Where's My Jolt?

One of my favorite astrologers, Penny Thornton, has offered up this forecast for next week:

Are you feeling excited for no apparent reason, or are the butterflies fluttering in your tummy? No surprise if you are experiencing some strange sensations: Jupiter and Uranus are poised to meet early next week with the intention of jolting you out of a comfortable little rut. You are more than ready for more stimulating company and it is time that you altered a pattern of life that has been stifling your creativity. Perhaps you had given up on a situation believing it would never happen but suddenly the wind has changed and your dearest wish could be about to be granted. October is a period of positive change, and it may all begin with a phone call, an email or an accidental meeting.

Lightening strikes.

I've read a thousand fabulous horrorscopes that didn't materialize but I'm willing to suspend disbelief this week if it means I get to enjoy the anticipation of being jolted out of my rut. Never have I needed jolting more.

(Special request to The Universe: No death, dismemberment, or job loss, please.)

Speaking Out

It seems everyone has something to say.

----------------------------
The Petraeus Betray Us ad from Move On sure raised a lot of eyebrows.

I wasn't too outraged since it was Bush, after all, who deliberately set Petraeus up as his proxy. Bush purposely inserted Petraeus into the political argument because his own stewardship of the war is no longer credible in the eyes of the majority of Americans. Borrowing a page from the Iran-Contra "Arms for Hostages" handbook, Bush trotted a handsomely uniformed General Petraeus in front of congress and the American people in a way that was reminiscent of Oliver North being trotted out some 20 years earlier. He did it to buffer criticism as much as he did it to protect his ideology (or, as I like to think of it, his "idiotology"). It's a fairly safe strategy... who isn't anxious to revere the character of a soldier willing to risk his life for us? Who isn't uncomfortable criticizing one of our protectors?

I won't concern this post with the details of Petraeus's testimony. You don't need to look very far on the internets to find the points of contention. Besides... on whole, it was pretty much exactly what I expected.

Move On has a right to say what they did but their ad annoyed me greatly. Not so much for its "attack" on Petraeus but because I knew it would instantly be attributed to "the left". Move On is not "the left"and they do not speak for "the left". I would certainly never say they speak for me. But sure enough, suddenly they're my assigned spokesman. Grrr. Also, I thought their ad was counterproductive. They could have pointed out the factual inconsistencies in Petraeus's testimony without being so inflammatory as to invoke treason (yes, I know there are people who believe deeply that his testimony was treasonous). Perhaps it sounds cynical to actually say it, but the truth is that people want to celebrate their military heroes... it's been our nature since the dawn of man. It's very counter intuitive to ask people to believe that Petraeus is betrayin' us.

------------------------------
Fox News decided pile on with some General abuse of their own (of a slightly different nature).

The commentary says, among other things, that "our generals are betraying our soldiers . . . again" and "our generals in both the Army and Marine Corps have cared more about their precious careers and reputations than their soldiers and Marines under them."

Of course Fox wasn't aiming this commentary toward generals who support the continuance of the war, but rather toward generals who resist the idea of snipers "baiting" Iraqis with random IED parts scattered on the ground in order to help them identify which people to shoot.

What a horrible idea that sniper baiting shit is. There are lots of people who will pick up a shiny object on the ground as automatically as a six month old will taste any object within an arm's range of its mouth. My husband is one of these people. If he saw a bullet in the dirt, or an interesting-looking piece of electronic gadgetry, you can bet your ass he'd pick it up. If we lived in Iraq, this would make me a widow. What a stupid, reckless, and perhaps most tellingly -- desperate -- premise.

-----------------------------
Rush Limboob got in on the action this week with his "phony soldier" tirade.

Note to all: the men and women of the armed services are just as diverse a crowd as the rest of us. Officers might be overwhelmingly Republican but the rank and file are a politically mixed bunch. It's ridiculous to accuse a soldier of being phony simply for recognizing that Bush's Iraq strategy, planning, and execution sucks ass. I mean, really... are we to believe that the only 'real' soldiers in Iraq are the ones who buy what W's selling? Leave it to a Republican to be that egocentrically delusional.

