amount of money they would use for a latte towards the Red Cross?  Well, I’d wager that the Red Cross would receive less money than the Global Fund.

Now, think about that.  The coffee costs $3 or $5.  Starbucks is only donating $0.05 per purchase, and I’m still saying Starbucks would be giving more relative to my “don’t buy coffee, donate the money” plan.

Why would I say such a thing and make the wager?  Here’s the thing.  In Starbucks’ plan, you don’t have to do anything different.  In fact, most people will probably be “donating” without knowing it.  But remember, the consumer is not donating, Starbucks is.

In fact, Starbucks just might make a bit more of a profit today because they are donating.  How?  The great thing for Starbucks is that they are getting people who normally wouldn’t buy a latte today, to go ahead and buy one.  Why, because the people who know about this will able to feel good about indulging themselves.

So, is this inefficient?  Yes.  Is it irrational?  In terms of donating, yes.  But is this probably the best way to make yourself feel like you’re donating?  You bet.

My right wing friends are apparently always right.  Never has a day gone by that they have made a mistake.  Unfortunately, because the political left acts in similar kind, this legitimizes the entire farce that we identify as political discourse.

Today, in the New York Post, Michael Yon wrote that, “The Iraq War is over…Nobody knows what the future will bring, but the civil war has completely ended.”  He cites many instances of people working together, and the fact that deaths have thankfully decreased in frequency.

I pause to think about the circumstances that have led us to where we are today.   You see, much of what makes the Iraq War so redeeming to so many people is that they need to tell themselves a few things. First, the mainstream media is left wing and biased and threatens U.S. security.  Second, Other firms and think tanks are also left wing, and any statistics that do not come from the American Enterprise Institute should be treated as biased.

These assumptions are necessary because it is part of their own cognitive dissonance.  On the other hand, part of my own cognitive dissonance relies on the premise that I have seen many powerful nations engage in similar wars and occupations only to fail and be seen as mistakes later on.

The assumptions are necessary because one could find many reasons as to why the violence in Iraq has ebbed.  You see, take into account that the United Nations High Commission on Refugees states that 4.7 million Iraqis have either fled Iraq, or have been displaced within Iraq.  It’s as if that “idiotic” three state solution that Biden had proffered has already taken place by simple economics.  “I’ll decide to move rather than get murdered.”  Case in point, Iraqi Kurdistan still exists.

It’s a great illustration as to how perspective with respect to our own cognitive dissonance makes a difference.  You say civil war has ended.  I say that over 4 million people have moved.

Why is our staying in Iraq such a great thing?  What makes our occupation in Iraq so much better than our intervention in Somalia?  More to the point, why is it that no one ever cares to discuss that both political parties have similar foreign policy goals.  The only difference is that when one party has executed a plan, the other party is ready to discount it.  The only thing we are ever really fighting for in the U.S. is political power.

At some point, each of us will have to swallow our pride and admit we have been playing follow the leader (pundit) of our respective political party for quite some time.

I most certainly can give you one thing that is mainstream about the mainstream media.  When a news organization assembles a group of pundits to discuss the economy, they have a great way of making the person who says a recession is coming look like a dissident lunatic.

If you have someone who swears by Jim Cramer, or Fox News, try to show them the clip I linked to above.

Do you remember in 2004 when people would tell you that you don’t vote for another president when there’s a war going on?  (By the way, at the time we still had the same two wars we have now.)  How did I know this?  Because people at my work place told me this.  Why?  I don’t know, maybe it’s because they are superstitious beings, otherwise known as humans.

At it’s core, this is once again about cognitive dissonance.  We might be better off if we all admitted that we did it, but good luck trying to get Americans to be humble and/or knowledgeable about psychology.

A friend of mine even used the parable of recently saying “I wonder how that pied piper thing worked out.”  This was an implicit attack on Obama, which is fine…I guess.  One of the problems is that the argument could have easily been made for any other politician who won by any margin ever.  More problematic though is the fact that he misuses the parable as well as makes an implicit “Obama will kill your children” remark.

I’ll let Will handle the psychological hand wringing as to how someone could let such an implicit remark become so normal – and to them – non offensive.

However, it’s important that we remember the parable of the Pied Piper.  You see, he did his job for a town by getting rid of its rats.  The town subsequently did not pay him, and he came back and took their children.  With no memory of even a story like the pied piper, it’s no wonder why people make remarks that we are bound to repeat history.

