Megan, With a Bullet

Why do I have the feeling Megan McArdle is feverishly pouring through her old textbooks to find a way to mitigate how Alan Greenspan, Milton Freeman, and Wall Street were so very wrong?

K-Lo Goes To Confession

VII Mission: Impossible

K-Lo: Bless me Father for I have sinned. It has been three days, ten hours, six minutes and forty-nine--fifty--fifty-one---.

Father: (interrupts) Do you have a new watch, Kathryn Jean?

K-Lo: Yes, Father. My father gave it to me for my birthday. It has a stopwatch and a calendar and Mary's face is on the dial. Look, her arms are the hands; one is holding Baby Jesus and the other is holding an American Flag. See, it looks like she's waving it when it moves.

Father: That sounds very patriotic. Do you have a sin for me today, Kathryn Jean?

K-Lo: It's been kind of quiet lately, Father, so I'm short of sins this week. I'm sorry. Oh! I did covet my neighbor's wife.

Father: Uh, Kathryn Jean, don't you mean husband?

K-Lo: I mean Mrs. McCain, Father. She looked so sad yet strong, and real pretty too. I wanted someone to look at me that way, Father. Sad and resigned, yet always smiling. Like the way Mama looks at Daddy.

Father: I see. Yes, we all long for someone to be close to, but I know you hold Jesus close to your heart and will always turn to him as well. Okay, next sin?

K-Lo: ...

Father: Kathryn Jean?

K-Lo: (rapidly) Father, I gave up on marrying "Mittens." It Was Not To Be, just like in that book I confiscated from a girl on the bus.

Father: Did you take her book, Kathryn Jean?

K-Lo: It was my duty, Father. The cover had pornography on it and it was called "Love's Throbbing Desire."

Father: So then you read it?

K-Lo: It was my--

Father: --Duty, yes.

K-Lo: In the book a girl discovers that her boyfriend is just pretending to be nice when he's really mean and makes fun of her. So she meets another man instead, a dashing naval captain with a mad wife in the tool shed. Then the wife falls on a pitchfork and dies, and the girl and sea captain live happily ever after.

Father: K-Lo, you wouldn't happen to have bought a pitchfork lately, have you?

K-Lo: No Father.

Father: Thank the Lord.

K-Lo: I bought a RonCo earth tiller, as seen on tv. I can just prop it up out of the way during a townhall rally, and let nature take its course.

Father: Kathryn Jean, I think you should come to see me at the Parish hall tomorrow, about 8:oo. A very nice support group for singles meets there, and you can make some friends and learn a little about relationships. I'd also like you to meet a friend of mine, a doctor who specializes in, uh, talking to people with problems.

K-Lo: I appreciate that Father but I need to keep my schedule open until the election. And tomorrow I'm going down to the docks to meet some sailors. Maybe they'll tell me what a sailor likes in a girlfriend.

Father: No doubt, no doubt, my dear. Well, I won't try to argue with you. By the way, could you run to my office and fetch my rosary? I seem to have left it on my desk.

K-Lo: Sure, Father. Uh, shouldn't I say a Hail Mary or two?

Father: Of course, of course. Now run along, dear. (beeping noises) Operation Bernadette is a go. Repeat, Operation Bernadette is a go!

Run Away, Cindy

It deeply grieves me to report that Kathryn Jean Lopez might be a fickle little tramp. After swearing undying love loyalty to "Mittens" Romney, her wandering eyes have lighted upon the unwary John McCain.

I've always thought you can always tell a lot about a campaign through the eyes of the loving wife of the candidate. One Super Tuesday night in Boston, I was feet away from the Romneys as he talked about taking it to the convention. He was telling you the truth, he hadn't decided to drop out yet. But you knew, even if he hadn't made the call yet, that he'd not be in the race by week's end. You could see it in Mrs. Romney's eyes.

Right now I'm watching John McCain in Wisconsin. Cindy McCain has intense worry in her eyes. I wish we could all take the weekend off as a country and come back Monday ready to have a serious election. I bet Mrs. McCain would agree.

That reminds me of a song....

When I look in your eyes,
I see the wisdom of the world in your eyes
I see the sadness of a thousand goodbyes
When I look in your eyes

And it is no surprise,
to see the softness of the moon in your eyes
The gentle sparkle of the stars in your eyes
When I look in your eyes

In your eyes, I see the deepness of the sea
I see the deepness of the love
The love I feel you feel for me

Autumn comes, summer dies
I see the passing of the years in your eyes
And when we part there will be no tears no goodbyes
I'll just look into your eyes

Those eyes, so wise
So warm, so real
How I love the world, your eyes reveal.