-----------------------------
Columbia University created quite the furor by inviting Iran's Ahmadinejad to speak.

The American uproar was understandable but the lack of faith in the inherent rightness of our first amendment was tragic. As it turned out, the big picture brilliance of our Founding Fathers and their understanding of the power of free speech has never been more prominently displayed than in the ironic foiling of Ahmadinejad's plan to use that freedom against us. Ahmadinejad, looking for a platform from which to further divide us, assumed that our insistence on free speech was a weakness to be exploited. Too clever by half, he failed to recognize the double edged nature of this most sacred tradition until it was thrust cleanly between his ribs.

Yes, Mr. Ahmadinejad, we will listen to what you have to say. But we have words for you, too. And, apparently, laughter.

Happy Birthday, Vronzie!!

Because I love you. More.

(I'm just sayin')

*tee hee

Unintended Consequences Are A Bitch

Raise your hand if you think our new Sunni BFFs in Anbar aren't eventually going to collect their shiny new US "anti-al-Qaeda" weapons and begin assembling themselves for war (er, um... sectarian violence) against the Shia.

To Speak Up Or Shut Up

I find this to be an absolutely provocative topic.

It really is a bit of a conundrum, to keep one's mouth shut out of a sense of duty or to speak up out of a sense of responsibility.

If I had to pick a position it would be this: Woe to the world when we rely on the infallibility of our leadership and keep silent, for truly that is when we allow atrocities to happen.

Example 1

[...snip...]

Equally prescient and independent was Under Secretary of State George Ball. Unswayed by the technocrats around him, he kept warning respectfully that their course was wrong. His memo to President Johnson on July 1, 1965, took account of souls, and French history, as well as weapons. It concluded: "No one can assure you that we can beat the Viet Cong or even force them to the conference table on our terms, no matter how many hundred thousand white, foreign [U.S.] troops we deploy. Once we deploy substantial numbers of troops in combat, it will become a war between the U.S. and a large part of the population of South Vietnam. U.S. troops will begin to take heavy casualties in a war they are ill-equipped to fight in a noncooperative if not downright hostile countryside. Once we suffer large casualties, we will have started a well-nigh irreversible process. Our involvement will be so great that we cannot -- without national humiliation -- stop short of achieving our objectives. I think humiliation would be more likely -- even after we have paid terrible costs."

[...snip...]

Example 2 (a remarkable read for those who are interested in raw history)

[...snip...]

The following month, Bruhn - one of the few generals to emerge with credit from these conversations - said he believed that Germany did not deserve victory any longer, "after the amount of human blood we've shed knowingly and as a result of our delusions and blood lust. We've deserved our fate."

In reply, General-leutnant Fritz von Broich said: "We shot women as if they had been cattle. There was a large quarry where 10,000 men, women and children were shot. They were still lying in the quarry. We drove out on purpose to see it. It was the most bestial thing I ever saw."

It was then that General von Choltitz, the "saviour" of Paris, spoke of the time he was in the Crimea and was told by the CO of the airfield from where he was flying: "Good Lord, I'm not supposed to tell, but they've been shooting Jews here for days now." Choltitz estimated that 36,000 Jews from Sebastapol alone were shot.

"Let me tell you," General Count Edwin von Rothkirch und Trach told General Bernhard Ramcke on March 13, 1945, "the gassings are by no means the worst."

"What happened?" asked Ramke. "To start with, people dug their own graves, then the firing squad arrived with tommy-guns and shot them down. Many of them weren't dead, and a layer of earth was shovelled in between. They had packers there who packed the bodies in, because they fell in too soon. The SS did that.

"I knew an SS leader there quite well, and he said: 'Would you like to photograph a shooting? They are always shot in the morning - but if you like, we still have some and we can shoot them in the afternoon sometime.'"

[...snip...]

Lincoln Edward

As promised, here's Lincoln's Think, Dammit! debut.