It’s sad most of all because these remarks end up being so personal.  One could easily make a remark against Obama normally, like a human.  Here, I’ll show you because I actually wonder about this.

I wonder how a President Obama will reconcile spending increases with an ailing economy.  I worry that it may be detrimental to the future solvency of the United States.

Wow, how hard was that?  And in asking such a legitimate question, I made a point that everyone can take seriously and think about.

Ultimately, attacking people based on broken parables is much more attractive than actually getting people to think about issues.  Why?  Cognitive dissonance.  You already have the answers you want, now you just look for ways to prove it.

The following is a letter I sent to my friend regarding a co-worker of his who is an “extreme conservative” that is in favor of putting through Colorado’s Amendment 48, which would give a fertilized egg the same constitutional rights as you, or me.

Greetings,

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.  I believe I can help you find another piece of perspective.

I’d like to address your co-workers questions first.  While I understand that the question of moral relativity is important, it is however philosophical and based on perspective.  Debate on that issue would simply be a form of mental masturbation.  That said, I will still try to address the topic later.  Firstly, I’d like to discuss the proposed amendment in Colorado “to basically redefine personhood to give the exact same constitutional rights to a fertilized egg (regardless whether or not the egg has implanted itself) as is given to anyone living American citizen.”

In fact, I’ll actually give you a conservative argument.  Or, at least, what conservative used to mean 15 years ago.  In fact, the topic of the word “conservative” is itself a debatable and educational topic on linguistic evolution and the ability for people to change definitions over time.  However, that is irrelevant to your inquiry, and we may discuss etymology some other time.  Regardless, on with the argument of fertilized egg citizens.

I’ll let Andrew Sullivan illustrate the broader problems with this:

So let’s follow the logic of the argument.  If zygotes are full-fledged human beings, then there must surely come a moment – the most miraculous moment in human existence – when life actually comes into existence.  Science however, suggests that even this line is somewhat fuzzy. [MK: Here Sullivan uses Steven Pinker's biological expertise to explain the fuzziness regarding how long it takes for the  genes to separate from the egg]

…

The statistics vary because of the miniscule phenomenon involved, and the immense difficulty of measuring it with any precision, but the scientific literature estimates that from 30 to as much as 50 percent of zygotes perish of their own accord, failing to develop beyond the most primitive of stages to anything remotely recognizable as a developing baby.  Spontaneous abortion of zygotes, blastocysts, and embryos is routine in the human reproductive cycle.  It is far more common than successful pregnancy.

Now there is, obviously, a big distinction between the deliberate decision to end the development of a zygotic human being and the fact that nature allows them to perish in huge numbers,  But the context should surely make us pause.  In his book It Takes a Family the pro-life senator Rick Santorum argues that “as a result of abortion for more than thirty years, over a quarter of all children conceived in America never took their first breath.”  Strictly speaking, he is mistaken.  As a result of all abortions – spontaneous and procured – well over three quarters of all children conceived in America never take their first breath.  If God is so careless with his creation at this stage of development, one might ask why humans should have much higher standards. [MK: bolding mine]

…

On this basis, we all have countless siblings whose lives lasted only a few minutes hours, days, or weeks, only to perish inside our own mothers’ bodies…If you believe that each one of these doomed zygotes is as valuable and sacred a human person as you or I, the tragedy is so vast it almost defies comprehension.

…

But if “natural law” appeals to our human sense of reason, then we can at the very least say that our intuition strongly resists equating the life of a zygote with that of, say, a two month old fetus, or even a premature baby born at the earliest boundaries of viability.  We can say that reasonable people, all of whom take life and human life very seriously, can disagree on the line between human life and human personhood.  The basic context for this disagreement is the inexorable fact that in the extremely hazardous journey from conception to birth, death is as much natural rule as it is the exception.  And the more insistently we look for the magic moment when personhood begins, the more elusive it becomes.

Andrew goes on for quite a while.  And so could I, but I believe the point is made.

This won’t convince your co-worker though.  For her, choice is the issue.  Intent, as it were.  That is essentially the essence of the fundamentalist psyche.  It’s strength lies not in argument, or reason, but in absolutes.  I discussed this with my peer, and psychological expert, Will, and what we found on top of the resolute nature was the utter need for people to feel that they are doing all they can to stop what they see is an injustice, or enact what they see as protection.