Jonah Never Fails

When you're out fishing for snark, it always pays to check out Jonah Goldberg, the man best known for the bottomless depth of his stupidity. He's a mash-up of George Costanza, Otto from A Fish Called Wanda, and The Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons. For example:

I think this reader gets at a good point. If it's time for a new New Deal,
what good was the old one?

Come on. That's not ideology, that's having his head so far up his ass that he can see the back of his eyelids.

The League of Extraordinary Bloggers

Part I: The Adventure Begins
Part II: A Fresh Face
Part III: And The Band Played On


In a Secret Location, deep beneath the bowels, entrails and colon of Pennsylvania Avenue, a Meeting of Diabolical Minds takes place. It is the League of Extraordinary Bloggers, each a hero (or a heroine or a Coulter) in his (or hers, or Coulter's) own sphere. They are:

Col. Glenn Reynolds—famous defender of guns, wherever they are needed to fight the Brown Menace.

Michelle Malkin—a creature of the night, with an insatiable thirst for blood under her modest, cheerleader-clad façade.

Jonah Goldberg—A barefoot man-boy with cheek, famous for being so lazy he got his research assistant to paint his fence.

Megan McArdle--a woman of mystery, of disguise, of charm, which hides an unscrupulous and greedy heart.

Ann Althouse—A respectable professor who digs deep into the evil aspects of her psyche when she drink an experimental potion know as “Merlot.”



Reynolds: We are here to address the grave danger facing our nation. We are at war with Barack Hussein Obama, and the natives are winning. Get out your instructions.

Everyone unfolds the sheet of paper they are each holding.

Goldberg: I get to read it aloud because I'm the intellectual.

McArdle: I'm better educated than you are, Jonah. My prep school cost--

All: Thirty-eight thousand dollars a year, we know.

McArdle: And I went to Penn and the University of Chicago. That's a lot more expensive than your stupid girls' finishing school.

Goldberg: It's not a finishing school any more, smarty pants. It's a coeducational university and I was a legacy!

Althouse: Glenn and I are law professors. That's a lot better than a business degree. You have to be smart to be a lawyer; my daddy said so.

Malkin rolls her eyes.

McArdle: Did you carry a parasol to class, Jonah? I hear the students all have to wear their hair up in a bun and are just dying to marry well--oh, obviously you *did* learn that one.

Goldberg: At least I did get married. You'd better hurry up because there aren't as many millionaire out there as there used to be and you're almost old enough to be my mom.

McArdle: I'm younger than you are, you moron. And your mom's a million years old.

Goldberg: You stop talking about my mother! Everybody says bad things about my mom and I'm sick of it. Cut it out or I'll call you a fascist!

Malkin: (dryly) You terrify us, Goldilocks. Now shut up before I get hungry.

Goldberg (mutters) I was on the Daily Show and you weren't. I win.

Reynolds: All right, Goldberg. You can read. I hope.

Goldberg: Dear Extraordinary Bloggers. Your mission is to close in for the kill and eliminate Barack Obama. Polling has determined that the following subjects should not be brought up, as they have negative numbers; Iraq, the economy, the ownership society, Wall Street, the dollar, education, infrastructure, car loans, the stock market, New Orleans, and the global economy. Instead, William Ayers must be on the lips of every American consumer by next week. These are desperate times, Bloggers. We're counting on you. Hugs and Kisses, Karl.

Reynolds: I need your very best ideas, Bloggers, and I need them now!

McArdle pulls a daguerreotype from her pocket and passes it to Reynolds.

McArdle: Fellow Bloggers, I have in my possession a photo of Barack Obama with Bill Ayers. As you will see, Ayers has his arms around Obama in a very friendly fashion. We can use it to blackmail Obama into dropping out of the race.

Malkin takes the photo from Reynolds and looks at it.

Malkin: Who's the kid?

McArdle (stiffly) Obama, of course. Don't you know what he looks like?

Goldberg: This could be Michael Jackson for all I know. Hey, maybe we can say that Michael Jackson had more surgeries and now he's That One Known As Barack Obama.

Althouse: How do you speak in capitals like that? I want to speak in capitals too.

McArdle: There could be bomb materials in that "Lost In Space" lunchbox, you know.

Reynolds: Megan, we appreciate the effort but we need a picture of Obama with Ayers as an adult. Do you think you can do that?

McArdle: Sure, I'll just go back to the University of Chicago, where I found it in one of my professor's home office.

