Drink, Drink, Drink! Smoke and Fight! Drink, Smoke, and Fight!!!

The Asylum for Shut-Ins.

Club

Clean the Boot

Noticing

Evening fell over Ohio. My wife was putting the kids to bed; I had just finished mowing the grass, and I found myself sitting on my front porch. My coffee had turned lukewarm, my Montecristo uncharacteristically harsh; I must have been sitting there fifteen full minutes before lifting my eyes up from the lawn, over the roof of my neighbor's house.

The color of the sky tilted from powder blue, to azure, to lapis. Pink clouds streaked a candy patchwork through the blue, reflecting the sunset in all its glory. Luna, half in Mother Earth's shadow, blazed through the blue, through the pink, more brilliant than any gem I have ever seen.

And I though to myself, "My God! What other beautiful things have I failed to notice today?"

Point a Finger, Three Fingers Point Back At You

SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY, R-IOWA: "The first thing that would make me feel a little bit better towards them, if they had followed the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, "I'm sorry," and then either do one of two things, resign or go commit suicide."

I can't take this hypocrisy anymore.

All of America is furious about the AIG Bonus Scandal, but not furious enough, and not with the right people. I watched much of AIG boss Edward Liddy's testimony before congress on CSPAN. Our "representatives" flailed into him, heaping on accusation, blame, disgust, loathing. Senator Grassley's comment (reprinted above) is typical of the horseshit grandstanding of our incompetent Federal legislative body.

In case you didn't hear, AIG paid $200 million in "bonuses" to their executives, taken from the bulk of the $175 billion Bailout payment our "representatives" chose to give them. 

Here's the news: AIG is a powerful corporation, and I'm sure it's staffed with assholes. But AIG, Edward Liddy, and his staff of filthy rich executive dirtbags is not to blame for this scandal. No company has the power to reach into the bank accounts of the working poor and transfer their money to the super rich. Only the government can do that.

Simple as that. Not only did government alone set the conditions for this ongoing disgrace, Sen. Chris Dodd crafted the bailout language to specifically protect executive bonuses. 

So, Senator Grassley, my advice to you is the same as you would wrongly give to Liddy and his people: Follow the Japanese example. Call yourself a little press conference, and come before the American people. Admit your responsibility for your part in this unbearable assault against the poor and middle class. Bow, and apologise. Then resign. Or kill yourself.

"Change" = A Bigger Helping of What You Just Had

We live in strange times. Not only have we seen an age where our elected leaders have the ability to fundamentally imperil the nation through their financial policies, they have actually exercised the will to do so. 

God bless President Obama for signing the order to do away with Gitmo. But in the matter of the financial crisis -- a crisis created by a totalitarian-esque, feudalist, inflation-loving, and debt-mongering investment banking class -- President Obama is George W. Bush on steroids. The new "Stimulus" bill, a bill identical to the Paulson/Bush strategy (except 3x bigger), will transfer a huge portion of the money sitting in your wallet to billionaire banking juntas while transforming what remains into comparative garbage. And that's only the beginning.

Nevermind the so-called "pork" in the bill. The "Stimulus" breaks down thusly: The government borrows money against future taxes leveraged against you. They give you the money they borrowed, so that you can spend it at a retailer near you (thereby transferring it upward again, as the retailers use the cash to pay back debt to banks). They then tax you at interest to pay off the loan. So at the end of the day, they took your money to transfer it upward to the banking class via retailers' debt, and they stick you with the interest to boot. But the real bite is that the money that's been borrowed must be printed in dollars, significantly reducing the value of all dollars.

So here's the Central Bankers' Gambit: Keep inflation high enough to hold the maximum number of institutions and individuals in debt (permanently if possible), but not so high that the money they receive in debt payments is entirely valueless. 

To debase the currency is to spread poverty. If the dollar in your pocket doesn't buy your daily bread as it did yesterday, then the government has visited a violence upon the people. 

It's the new face of indentured servitude. We are in the midst of a full-blown class struggle, right out of Marx and Engles. 

I express this sentiment with the greatest hesitation, the greatest care, and sincere sorrow. In the interest of full disclosure, Gentle Reader, let it be known that I am a principled free marketeer, student of Austrian economic theory, advocate of hard money, and a proud capitalist. If I could send a buff cyborg back in time to terminate Karl Marx's mother before she could give birth to the son-of-a-bitch (thereby preventing the bloodiest, most murder-inciting ideas in history from being written), I'd do it with champagne in hand. 