Naturally, this begs the broader philosophical question that you ask me.  “Who or what defines what is morally right or morally wrong?”  As I stated, the efforts in answering this are irrelevant, but altogether not worthless.  That is to say, it’s at the least, a decent thought experiment. 

I have my genes and my cultural upbringing to thank for my distinctions of what is right and wrong.  One need look no further then developing and third world nations to see how people can make very immoral, or unethical decisions.  

While many people would expose the thought I just expressed as moral relativism, I simply see it as an off shoot of what is obviously cognitive dissonance.  Our minds have generated fantastic ways to make us be able to live with the decisions that we make, even when we receive information that shows the possibility of a bad choice on our part.

All that said, a real conservative argument, like the one Andrew Sullivan shows us above, allows us to at least reason, and hope that we can come to an agreement on some sort of fact.  Unfortunately, as I stated, there are a few problems that you will have with your co-worker.  She believes it to be fact that a zygote may as well be a two month old fetus.  Since there is no argument with a concrete “2+2=4” solution, there will be no dissuasion for her.

Also, to simply take note of your final remark, I agree that I too despise moral statism.  But that said, I am not a fan for much of what the government does.

I just wanted to say that it seems as if one of my friends is at it again, like so many other people stuck in our current political paradigm.  This was one of their twitters.

I will not be watching the Chicago Machine politician tonight. Although, Halloween is coming, and one has to admire a great costume.

I don’t know where to start.  I imagine this is how IOZ feels about most everything he comes across.  At this point in life, that is to say, outside the 1900s Plunkitt of Tammany Hall days, I would surmise that most every politician is a machine politician.  I’m not sure what my friend thinks they are proving.  The sky is blue?  You don’t say!

Calling what Obama does a costume as well is more of the same.  To think Obama is different, or that any politician is different is absurd.  What does my friend, or anyone for that matter, think they are saving?  Because I’ll be honest, I don’t know.  

Ultimately, I get a kick out of exploiting cognitive dissonance, or the utter lack of wherewithal that most people posses when it comes to politics.  That’s why I comment on it.  It’s like the joy of an adult watching a toddler figure out something – anything.  Why my friend comments on it?  I don’t know, but like Will said before, it seems like he’s just whining at this point.

Obama has lately been compared to a socialist by John McCain in order to frighten people.  Relatively speaking, on the numbers, this would make Ronald Reagan a socialist as well.  How could I proclaim that so boldly?  Well, the McCain campaign has attacked Obama on the socialist front in a few ways.  One of which is taxes.  On the numbers, Obama’s planned rates would mirror those we had in the 80s. So, was America socialist in the 80s and before?

It’s all a red herring because the word, socialism, contains as many variations as democracy.  Politicians use the word to strike fear because socialism is only one step away from communism in political kindergarten.

Economically speaking, this is where the rubber meets the road.  Essentially, you need to ask yourself what matters most to you: efficiency, or equality?  I merely ask that however anyone responds to that question, that they do so honestly.  That is to say, if efficiency matters to you most, please do not complain about the poor to me.

Bringing up the word “socialist” is for fear purposes only.  As IOZ exclaims from time to time: follow the money.  Large businesses have as much concern in maintaining our current structure as anyone else would.  Honestly, I mean that.  Ask yourself, who controls the capital in capitalism?  Large businesses are not going anywhere.  And as our recent conversation shows, it is in all politicians interests to maintain the status quo of our economy.  That’s why, even George W. Bush himself, has allowed for the injection of capital into the markets from our government.  If John McCain really wants to address socialism, then maybe he should ask himself how he feels about our current handling of the economy.

Undoubtedly we are going to hear about socialistic healthcare.  If that’s your fear, then you should live in fear at all times because every other industrialized nation has socialized healthcare.

I would surmise that it’s all relative.  People don’t want to feel like money is being taken away from them.  That said, I just hope I can all still afford healthcare in ten years time.  The fact that I need to depend on someone else (my employer) to make healthcare affordable is frightening.  Healthcare should be easily purchasable to everyone, but because of the free rider problem, costs won’t go down.  In my opinion, if the ideal is to have people not go bankrupt when they go to the hospital, then we currently have a market failure.  And as I’ve written before, market failure has government intervention written all over it.  But McCain says that’s socialism.