Goldberg: What were you doing in your professor's apartment?

McArdle: Networking.

Malkin: Oh, that's what they're calling it now.

McArdle: Shut up, you brown person, you. My classmates and I used to laugh at people like you, with your funny little home-made lunches and out-of-date socks.

Althouse giggles. Megan tosses her hair and smiles. Malkin bursts into tears.

Goldberg: Are you girls going to fight? I can record it and make a fortune.

Reynolds: Jonah, shut up. This is serious. My stock portfolio is dropping, my bonds were hit, and the missus cancelled my subscription to Popular Mechanical Women.

Goldberg: I'm a very serious person, Glenn. I'm a leading intellectual in the conservative movement and everyone wants to shake my hand and buy me a beer, as long as it isn't too expensive. My ideas echo across the blogosphere, and every day more people tell me how smart I am. When's the last time you were on the Daily Show, Glenn?

Reynolds pulls his gun and points it at Jonah's nose. Jonah pees on himself. Malkin smiles through her tears. McArdle wrinkles her nose.

McArdle: You stink, Goldberg.

Malkin: Glenn, you didn't have to buy a new house at the height of the housing bubble. It's worth less every month.

Reyonolds: God only know what's happening to my University of Tennessee Retirement Fund.

McArdle: You should have taken my advice and not looked. If you don't look, you'll never know if you lost money until it's too late to worry about it.

Reynolds: If I had a robot wife she'd never nag me or make me take out the trash or memorize safe words. I want to go home and watch Serenity again.

Althouse: Am I poor too, Glenn? What about shopping in New York and new cameras? And box wine isn't getting any cheaper, you know. This is all Greenspan's fault.

McArdle whirls on Althouse and slaps her. Althouse slaps back and Jonah whips out his camera. Ann bursts into tears. Glen hands her a drink, and then another when the first is swiftly downed.

Althouse:(*sniff*) You're all just indulging in anti-Althousania. You're--you're vortexy and swirley and spinney and rotatey and I think I need to lie down now. Megan, would you care to join me, I mean walk me home?

Reynolds: McArdle, throw her in a cab and get back to Chicago. We're depending on you.

McArdle and Althouse depart.

Reyonold: This Ayers thing will work. It has to. We have nothing to lose.

Goldberg: Tell that to my stock broker. I cracked my wife's password and checked it out. We lost 120 thousand dollars in a couple of months. Now what do I do? A man can't go to his mother for money forever.

Malkin: You mean she cut you off?

Goldberg: (shouting) It was for my own good! My mother loves me!

Malkin snickers and files her fangs.

Reynolds: I don't believe it.

Goldberg: We did too. It was a lot of money and it's going to take a long time before we can inherit more. My wife cut my allowance, and she told me I can't go to San Diego for Comic Con. We had to drive across the Heartland to be with Real Americans instead. I don't want to see real Americans. I want to see goth college girls dressed up like Vampirella.

Reynolds: No you idiot, I don't believe you cracked your wife's password.

Goldberg:(mumbles) I'm smarter than you think. My book is famous and now everyone's calling liberals socialists and saying Hitler was really kind of nice.

Malkin: Let me guess; it was Doughy Pantload.

Goldberg bursts into tears and runs off.

Reyonolds: (sighing) Okay, let's do this thing. I'll link to Ayers stories and you write some op-eds for the Corner. We'll beat those Fuzzy Wuzzys yet.

Malkin changes into a bat and flies off.

Reynolds pulls out a photograph of a beautiful android in a mini-skirt and boots. He sighs again.

Reynolds: This is all Karl's fault.

Little Blessings

I'm not sure why (necrobuckleyphilia?), but the Corner publishes articles by Catholic priests occasionally. They are often about abortion or materialism, and this one's a twofer.

An honest analysis, in the end, will confirm that it is simplistic in the extreme to claim that the current financial meltdown in the United States was simply brought upon us by Wall Street greed. This crisis is, in large part, the result of something much more profuse: a collective chink in our American armor, a flaw in our fabric, a cultural deficit. In the end we have, all of us, built our houses, if not completely, at least partially, on the sand of a materialism, instant gratification, and over-consumption. I don’t believe most people seek money as their ultimate end in life; but the pursuit of comfort and status comes close to that at times and in many ways is even worse. Far too many Americans have built their houses on sand.


An economic crisis like the present means that millions of Americans will experience negative, discomforting and, in many cases, dire consequences. But no expert I know of is suggesting the crisis will reach bread-line proportions. And even it if did, the suffering of such consequences comes nowhere close to the moral gravity of human beings directly targeting and destroying the lives of 50 million unborn babies as has been the case under America’s abortion-on-demand regime.