Why do I feel this passion? I believe the only proper way to frame structural economic issues is in light of their impact on civil rights. My deep commitment to capitalism stems not from a desire to lash others to the machines in my factory, but to liberate them from those machines, and any machine not of their own choosing. The widespread access to economic advancement by all citizens is inextricably integral to democracy itself. Monetary policy is civil rights policy. And as a secular humanist, I judge those things which extend human dignity and prosperity to greater numbers of people as sacred. 

What we are witnessing is the governmentally facilitated consolidation of the nation's wealth (your money, your employer's assets) through debt to central banks via inflation-- an acquisition that would never be possible without inflation having debased the currency first. If the money in my pocket covers my expenses, I have no need to borrow any. In order for the bankers to get my money, they have to compel me to go into debt... and the only way to make sure I do that is by making my money too dilute to cover my expenses. I often see our elected officials and media talking heads making statements such as "Businesses need credit!" and  "We must act to ensure businesses get the credit they need!" This is pure garbage. Businesses don't need credit. They need purchasing power, and are forced to resort to credit (debt) because government fiscal policy has ruined the currency that used to cover expenses, but doesn't anymore. I'll bet 90% of Americans' salaries are paid in money their employers had to borrow. How does that make you feel about your job security? 

We need deflation. We need it for the survival of the American Dream. 

Everybody has always hated bankers; it's their historical lot. The Medici family, whose contribution to human culture through their patronage of the arts is invaluable, still managed to be despised and feared in their time of power. Yet, historian Niall Ferguson observes that the development of banks in cultures always coincides with elevated standards of living and general societal advancement. I mention these things to clearly express the developmental need for banks and lending. But just as banks can help a civilization thrive, we are now seeing how they can cause a civilization to fail. 

Date with Elvis

Lux Interior... dead. 

Of the 10,000 versions of "Route 66" that were recorded, he sang it best.

Cajones

"Amigo, the only thing in this world that gives orders is balls. Balls. You got that?" - Tony Montana.

As usual, Tony Montana's existential observations paint him as the quintessential fictional American prophet/sage. In times of confusion, I often seek council from the classical masters (Yoda, Morpheus, Professor Xavier), and Tony offers us the only plausible explanation for the recent disgrace in the United States Senate.

Just before New Year's, Roland Burris was appointed junior Senator for the State of Illinois by the baldly corrupt Governor Rod Blagojevich. This week, the Senate, under the leadership of Senator Harry Reid chose to welcome him among their ranks... despite Sen. Reid's early and very public assurance that such a tainted appointment would never be allowed to stand.

For those of you who do not know, Gov. Blagojevich was arrested, impeached, and is awaiting trial for alledgedly trying to sell (for dollars!) the IL Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama. Some could rightly consider corruption of that level a full-blown subversion of democracy... Even treason. After getting pinched on a wiretap by the FBI, Blagojevich rushed to use his authority as governor to appoint a Senator of his own choosing before his powers and office are stripped from him. 

The sitting Senators reacted strongly; they announced publicly that any appointment made by Blagojevich would be refused entry among their company. They must have rightly sensed that allowing a flagrantly corrupt criminal governor to skew and distort the Senate of the United States of America via a tainted appointment would not only damage the nation, but also reduce their own clout by denigrating the office itself (and making them look like chumps, to boot).

But being a proactive rogue, Blagojevich was one step ahead of them-- appointing Roland Burris to one of the most powerful offices in the world. Why would Blagojevich do this? One can make two reasonable assumptions: (1) Burris will carry out some kind of function that will improve Blagojevich's circumstances, and (2) Blagojevich finds it gratifying to impose his will on the Senate, particularly over their objections.

In an attempt to redeem the dignity of the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid took to the airwaves to address the issue on Meet the Press, with David Gregory. From the official transcript:

MR. GREGORY: OK. Let's move on back home and talk about the controversial appointment of

 Roland Burris by Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich.  Back when this story first broke, when the charges of corruption were brought against Governor Blagojevich, you put him on notice.  And you had a letter that was signed by all Senate Democrats that said, in part, the following: "We write to insist that you step down as governor of Illinois and under no circumstance make an appointment to fill the vacant Illinois Senate seat.  Please understand that should you decide to ignore the request ... and make an appointment we would be forced to exercise our Constitutional authority under Article 1, Section 5, to determine whether such a person should be seated." In other words, you can reject that appointment.  You did that because Governor Blagojevich defied that letter, defied you.  He appointed Roland Burris.  Roland Burris also defying you.