I got to spend some bonding time with my little nephew last Sunday and he looks even more beautiful in person. And his wardrobe is stunning... he has enough baby Chicago Bears ensembles to last his whole first year!

Mommy and Daddy are still glowing in the way that proud, love struck, sleep deprived new parents do. Very happy times, indeed.

Husky Fever

Ryan's football pics came in today... doesn't he look adorable tough and mean?

The Huskies are having a great season so far. Their first game may have been a loss but they've won the next three -- not bad for "the youngest, smallest team in the league."

(Harrrr!)

Hmmmm... Interesting

I just read on The Drudge Report that Alan Greenspan has said this:

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.

I have always looked at Greenspan as an Oz-like "man behind the curtain"... half scholar, half quack. His comments strike me as interesting, tho, since I've recently started to give more credence to the blood for oil theory (see my previous post on the topic here).

I'm relatively pragmatic about what needs to be done for the sake of protecting our national interests. That said, the karmic retribution for playing the ME for oil has always been a bit of an ass kicker. Every time we engage in a little puppet theater over there, or try to stack the monarchy deck, or attempt to manipulate the balance of power, it comes back to bite us in the ass in one glorious way or another.

Unrelated

If Mickey Kaus's cousin is out there, let me know.

A Glitch In The Matrix

Andrew Sullivan posts an analysis of the murder of Abu Richa that sounds a bit truthy, adding a new dynamic to the "who's fighting whom" scorecard in Iraq.

The Best TV Show Ever

VH1's Rock of Love. Life will feel empty when it's over.

Breaking News: Things We Knew Would Happen, Will Happen

I've been watching all of the hubbub surrounding the White House's congressionally mandated report on progress in Iraq. *yawn

General Petraeus's assessment/testimony has been pretty much exactly what was expected... I don't really understand the frenzy it's generating.

Yes, we're going to 'de-surge' next year. Is that really new news? We already knew the surge was temporary... as in unsustainable. As in 'this is all the troops we have." As in "this military Hail Mary will give the Iraqi politicians a few more months to work out their shit." We were told that from the onset. And what did the Iraqi politicians do with that time? They took a holiday during the entire month of August. When Jack Keane says a "precipitous withdrawal" would be to "squander all of the gains we've made in the past five to six months" I have to wonder what the hell he's talking about. WE'RE not squandering anything... it's the Iraqi's who are failing to do what we've tried to give them time to do.

The sole bright spot seems to be the deal we've struck with the lesser devils in Anbar to help the Sunni insurgents oust al-Qaeda. Another de-facto event, in my opinion, but I'll take it.

We've already kissed off the south and Baghdad is still a mess despite our best efforts. No matter what kind of spotty success we achieve, the max number of troops available is not enough to tie down the entire country all at once. Even the shlubs at The Weekly Standard know the current surge strategy is not a winner as they look ahead to plans C (ousting Maliki and forcibly replacing him with Allawi, our guy, who won exactly 2% of the seats in the last election) and D (breaking the country into sections).

I cannot for the life of me understand what more the war supporters think we can do over there except try to keep the country limping along indefinitely. We're making ourselves accountable for results we can't control (like the Iraqi failure to not kill each other) and looking like fools in front of the rest of the world for it. That's one hell of a commitment given that we're going to be facing a significant economic downturn in the near future.

Black Gold, Texas Tea

Oil closed today at a record $80. Are we creeping ever closer toward the mythical (and hotly contested) Peak Oil theory? I have no idea. One thing I do know is that oil is a finite resource and demand for it has grown exponentially, even in the past decade. Something about the Chinese not wanting to ride bicycles anymore. Who could have guessed??

I thought I remembered reading an article once that ran scenarios about what would happen if oil hit $100 but a quick google failed to turn it up again. What I recall is that the impact to our general economy was devastating. As much as we love to think we're a high tech nation, our interstate commerce is still driven by the trucking industry (for example, it's how food arrives at your local grocery store). And we loves us our airplanes. And those great big boats that bring us cheap shit from China. You get the picture. Maybe we can scale back on our SUV consumption but that's only one small way we're burning through the oil. Oil prices and availability affect everything.