What is your future and your children's future compared to saving unwanted babies? So what if you are suffering; you have too much anyway, and what about the unborn babies? You deserve to suffer because you're afraid of suffering discomfort which makes you forget about saving the suffering babies.

If I didn't know better I'd say the priests are jealous that God gave the ability to procreate to women and not men, and they will never know the joy and pride and deep connection to one's growing child. Suck it up, dudes. You may wear the skirts but we are God's Chosen.

Priceless

Let's see how Megan McArdle handles the entirely predictable failure of the bailout to get the credit markets moving.

People tend to get fixated on things like major bank sales and the level of the various stock indices.

Well, that was random. Who are these people? "Fixated" is an emotion word, and tells us nothing about who is saying what, and where.

These are important, but they are symptoms, not the main show, which is in the credit markets. Those remain frozen up.Was I wrong to support the bailout?

Wait a second. If Megan supported the bailout to unfreeze the credit markets, of course she was wrong to support the bailout, which was too small.

Was I wrong to support the bailout? Hard to say.

No, it's not. Additionally, quite a few people said it was wrong to support the bailout, because giving more money to the people who lost it in the first place was always a very stupid idea. At the very least someone else could have been brought in to try to clean up the disaster a little. But in Bush's (remember him?) CEO presidency, Wall Street gets the golden parachute and the taxpayer gets a helium balloon.

For one thing, it matters whether the alternative was doing nothing, or doing something better; for sure, it was not a very good design, and the bill that actually passed was worse than the one the House voted down.

That is an excuse; any bailout bill is a bad bailout bill. Why used a strategy that failed in Japan when you can uses a strategy that worked in Sweden?

For another, I was not positive that the bailout would solve things; it's just that it seemed like the best shot.

That's quite true. You said, over and over and over and over, that it was the best shot.

Since I can't compare the current world with some alternative in which it failed again, I need to think about what my metrics for assessing the decision should be.

How about reason and facts instead of emotion and expediency?

The Price

Miss Megan McArdle must be feeling rather rattled right now. Her Brave New Economic World of investment banks, securities, bubbles and regulation-free Randians has come crashing down around her Mossimo-clad ankles. The blogosphere has not been kind lately, and smarter fish have found a new sea in which to swim. What's a highly-paid, almost-but-not-quite-Ivy Leaguer to do?

Borrow material from the low-rent versions of herself.

Yes, McArdle has descended into Michelle Malkin territory, using many many words instead of home-made cheerleader videos, to deplore Barack Obama's connection to Bill Ayers.

[...I]n fact I think that the Ayers connection is too tenuous to be
interesting. But there is a nugget of a real critique at its heart, which
is that the academic culture Obama belongs to thinks its just fine to be a
former active terrorist who has refused to renounce support for the violence
committed by his group; that culture has rewarded Bill Ayers with prestigious
employment and other positions in a way that it wouldn't dream of rewarding a
similarly "idealistic" abortion clinic bomber. I know it's hard to
imagine, but if you're conservative, that seems like a real problem.

Yes, the connection between Obama and Ayers is tenuous, but it allows one to use the word "terrorist" next to Obama's name, and that's enough to earn another paycheck. You see, if you connect Obama with terrorists in the pages of The freaking Atlantic, you can afford weekends at Myrtle Beach, where lonely Republicans with trust funds go to play, or uncomfortable shoes that other women will look at with envy. You can leaf through catalogues of overpriced clothes made by Chinese wage slaves knowing that you can buy anything you want, as long as you charge it. You can linger in the sidewalk cafes, ordering tapas and wine by the glass. It's a good life, and all she has to do is drop a word here, a word there. Tiny little drops of poison, administered slyly to the body politic day after day, to keep the jewels and shoes and catalogues coming.

I'll have more later. Much, much more.

God is Love

I have to work now, so just a link: Arthur Silber.

My imaginary god (unlike everyone else's imaginary god) loves everyone equally. God is Jesus is God, in Christianity. Jesus did not exclude ANYONE from his love. If you hate gays you hate Jesus. If gays squick you out, so does Jesus. He is both human and God, and to hate your fellow man is to hate God. There is no excuse, ever.

And a special note for Megan McArdle: your attitude towards gay marriage would make my Jesus weep with grief and pain. Whatsoever you do to the "least" of My brothers, that you do unto Me.

ADDED: Miss Megan's explanation why gay marriage might affect her own status hetero marriage.