SEN. REID: Blagojevich obviously is a corrupt individual.  I think that's pretty clear.  And the

 reason that he's done what he's done is to divert attention from the arrest that was just made of him and the indictment which will be coming in a few days, according to the U.S. attorney in Illinois. That's why President-elect Obama agreed with us that Mr. Burris is tainted... We determine who sits in the Senate, and the House determines who sits in the House.  So there's clearly legal authority for us to do whatever we want to. This goes back for generations."

And so, there it was: Blagojevich versus Reid, with the very honor of America's Federal democratic apparatus at stake. The result? Burris was accepted into the Senate two days ago, and is preparing to take the oath of office.

Reid never had a chance. Why? Balls. Given all that was at stake (clout, power, public perception, and the integrity of the government), balls is the only explanation that makes any kind of sense of the ultimate outcome. 

Say what you like about the (alleged) criminal villainy of Rod Blagojevich. The man has balls.

 As can be clearly seen in Figure A, Blagojevich's balls are substantial, robust, hugely engorged orbs of command. These are the kind of balls of which Tony Montana spoke: the cajones that give orders.

By contrast, Senator Reid's balls (as illustrated in Figure B) are shriveled, hairless, childlike micro-nads, lacking any substance or power. 

These are the balls of a man who fails to defend the integrity of his office and the integrity of America's democracy.

So, Reid isn't giving any orders at all... none that stick, anyway. He isn't directing the outcome of anything connected with Blagojevich or Burris, even when it is his sacred trust as an elected official to do so. Blagojevich is calling the shots, within the walls of Reid's own house.

I'd sincerely prefer if Blagojevich had appointed himself Senator. At least there would be some kind of strength in the Capitol building. There seems to be none there now. 

Movie Review: Valkyrie

I went into this movie with extreme skepticism.

As most of us know by now, the flick chronicles the failure of a conspiracy of German politicians and military officers to assassinate Hitler, known now as the "July 20" plot. The marketing materials for the film give us catchy lines such as "Some Saw Evil... A Few Dared to Stop It," and something about "letting the world know not all Germans were like Hitler." This made my bullshit alarm ring-a-ding-ding. Unless I'm very mistaken, the same Whermacht that was trying to kill Hitler in 1944 did his bidding for nearly a decade prior-- in Spain, France, Poland, Austria, North Africa, Holland, Hungary, a bunch of Eastern European countries who have now different names and borders, the USSR, beneath the waves of the Atlantic Ocean, and over the skies of Great Britain, to say nothing of the tyranny directed against their own homeland. Nobody was trying to kill Hitler when Germany was winning their war of conquest. But with America liberating Germany's conquered nations and the Bolsheviks storming toward them like a bloodthirsty tidal wave, are we to believe the German military suddenly got an attack of conscience? Hardly. What they wanted out of Hitler's death was protection: American & British protection from the vengeance of Stalin. These men whom the film's marketing department claims "dared to stop evil" were not liberators. We, the Americans and our Western Allies were. And the July 20 plotters were among the ones putting our people in coffins.

That having been said, Valkyrie is an outstanding film, and everybody involved did superb work. Despite his triumph with The Usual Suspects (a classic), director Brian Singer has failed to impress me (Superman Returns = floating turd braid) with some of his other offerings (X-Men = waste of talent). After the first 15 minutes of Valkyrie, I became acutely aware of the fact that I haven't seen a new film that truly looks like a film in a good five years. There's almost a 1970's-era quality to the images and editing. Shots look like shots. Cuts are smart and gentle. There is a minimum of spectacle, but a wealth of things to look at, nevertheless. Visual, auditory, and pacing gratuity is nowhere to be found. In short, the played-out MTV visual aesthetic that has so virulently corrupted our media arts has been banished from Valkyrie... Banished as if it had never been popular at all. The subtle, high quality of the filmcraft alone is reason to see the movie-- you will be refreshed. And Tom Cruise? Let's be real, Gentle Reader: this guy can carry a picture all by himself and make it look effortless. With Valkyrie's supporting players having all been bussed in from London's West End, the acting is first rate down to the last cast member. Even Kenneth Brannagh manages not to overact... Sort of.

As for my skepticism of the film's theme, I'm happy to report that the revisionist distortions advanced by the marketing materials aren't representative of the film itself. The theme isn't "liberation" or "stopping evil." It's patriotism... With the conflict stemming from the condition that being a patriot under the circumstances required an act of high treason. While the head plotter, Stauffenberg (Cruise), is portrayed as a man acting under his conscience and moral principals (a portrayal that is apparently based in fact), Singer is careful not to heroize the Whermacht plotters unduly or for artificial dramatic effect. Given the hundreds-of-thousands of people who sacrificed much-or-all to defeat "Hitler's Germany," that was Singer's duty. He fulfilled it.

Grade: A-