Letting The Cat Out Of The (Gas) Bag.

If there were such a thing, it might be part of a course entitled, "Shakespearean Psychology 101". I am thinking specifically about the famous quote uttered by Queen Gertrude in Hamlet, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." The meaning of that line is simply that repetitious statements by anyone professing something, especially if the utterances come unprompted, are probably not to be taken at face value. A more modern analogue to Shakespeare's insightful bit of iambic pentameter might be Bismarck's, "Never believe a rumor until it has been officially denied."

One of the great official protestations of late, repeated too often for comfort, is that the financial crisis that has swirled about us for the better part of a year is well and truly behind us. There aren't any reasons put forward as to why this should be so, save flimsy ones that can be dismissed by the insertion into the argument of just a few facts. However, if one wants to undermine the "all is well" talk using a different approach, there is no better one I know of than the bullshit detectors provided by Monsieur's Shakespeare and Bismarck. They would have recognized the many protestations by officialdom that the worst is behind us as essentially untrustworthy on the face. Not being as artful as Shakespeare, I can only offer sarcastic rejoinders to constant assertions that "The Crisis is Contained" such as, "Say it again and I'll make a box set CD", or, "So sorry, Mr. CEO of Citibank, I didn't hear you the first twenty seven times, could you repeat that." Words are a bit like bank credit, they must be deployed carefully, or they can have the opposite effect to the one intended, if you get my meaning.

I Say It Here, And It Comes Out There.

When writing my post, "Hillary's Mania", I actually referenced Dr. Strangelove in the first draft. It seems the rest of the world has heard Mrs. Clinton's incendiary words, and are understandably alarmed.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/04/27/hillary_strangelove/

President Bush Mails It In.

I almost fell off my chair this evening when I read the following comment from our feckless leader, "Bush says rebates going out Monday will boost economy." I suppose he had to say something, but really, who does he think he's fooling? First of all, rebates, a marketing scheme begun by auto manufacturers in the seventies, a scheme which has since mutated and multiplied far beyond the auto industry, are, to put it mildly, bullshit.

I bet you know the drill.

Seller: Offers "product" for $2,000 dollars.

Buyer: Ponies up to buy "product."

Seller: That will be $2,250 dollars please.

Buyer: I'm sorry, I thought the product cost $2,000 dollars.

Seller: It does! You just pay me $2,250 now, and then I'll give you the cash back in a little while, (at least a month).


Well, it's no different today. The government is simply sending us taxpayers money that was ours anyway. So many folks think it's free money, but a rebate is never free money, it's money that is yours, but for reasons that have nothing to do with enhancing your economic well being, resides temporarily in the account of another, in this case, the government. So how does the return of funds that should have always remained in your wallet boost the economy? And how does a mere three or four hundred debased greenbacks allow taxpayers to do much more than pay down a little more of their whopping debts? It will take a damn sight more than a few hundred bucks placed in the hands of over extended consumers to boost our massively debt laden, contracting economy, Mr. President. Oh, I forgot, you think we aren't in a recession, just a period of slower growth. It seems something besides a rebate is being mailed in these days.

Message to McCain: Thanks, But No Thanks.

You have to love the Republican's and their attempts to co-opt the old Democrat economic rescue programs in a manner that is the luncheon fare equivalent of two pieces of slightly moldy bread with nothing save a bit of mayonaise in the center. John McCain was in Kentucky today, clearly there to sooth destitute natives of coal country with echoes, very faint ones, of Lyndon Johnson. Here is a sampling of some of Senator McCain's sterling words:

"Government has a role to play in helping people who, through no fault of their own, are having a hard time, Government can't pay lost wages. It can't dig coal from the earth. It can't buy you a house or send all your kids to college. It can't do your work for you.''

Well, Senator, government may not do all your work for you, but it has managed quite ably to assist private industry's multi-decade program to move overseas all but a hollow remnant of what was once a thriving manufacturing base here in the U.S. In the halls of government, over approximately the same span of time you have served, your party, especially, has done a splendid job of making it harder for anyone who wanted a decent, reasonably well paying job to find one. If I were a resident of The Bluegrass State I would have brought a picket to your appearance that said, "Thanks, but no thanks, Senator, we don't need your kind of non-help, help."

Hillary Clinton's Mania.