To which social conservatives reply that institutions have a number of complex
ways in which they fulfill their roles, and one of the very important ways in
which the institution of marriage perpetuates itself is by creating a romantic
vision of oneself in marriage that is intrinsically tied into expressing one's
masculinity or femininity in relation to a person of the opposite sex; stepping
into an explicitly gendered role. This may not be true of every single marriage,
and indeed undoubtedly it is untrue in some cases. But it is true of the
culture-wide institution. By changing the explicitly gendered nature of marriage
we might be accidentally cutting away something that turns out to be a crucial
underpinning.

To which, again, the other side replies "That's
ridiculous! I would never change my willingness to get married based on whether
or not gay people were getting married!"

Now, economists hear this sort
of argument all the time. "That's ridiculous! I would never start working fewer
hours because my taxes went up!" This ignores the fact that you may not be the
marginal case. The marginal case may be some consultant who just can't justify
sacrificing valuable leisure for a new project when he's only making 60 cents on
the dollar. The result will nonetheless be the same: less economic activity.
Similarly, you--highly educated, firmly socialised, upper middle class you--may
not be the marginal marriage candidate; it may be some high school dropout in
Tuscaloosa. That doesn't mean that the institution of marriage won't be weakened
in America just the same.

You see, if some teenage bigot in Tuscaloosa, Alabama says, "Damn, them gays are gettin' married? That's disgustin'. That settles it, Tiffany. You may be knocked up but we ain't gettin' married now!" then society will fall and Megan's potential marriage might lose some of its status as Extra Special Holy Pageantry Day of Me. So, no marriage for you! Just marriage for Megan, who deserves it because she was born straight. If you are born gay, forget it, you're not good enough. Or at least not good enough for Megan.

UPDATE: Unfortunately Megan's link no longer works. Try http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html

Let Palin Be Palin

I'll say it again; every time Palin opens her mouth, she reveals that she's a true Republican, gullible and authoritarian and so self-deluded that she routinely makes major campaigning mistakes in public.

From Think Progress:

I have, one of my absolute best friends for the last 30 years who happens
to be gay. And I love her dearly. And she is not my “gay friend.” She is one of
my best friends who happens to have made a choice that isn’t a choice that I
have made. But I am not gonna judge people. And I love America where we are more tolerant than other countries are. And are more accepting of some of these
choices that sometimes people want to believe reflects solely on an individual’s
values or not. Homosexuality, I am not gonna judge people.

She is trying to say the right thing the right way but can't, because she actually believes what she is saying. Instead of sounding sincere but non-committal, using dog-whistle words instead of frank acknowledgement of wingnut positions, she repeats what she's been told in fundamentalist circles. We are letting Palin be Palin, and it's a disaster.

Moderates don't want to hear about judging gays or choosing orientation. Fundamentalists don't want to hear about acceptance. Gays don't want to hear about more straights who judge them on their love life. Foreigners don't want to hear about how tolerant we are. And of course liberals in general don't want this fundamentalist anywhere near our beloved Constitution.

Our elite despises the Heartland fundamentalists; that's why they accuse the other side of doing the same thing so vociferously. The poor go to ugly churches and wear cheap clothes and have teeth and hair that don't shine as brightly as the elite's. They don't go to dinner parties and drink expensive wine and call important people by their first names. They are Other, and the elite--which is neither Democratic nor Republican, it is just very rich--hate them.

John McCain made a very, very big mistake.

Why did this fool choose Palin? I think that McCain, who almost entirely owes his career to luck, privilege, rank and expediency, chose the woman who would reflect best upon himself. He actually picked the prettiest girl in the room to stand by his side, so he'd be the BMOC. He could have picked one of a dozen older, less attractive conservative women to become vice-president. It's utterly astonishing in its vanity, hubris and disregard for country, party and colleagues. He's going to make DC and New York bow down before a lower-class young beauty queen from the hicks with no commiserate qualifications. Palin will sit in Dick Cheney's office with Dick Cheney's laws and Dick Cheney's budget and Dick Cheney's personnel, and there is nothing that will be able to stop her.

Megan Explains Her Modus Operandi

It's a lot easier to bluff, because the odds are that mistakes won't be caught.

And if they are, you can just ignore the corrections or tell the critic he "misunderstands."

Theater Burlesque

Megan is workin' it like an ecdysiast, an old-timey one with giant fans that snap open and shut, or balloons that are teasingly popped one by one. It's smoke and mirrors, to use yet another metaphor (which would annoy Megan immensely).