If anyone were to criticize Obama, they should do so on policy grounds.  As Greg Mankiw shows us here, Obama’s plan is messy, and taxes people anyway, even if they buy health insurance on their own.  What I don’t understand is how we can mandate car insurance on people who register their vehicles, but not mandate that people have health insurance.  Sure, nobody has to have to have a car, but by that logic, I don’t have to go to the doctor, or the hospital.  So, why is it that when I get shot or in a car accident, I get taken to a hospital?

Here’s the thing.  What are we afraid of?  And here’s a better question.  Who here honestly thinks that socialism will penetrate and take hold here?  If I know my own country’s jingoistic tendencies, it’s that if something gets labeled socialism pretty well, it’ll reject it.  Let’s see how good McCain is at doing that.

At this time, not much is going to change the fact that the U.S. economy will recede to recession.  It makes sense considering that the U.S. economy is consumer driven and J.P. Morgan is forecasting some pretty week retail numbers for the U.S. fourth quarter.

Behavioral economics will only gain in popularity because of what is now happening in the U.S. economy.  Anyone who trusts the efficient market hypothesis has to be asking themselves right now why it took forever and a day for us to figure out that asset values (of homes) were nowhere where they should have been.

I believe many of the answers regarding the sluggish realization of asset prices in the stock market (we knew of dropping values back in the summer of 2007) and reaction to market shocks that we should have known were coming will have some explanations in behavioral economics.

Why are new theories of economics coming about?  Well, some of the principles that drive economists and our theories revolves around ideas like, “consumers make decisions at the margins.”  I’m sorry, but I am pretty sure no one goes to the grocery market and buys steaks one at a time.  Nor, do they buy a meal at a restaurant at the margin.  There is a reason why there is a saying that goes, “My eyes were bigger than my stomach.”

In the end, everyone is speculating.  Even in their everyday decisions, as shown above in the supermarket example.  I have really yet to hear anyone say this, but I would surmise that one of the more relevant differences between economics and finance is the difference between long and short term.

It’s for the reason that the average person does not look so far into the future that behavioral economists exist.  With as many books that are now documenting our irrationality, one wonders if we were ever rational, looked into the future beyond five years, or how we even came up with principles for economics.

The principles of economics are not going anywhere, nor do I want them to.  However, the answers to economic problems are coming from different places these days.  A melding of academic disciplines is providing a new task force of economics.

The hope is that economists (or economics in general) start to get on the news more often.  Trust me on this.  Just turn on CNBC, and try to listen to anything of value.  You’re not going to get anything.  You’re going to hear “news items” that regard which stocks are moving up or down, or which are more being traded heavily.  You’ll hear nothing on their balance sheets, their cash positions, their liquidity ratios, or anything of the sort.  At this point, we’re not even talking about finance or economics, we’re talking about day traders.

If I could wish for something else of value to come of this recent economic downturn, it’s that we rethink how we present the economy, and news in general.  For example, GM’s stock is down, does that mean they will stop making cars tomorrow?  No, so lets ask the questions above and ask about other questions in regard to what they are going to sell, or how their business model might change.

I understand news today scares everyone, but it doesn’t mean we have to leave everyone uneducated.  And it does not mean that we have to keep looking at problems the same way. Present the economic news rationally, and we might start to respond rationally.

Not many pundits seem to get it about the American Public.  They either suffer from supposing upon the american public opinions that they do not have, or they think the public has intelligence, which we do not possess.

For the first premise of pundits writing that we have opinions, which, in fact, we do not posses – please look no further than one of the many examples Glenn Greenwald cites about pundits.  No doubts, many pundits today will make claim about the American heartland, and real Americans, whoever they are, and what they think about last night’s debate.

Instead of dealing with that though, I want to make sure I deal with the patronization that we receive from major media outlets and others.  

A great example of this is from a post by Andrew Sullivan on last night’s presidential debate.  This is what he says about the public in a few instances of watching the debate.

9.49 pm. Two flashes from McCain so far: “that one,” referring to Obama, and citing Obama’s “secret.” Nasty, uncivil and not even effective.

…

I debated dozens of times at Oxford. All I can say is that, simply on terms of substance, clarity, empathy, style and authority, this has not just been an Obama victory. It has been a wipe-out.

Does anyone who reads this really think that the entire American public sees the intricacies that Andrew does?  I’m not saying Andrew is wrong.  I agree with him.  But Sullivan’s being right or wrong is not the issue.  The point is that McCain’s answers - all of them – are effective.  People who do not compromise the Republican base will still take McCain’s demeanor and answers, and run with them.  Just as they believe what they read in chain emails.