The dictionary defines a maniac as someone with an ungovernable enthusiasm for just about anything from investing in tulip bulbs, playing video games, collecting dead butterflies, or classic cars, even, heaven forfend, Star Trek memorabilia. A drive to world conquest, ala certain Roman Emperors, Napoleon, and most infamously from the last century, Adolph Hitler, is, of course, megalomania. Which brings me to Hillary Clinton. I know, it's hard not to chuckle when thinking of Hillary Clinton in the same breath as, oh, say, Julius Ceasar, or Bonaparte, but despite the ostensible differences, there is just something about H.R.C. that smacks of those megalomaniacal despots of yore.

Perhaps it is her penchant to utterly abandon moral scruple in the form of her comment that the U.S. "could totally obilterate Iran," that draws me to such uneasy comparisons. It would be simple to dismiss Hillary Clinton's statement as merely pandering to the Israel lobby- she was pandering- but her comment is just plain disturbing removed from that context altogether. When asked on CNN to clarify her words, she admitted "it was a terrible thing to say", but offered that she meant it as a deterrent. At best that was disingenuous, and given who is meant to be deterred, one can hardly be sure her words won't instead act as a severe provocation.

Perhaps I have grown disgusted and a tad alarmed by the seemingly cavalier manner in which some of our elected officals bring up the subject of obliterating others with our over stretched but still fearsome military. And for me, Mrs. Clinton's profile suffers in that some of the worst examples of her take no prisoners/scorched earth campaign have dovetailed too closely in time to her remarks about obliterating Iran. I sense not just something hard and ruthless in her nature, but something that smacks of bloodlust. But then manias have a way of causing us to abandon decency as we get lost in the haze of desire. And while certain voices are always very quick to remind us that a race for President isn't tea time, those same voices forget to note that history's better leaders, whether they were democratically elected or installed by other means, generally eschew the sort of talk that Hillary Clinton has engaged in. Those who possess real strength and are wise, know they needn't brandish their sabers and threaten mayhem, that is a game for, dare I say it, the maniac.

Obama Was Right!

When Barack Obama described the character of the poorer classes in the great American swindle as displaying a tendency to “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” as compensation for their generally unfortunate socio-economic circumstances, who could reasonably deny that such an assertion was, however unflattering, more on the mark than not? Were Obama's remarks, as have been claimed by some of our most notable elites, elitist? Perhaps, but as Jim Kunstler points out so deliciously in his most recent blog, there was more than a soupcon of hypocrisy from some quarters that took umbrage at Senator Obama's incisive remarks.


"The evermore loathsome and odious Hillary Clinton, co-owner of a $100 million personal wealth portfolio, seized the moment to remind voters what a normal, everyday gal she is -- who would never look down on the small-town folk of Pennsylvania the way her "elitist" opponent had, forgetting, apparently, that the Clinton family's consigliere, James Carville, famously described the Keystone State as a kind of redneck sandwich with Pittsburgh and Philadelphia as the bread, and Alabama as the lunch meat in between."

Putative elitism aside, no one, with the exception of Kunstler, is acknowledging the obvious, which is, to repeat, that Obama was more on target than off. The pity rests in Obama's quick disavowal of his remarks, since his attempts to convince the gun loving, Nascar worshipping, religious wing nuts inhabiting large sections of the nation that he didn't really mean it, are unlikely to convince.

A Little Truth For Ya!

Dear Jay:

The problem with ever taking you seriously in these matters is that you are anything BUT a dispassionate observer. You so desperately want Obama to lose, and lose badly, that it clouds your judgement regarding what is likely to be a wildly unpredictable general election. Equally importantly, you are so frantic to be seen as prophetic, as especially insightful, that you can't even wait until the Democratic nominating process is over before you call the general election. Once again, even if you turn out to be correct, your approach is unsound.

One thing these interminable elections have taught (some of) us, is there are far too many twists and turns to call the game well in advance. Did you have Barack Obama taking the nomination from Clinton after she won The New Hampshire Primary? Did you have Mike Hickabee lasting longer than your darling, phony fat cat Mitt Romney. I, for one, am fascinated to see who the voting public chooses once they have seen McCain and Obama in debate. Imagine a tall, youthful and unflappable Obama juxtaposed against a short, aged and cantankerous, McCain. Who is going to be the most attractive to the voter just based on physical presentation? Recall that Kennedy outperformed Nixon in the televised debate but lost on radio.

And mark my words, by the time the general election comes around the economy will be in far worse shape then it is now. Who do you suppose, if anyone, benefits from that? Who loses? Have you considered that whoever gets elected is probably the greatest political bagholder of our time, since that smuck you voted for, not once, but twice, has things royally FUBAR?