Megan, who did not mind the inventive methods used to create a shadow baking system without oversight, now is incensed that the people who lost billions might not get more billions. She seems to think that if the government doesn't get what it wants, right now, without oversight or limit, the financial system will collapse. And the people who stood in the way to obey their constituents, as the House Republicans did, "deserves to be tried for treason."

"We clearly need better regulations," Megan said, now that the negative effect of no regulation has become too clear to be denied. However, Megan continues to mitigate the damage done by Republican policies, her real job. The SEC was not lax, bank runs are complicated, there was no single cause-- anything to divert the reader from thinking about regulation further.

She goes on and on, but it would be too tedious to report in detail. Politicians are disgusting, dissenting Republicans are whiners, Nancy Pelosi is a screw-up, the successful Swedish model with no bailouts wouldn't work here, the bailout wasn't sold well, ignorant people should shut up about the bailout, McCain didn't really want a bailout. No fewer than ten posts by the world's laziest econoblogger. It's a torrent of output by her standards; she must be under a lot of pressure to support the wants of the rich.

Anatomy of Hack At Work

A hack has two concurrent jobs; to push untruths on the people and to mitigate truths. Megan mitigates the truth in this post, diverting attention from her own bad advice and the machinations of her heroes on Wall Street.

A journalist friend who spends way more time on politics than I do suggests that if the Democrats cave and include a capital gains tax, it will probably pass--but puts the odds of the Democrats caving at slim to none, since they can now blame any resulting crash on the Republicans.

I didn't think it was possible to be more disgusted with politicians than I usually am, but I find it impossible to express the seething contempt that I feel at this kind of opportunism. I don't mind when they screw with the normal operation of the economy for venal personal gain. But risking a recession in order to get a cut in the capital gains tax? Letting it tank because you can always blame it on the Republicans?

The Democratic politicians betrayed their constituents with their bought-and-paid-for complicity, but the Republicans actually obeyed their constituents. They removed regulation safeguards and lowered taxes for the rich. They let a shadow banking system grow up that made a relatively few people incredibly rich. Greenspan, Paulson, Bernanke--all helped the White House let Wall Street run wild and free. And "libertarian" Megan McArdle cheered them on, constantly applauding the end of regulation and supporting bad decisions that violated common sense. Naturally she hemmed and hawed, adding enough caveats and warnings, as well as lies and evasions, to cover her rear if she erred out of bad judgement or ignorance.

Megan, who believes that the more money you have the more moral you must be, despises teachers, food stamp recipients, the ill and handicapped, and many other people not fortunate enough to be born in relative affluence. Because she despises them she assumes the worst of them. Likewise, Megan despises liberals, for whatever inexplicable reason that cankers her soul. So anything liberals do must be immoral and despicable. If liberals don't vote for a bill that they feel will not solve the problem and will unfairly be financed by the taxpayer, well, Megan feels (not thinks, feels) that they are doing it out of spite. It is something she understands, after all.

Liberals also own stock, run companies, and of course have a stake in the well-being of their own country, where they are raising their children and where their ancestors were born and died. But out of personal spite and immorality, as well as practical job considerations, Megan writes a foolish and inaccurate post that indulges in spite while not adding anything to the public discourse.

However, Megan is also insulting Republicans, saying they'll tank the bargain to get a capital gains tax cut. Most Republicans voting against the bailout seem to be listening to their constituents, with an eye on coming elections. A few others are acting out of genuine ideological principle. Either way, they are doing what they think they should do. It doesn't necessarily follow that they just want lower taxes. No Republican will miss a chance to try to screw the Democratic Party over when an important bill comes up; they can't help it.

So by attacking both parties, Megan is trying to divert blame from the country's economic policies, many of which she enthusiastically supported. (More or less.) In other words, Megan sneers and insults and is filled with "seething contempt," but mostly she covers her own expensively upholstered ass.

spelling error corrected

No Megan This Morning

Unfortuantely, due to the poor work ethic of Ms. McArdle (or perhaps a hangover, who knows) I cannot provide any Megan moments. No doubt she will make up for it later, with posts that would make Jesus weep in despair.

Speaking of Jesus, let's see what he has to say about the rich and poor.


Unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

It is more blessed to give than to receive.

The House Always Wins

Superstitious folk like to say that the most clever thing the Devil ever did was convince the world he didn't exist. That's not true on many levels, but the basic principle does work: Get people to argue about irrelevant details and they will totally overlook the big picture.