We shouldn't kid ourselves that securing a reliable oil supply is not key to our national interests. Personally, I would prefer finding a way to bring alternative energy sources mainstream sooner rather than waiting for so-called market forces to make it more palatable for conservatives. But for today we must accept that we're all junkies and oil is our crystal meth.

It's as popular for anti-Iraq war people to claim that we invaded Iraq for oil as it is for pro-Iraq war people to ridicule them for it. While it's true that 9/11 compelled a national taste for Arab flesh, the architects of the Iraq war had oil in mind long before Osama became interested in airplanes. In 1997, when PNAC launched itself, its concern with Saddam as an existential threat was not nearly as pronounced as its concern that Saddam threatened our national interests in the region. We know what that means, right? PNAC, btw, includes Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Khalilzad as charter members. Ring any bells?

I was reminded of PNAC and oil and the shred of pragmatic truthiness about our national interest in the region when I read a speech delivered by Bush to the American Legion on 8/28. When speaking of the danger of leaving Iraq, he said (among other things), "Extremists would control a key part of the world's energy supply, could blackmail and sabotage the global economy." Most pro-Iraq war people I know aren't really considering oil as a motivation for being in Iraq. They've got much more noble ideas in mind regarding democracy and national security. We may differ in opinion regarding the role we should be playing in third world democracies or the role Iraq plays in our national security, but I believe they are well intentioned ideas. Most people aren't thinking about the oil but I think our government thinks about it quite a bit.

The reason I'm bringing this up now is that I just read about the collapse of the Iraqi Oil Compromise via Josh Marshall at TPM. This is pretty critical stuff. As TPM points out, the Kurdish oil deal that so angered the Sunni and Shia (and ultimately killed the compromise law) involves Hunt Oil, run by Ray Hunt, two time appointee to Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. It seems possible to me that Bush already knew that the Iraqi Oil Compromise was a non-starter with none of the Sunni, Shia, or Kurds willing to actually, um... compromise. It seems plausible that the only way to salvage a win out of the situation was to ensure a satisfactory commercial agreement that gives us access to Iraqi oil through the Kurds. I don't expect we'll hear many objections from the Bush camp since it's likely they gave their explicit approval in advance. In fact, this signifies to me that, despite what he says to the public, Bush himself is no longer a believer regarding political reconciliation in Iraq and at this point is just working to secure what he needs before the whole thing goes up in flames.

We Want Our MTV (The Old One)

ABC News (the squarest of squares) asks -- without the slightest hint of irony -- has MTV lost its appeal?

I was 13 years old in 1981 when video killed the radio star. MTV was like a gift from the gods: music on TV without commercials. Time was irrelevant in the 24x7 music video world and we watched MTV at ridiculous hours of the day and night all summer long. Veejays JJ Jackson, Alan Hunter, Mark Goodman, Martha Quinn, and Nina Blackwood rocked our world.

Ah, nostalgia.

If radio was mainstream, MTV was bleeding edge. Previously unheard of bands with catchy videos were propelled to stardom overnight without ever having to play their radio dues. MTV viewers were perpetually ahead of the music curve, delighting in access to music produced by anyone with enough money to rent a video camera.

I watched less MTV as I entered my 20's, around the time that the ratio of commercials to music skyrocketed. I stopped watching altogether when it bizarrely quit playing music videos in favor of The Real World and other reality based shows. Pity, that, because for the next 15 years my sole introduction to new music was an assembly line production of overly hyped, pre-programmed radio crap. Web based music has provided some relief but my kids are way more comfortable navigating that medium than I am. My ipod playlists suffer for it since I'm still listening to much of the same music I liked Back In The Day.

And now everyone wonders why we need to see Britney Spears flop at the VMA show just to make it interesting? MTV abdicated their role in the music industry 20 years ago and everyone knows it.