One other part on how we are not that smart.  Tom Brokaw said in the debate last night, “One of you will be president.”  However prophetic and true that statement may be, it was one of the most insulting, ignorant, and irresponsible things to say.  Brokaw himself, someone that should and probably does know better, completely immerses himself in a two party system that exists only because our citizenry unknowingly wills it.

That is to say, even though he’s right, Brokaw is right only in a cynical nature.  If we honestly demand true balance from our network news anchors, then they should not ignore the fact that other candidates and political parties exist in our world, and that we have the option of voting for them.  Who knows, maybe I should thank Tom Brokaw and our media establishment for narrowing my choice down to two already.  Who knew it would be so simple?

But this brings me to another pet peeve of mine.  Can anyone out there give me a response that does not involve the words “two party system” as to why someone should vote for one of these two candidates?  Remember, I use the phrase “should”, not “have to.”  I understand how the various commissions block some third party candidates from the ballots, and while that is a worthy discussion, my inquisition is more philosophical in the sense of getting at the heart of why Americans allow and/or believe in the “two party system.”

William, you want to take this one up for me?  You’re usually good at proving me wrong with cynicism.

There is a lot to comment on regarding what has happened just in the past week of the Presidential Rat Race.  Most of which revolves around how we are slapped in the face again regarding the fact that everyone is giving into their emotions with their decisions.

And the whole experience argument borders on irrelevant.  No matter what side of it you are on.  It’s a futile question to even bring up.  Putting importance on experience means one of two things.  First, we can test it through an examination of sorts.  If you say we can’t test such a thing as experience, then that most likely means you’re providing a value on the ability for a leader to make decisions from “his gut.”

Nevertheless, why are we having these conversations?  Our congress can pass anything it wants into law.  Given a certain number of votes, a presidential veto also would prove to be irrelevant..

Overwhelmingly, I wonder if there is a yearning for an authoritarian father figure, and if we manifest that desire in our own politics.  Each day, we can witness people who want a leader to tell them what to do, or they want to tell other people what to do.  Fewer people seem to be holding only themselves accountable.  Rather, either they blame their problems on someone else, or they need to tell others what their problems are.

I agree with IOZ that our problems revolve around our enmeshment within an economic and political system, which claim to be transparent, but are hardly even visible to the average citizen.  However, Andrew Sullivan has also made claim to something that I think even IOZ might agree with (although I would not be surprised if he still disagreed).

Suppose for a moment that IOZ is right, and that there is no real difference between Barack Obama and John McCain.  As well, there is no difference between Democrat or Republican.  If - for whatever reason you have made up in your mind - you still find it necessary to vote only for a mainstream candidate, would not temperament make the difference in who you voted for?  Would that not mean Barack Obama is the man to vote for, as Sullivan suggests?

Here’s the rub though, what you want the president to have in terms of temperament is still entirely a judgmental choice on your part.  There are people out there who actually want an old father figure, who has an ability for daring stunts of drama in the White House.  You might argue that McCain is more hawkish than Obama, but that is also a futile argument considering that Obama displays just as much vehement support for our allies (e.g. Israel) as McCain.

In the end, I’ve found the more important questions revolve around how we got here.  Where, at some point, did politics become less academic, and more advertising and marketing?  It is at that point where you realize that your ability to make a difference relies on how much money you make, and how good you are at crafting a message.  Substance, at this point, is irrelevant.

Just so we are clear, “the market” is that thing managers put our money in for us and put it where they think is best.  So, even though we have not actually taken away our money from a certain stock, someone else has done that for us.  Therefore, technically, we have no confidence in the market.

And now, in order to restore confidence (that we apparently do not have) in markets (that I apparently participate in), our government (that we apparently run) will spend money (which I know we do not have) in order to help qualm the crisis of confidence (that apparently is ruining the economy).

Well then, hooray for the consumer driven economy.

To think that this all started with over-valuation of assets; that is to say homes.  Many of those homes were financed by mortgages under terms that were not exactly friendly to the owners.  A long story made short: a consumer driven economy that relied on money and credit from the value of homes, which were overvalued.

I’m afraid this will not end, until the market prices for homes are realized.  And the most frightening aspect is that we have so many politicians who yell out for “free market capitalism,” yet, are here about to give taxpayer money to help firms with their bad choices.  I guess the free market isn’t so free after all.