We should not be bailing out Wall Street. Giving more money to the people who already lost billions is the height of stupidity. Liberals are arguing with great passion about the details of the bailout, hoping to "win" by putting their slant on it, but they are not saying that the bailout mustn't happen. If you are arguing on the other side's terms, you have already lost.

From Angry Bear:

Joseph Stilgitz asks tough questions at The Nation:

The champagne bottle corks were popping as Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson announced his trillion-dollar bailout for the banks, buying up their toxic mortgages. To a skeptic, Paulson's proposal looks like another of those shell games that Wall Street has honed to a fine art. Wall Street has always made money by slicing, dicing and recombining risk. This "cure" is another one of these rearrangements: somehow, by stripping out the bad assets from the banks and paying fair market value for them, the value of the banks will soar.

There is, however, an alternative explanation for Wall Street's celebration: the banks realized that they were about to get a free ride at taxpayers' expense. No private firm was willing to buy these toxic mortgages at what the seller thought was a reasonable price; they finally had found a sucker who would take them off their hands--called the American taxpayer.

The Bonddad Blog:

This isn't too hard people. If you're going to do this you should set a few basic guidelines. One -- those who made really stupid decisions in buying this paper without analyzing it should not be able to dump it at an above market rate. Letting them do so subsidizing that mistake on the backs of taxpayers.

Michael Hudson, former Wall Street Economist:

What it can do is provide a one-time transfer of wealth to insiders who already have been playing the debt-credit system and siphoning off its predatory financial proceeds to themselves. The Wall Street bankers, brokers and fund managers to whom I’ve been speaking for many decades all know this. That is why they pay themselves such large annual bonuses and large salaries each year. The idea is to take as much as you can. As the saying goes: “You only have to make a fortune once in a lifetime.” They have been salting away their fortunes year after year, mainly in hard assets: real estate (free of mortgages), fine furniture, boats and trophy art. One last $700 billion heist and they can make their getaway.

Naomi Klein:

What Gingrich's wish list tells us is that the dumping of private debt into the public coffers is only stage one of the current shock. The second comes when the debt crisis currently being created by this bailout becomes the excuse to privatize social security, lower corporate taxes and cut spending on the poor. A President McCain would embrace these policies willingly. A President Obama would come under huge pressure from the think tanks and the corporate media to abandon his campaign promises and embrace austerity and "free-market stimulus."

We have seen this many times before, in this country and around the world. But here's the thing: these opportunistic tactics can only work if we let them. They work when we respond to crisis by regressing, wanting to believe in "strong leaders" - even if they are the same strong leaders who used the September 11 attacks to push through the Patriot Act and launch the illegal war in Iraq.

So let's be absolutely clear: there are no saviors who are going to look out for us in this crisis. Certainly not Henry Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, one of the companies that will benefit most from his proposed bailout (which is actually a stick up). The only hope of preventing another dose of shock politics is loud, organized grassroots pressure on all political parties: they have to know right now that after seven years of Bush, Americans are becoming shock resistant.

But we aren't. We'll do what we're told, close our eyes, and hope for the best. We will do nothing to save ourselves, because to do that will be to admit that Americans are not the best and brightest, our ideals are a thin veneer created to hide the greed and naked callousness of our ruling class, and, at long last, we can no longer force others to suffer so we that can prosper.

Mortgages of Mass Destruction

Senator Dianne Feinstein, via Mish's Global Economic Trends:

Since this announcement, my offices have received thousands of comments
from Californians like you concerned about how this action will affect them.
Yet, I believe prudent action must be taken. The bill should include the
following principles: a phase-in of funding; oversight, accountability and
transparency; a mechanism allowing the Secretary of the Treasury to modify
mortgages to prevent additional foreclosures; and a precise cap on executive
compensation.

The current credit crisis affects all Americans. If action is not taken to
stem the crisis, Americans risk losing their homes, jobs, personal savings, life
insurance and more. Banks will cease to lend to businesses and homeowners, and
credit will be increasingly difficult to come by for average Americans. I
strongly believe that the consequences of failing to act now would be greater
than not acting at all.

The Sexual Drawback of Palin's Run

Aimai links to a fascinating article in the Huffington Post about alpha male behavior in primates and the body language of the candidates in the presidential debates. This sentence was especially interesting to me because it explained something that was bothering me in the back of my mind. It instinctively seemed to me that it was a bad idea to have a youngish woman run for office with McCain and the author, Frans de Waal, points out why:

Seeing an older male paired with a much younger female sets off red flags
in the heads of many women, so that for McCain and Palin to appear side-by-side
may be problematic.