He's Finally Here!

I was going to wait for a pic to post with the announcement but I'm impatient to share the news. My youngest brother and his wife had a baby boy yesterday at 1:03 pm. Nicely round at 8 lbs and 11 ounces (21 inches), our littlest Virgo is absolutely gorgeous and perfect in every way. We're all anxious to get to know him better but I figure we'll let the proud parents bond with him for a few days before we swoop in for some nephew/cousin cuddling.

Welcome to the family, Lincoln!

The Imperfect (And Perfect) Colin Powell

I just read the rest of the Colin Powell interview over lunch and found it fascinating. For one thing, it's another bit of 'insider' information on what really happened in that train wreck we call Iraq. Also, the contrast between Powell and the rest of the Bushies is, well... pronounced. It makes me wonder how things might have been different if he hadn't been cast aside (and later discarded) in favor of the Bush-alikes. Finally, Powell and I seem to share a very similar view on the GWOT and what the US can (and can't do) to affect it.

Some interview snippets regarding the GWOT:

What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say it’s terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing?

I would approach this differently, in almost Marshall-like terms. What are the great opportunities out there—ones that we can take advantage of? It should not be just about creating alliances to deal with a guy in a cave in Pakistan. It should be about how do we create institutions that keep the world moving down a path of wealth creation, of increasing respect for human rights, creating democratic institutions, and increasing the efficiency and power of market economies? This is perhaps the most effective way to go after terrorists.

[...]

We are taking too much counsel of our fears.

[...]

Yes, there are a few dangerous nuts in Brooklyn and New Jersey who want to blow up Kennedy Airport and Fort Dix. These are dangerous criminals, and we must deal with them. But come on, this is not a threat to our survival! The only thing that can really destroy us is us. We shouldn’t do it to ourselves, and we shouldn’t use fear for political purposes—scaring people to death so they will vote for you, or scaring people to death so that we create a terror-industrial complex.

There's a few things he says elsewhere in the interview that I don't know that I agree with. I'm all for immigration, for example, but let's make it a controlled immigration. Also, as we know, I'm not very in love with China and the House of Saud so would tend to have less patience with them than Powell seems to be advocating. But his statements about Democracy are spot on and, in general (no pun intended), I found the whole thing well worth the read.

In Which I Was Right

Risk management is serious business in my profession so the other day I made what I thought was an obvious observation about Iraq's post war planning:

I don't know how anyone can claim that the decision to invade was made analytically since there was never any serious consideration given to the risks. The outcome thus far has proven that, not the least of which is that an examination of the risks would have produced strategies for mitigation, which were apparently never even considered.

Today I read Colin Powell's confirmation of the matter:

As for the Iraq War, Powell -- a retired general and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- tells Isaacson that as he and others in the Bush administration debated strategy in the lead-up to the war, he did not think the Pentagon and then-secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had planned for what would happen after Baghdad fell.

"That was the big mistake. Don had written a list of the worst things that could happen, but we didn't do the contingency planning on what we would do about it. So we watched those buildings get burned down, and nobody told the divisions, 'Hey, go in there and declare martial law and whack a few people and it will stop.' Then the insurgency started, and we didn't acknowledge it. They said it wasn't an insurgency. They looked up the definition. They said it was a few dead-enders! And so we didn't respond in a way that might have stopped it. And then the civil war started at the beginning of last year. I call it a civil war, but some say no, it's not a civil war, it's a war against civilians. In fact, we have total civil disorder."

Satisfying and depressing, all at once.

Where Is The Love?

Kos isn't feeling the love for Obama. Point of contention? Obama isn't screeching enough about getting troops out of Iraq.

I think Obama has stated his thoughts on Iraq quite clearly, or at least as clearly as anyone can. Pretending Iraq is a simple issue is just silliness. We can't unshit the bed... pulling the troops out tomorrow doesn't give us an automatic do-over; we've impacted the region and there will be consequences. As president, Obama (or whomever) is going to have to deal with those consequences. A thoughtful approach is required... any action in that part of the world is like moving pieces on a chessboard.