It's especially bad for McCain, since he openly admits that he dumped his badly injured wife for a healthy, young, fertile, rich one. If he had lied about his running around it would be different; all the conservatives want is a comforting lie, but in his arrogance he didn't. So now the philandering male appears by the side of the attractive youngish woman who reproduced just this year.

The McCain camp correctly assumed that the Republicans would be happy to have an attractive woman as a candidate. But because of her baby and her daughter's pregnancy, the sexuality of Palin's public image is very strong. The Republican men are excited to have an attractive woman to look at after years of "Dick" Cheney and many are raised to be traditional and see women primarily as sex objects. The women have learned that if they are attractive and of reproductive age (and therefore suitable subjects for male fantasies), they will be able to advance in their conservative careers more easily than otherwise. Thus we have Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin.

But there is a very serious potential drawback, as de Waal notes. Because conservative women are so strongly encouraged/coerced to adopt traditional roles of dependence and submission, they also must deal with the fears that come with them. A dependent woman must constantly worry that she will be abandoned for someone her husband, the sole bread-winner, finds more attractive. Seeing the philandering McCain next to the attractive, sexual Palin rings some very distressing bells for a lot of conservative women.

Jonah Goldberg Has a Request

Jonah Goldberg is preparing the paperback edition of his book "Liberal Fascism: From Lucianne's Pocketbook to Wingnut Welfare," and he continues his fine tradition of not actually doing very much work. He has admitted that he didn't read all of the books he used for research from beginning to end, and just cherry-picked the bits he wanted. He also blegged extensively for help in finding and understanding the reading material. When after four years he still hadn't finished his book, he hired an assistant. Finally it was published and now the paperback is going to be printed.

But Jonah has one more request.

Favor from Readers

The paperback is coming in the spring and in addition
to a new post-election chapter I need to provide the publisher with a list of
fixes for typographical and other discrete errors. I can't do wholesale
revisions. But if I got a date wrong, misspelled a name, etc. I can make those
sorts of fixes. I have a few. But if you can recall others, please send them
along to me with the subject header "revision." Thanks!

And we are supposed to take conservative intellectuals seriously?

Jonah Goldberg--the comedy gift that keeps on giving.

Flashback Megan: Obesity

In its entirety:

Why not food stamps?

1) The poor don't need more food. Obesity is a problem for the poor in
America; except for people who are too screwed up to get food stamps (because
they don't have an address), food insufficiency is not.
2) Food stamps only imperfectly translate into increased cash income, meaning that the poor will spend . . . more money on food.
3) If the increase in food stamps takes the
form of expanded eligibility, rather than larger grants, the administrative
issues and public outreach will delay your stimulus until well after it is no
longer needed.
4) The limits on the type of goods available to food stamp
consumers, and the growing season, mean that some (it's hard to say how much) of
the food stamp spending will simply draw down perishable stocks rather than
generating new economic activity. Eventually this will probably generate more
economic activity, but probably well after your stimulus is needed.
5) The economy doesn't need a food sector more distorted by daft government programs than it already is. If you want to give money to the poor, give it to them. Even if they spend it all on drugs, it will hardly be much worse than spending it all
on increasing their already astronomical obesity rates.

You see, the problem with the poor is that they are too fat, and if you give them food stamps they'll buy food and just get fatter. So don't give food stamps to families so they can feed their children; the kids are too fat anyway. What's that? You'd like evidence? Silly people, don't you know Megan went to a private prep school? That's all the evidence you'll ever need.

I'm not sure what she's trying to say with #4. The USDA lists the following as eligible food items:

Foods for the household to eat, such as:

breads and cereals;
fruits and vegetables;
meats, fish and poultry;
and dairy products.

Seeds and plants which produce food for the household to eat.

That's a pretty wide variety of foodstuffs. Considering all the food issues Megan has (she is constantly discussing what she will and will not eat and how giving up food is morally superior), I have a feeling Megan, a former Catholic, does not look at food as nutrition. Instead it's a way to reward and punish people, and an indication of worthiness.

Flashback Megan: Creationism

I don't know how willing I am to ratify the scientific assumption that the
supernatural is never a possible explanation. I am a radical skeptic;
I think that the supernatural is generally a very unlikely explanation, but
I can evince no proof that the laws of physics as generally observed operate always
and everywhere.

Nor do I think that even Young Earth creationism can be ruled out by science, if you are willing to posit the possibility of a creator; God might have created the world looking old for His own inscrutable reasons.

She has to make mealy-mouthed caveats because she can't bring herself to have an opinion that might harm her financial prospects.