We can stay pissed at Bush for his Mesopotamian folly forever (and truly no one hates loathes despises Bush more than I) but Bush isn't running for president in 2008. It's time to quit thinking in terms of Bush counter-action and start thinking about crafting a foreign policy that actually supports our national objectives.

I will concede that the Dems, as a majority, have seemed impotent when it comes to Iraq. They want to give the appearance of opposition while not actually doing anything to oppose it. That might be the most prudent action politically, maybe even practically, but it doesn't exactly instill faith in the strength of their leadership.

The bottom line is we're wasting our troops in Iraq and we should be developing a plan for withdrawal, engaging and preparing our frenemies in the region for plan B. The Dems should be demanding that of Bush and providing congressional oversight in the current execution. In the end, though, the reality of the situation is that Bush is still the sitting preznitwit and the commander and chief. The Dems should just say that. They look stupid when they act like they have an intention of stopping the war and then failing to do it.

Dazed And Confused

I'm starting to think that the reason I'm so confused by the reports on Iraq is because that's the way the preznit wants it. Here's a fun quote from a WaPo story as they also try to decipher the latest "violence is down" meme:

The intelligence community has its own problems with military calculations. Intelligence analysts computing aggregate levels of violence against civilians for the NIE puzzled over how the military designated attacks as combat, sectarian or criminal, according to one senior intelligence official in Washington. "If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian," the official said. "If it went through the front, it's criminal."

The Cost Of Offshoring

An important article came out while I was on my blog vacation this summer and I want to go back for a minute and draw some attention to it. It's a topic near to my heart.

I have become increasingly frustrated with the way we measure our economy. The extreme neoliberal economic policies of the last few decades have injected so many variables into our economic equations that the old formulas no longer compute. We need to integrate those variables into a new set of metrics to get an idea of what's really going on. We've been sailing along with a false sense of confidence, like the captain of a ship who doesn't realize his compass is broken. One can't help but feel sorry for the hapless crew who, laboring away day after day, assume the captain knows where he's going... until they all end up adrift somewhere unpleasant.

It's not that I have something against prosperity (hellooooooo, I'm a hard working consumer who likes to consume) but I do have an interest in making sure that the prosperity is real and sustaining to me. At this point I have a pretty strong opinion that it's not.

Anyone who's ever wondered why wages are depressed while unemployment is at a historic low, or who can't understand why the market is raging while job growth sags, or questions why GDP keeps increasing while we're gutting manufacturing, knows what I'm talking about.

What He Said

John Cole documents -- in one really good post -- what I was trying to say in several crappy ones.

Also - before I forget - I keep meaning to get in a word on the latest Iraq GAO report. The term "benchmark" is being tossed about a lot in this report (Iraq having achieved 3, made progress on 4, and missed 11). I think they have their terms mixed up. A milestone is used when measuring progress against a fixed point in a plan (we use this in project management all the time). A benchmark provides a data point in a comparative study that can be used to determine a standard, or to compare performance against a standard.

To say, as the GAO report does, that "The Iraqi Government Has Not Met Most Legislative, Security, and Economic Benchmarks" seems like a misapplication of the term. "Benchmark" is a soft term indicating a performance data point in a comparative study. You don't fail to meet a benchmark; you fail to meet a standard set by a benchmark. There is no preset standard in Iraq.

The more appropriate term is "milestone", since Iraq's performance against the fixed objectives it set in 2006 is what's being measured. But "milestone" really does carry with it a pass/fail implication: either you make your milestones or you don't. I assume that's the judgement someone was trying to avoid by switching terms.

My Head Hurts

I realize that I don't understand everything that's going on in Iraq... it's infuriatingly complicated. Every once in a while I kid myself into thinking I understand some finite component but my moment of smug is usually fleeting. A fresh perspective and/or contradicting pieces of information are always just a click or two away.

For example, I don't think I actually considered the idea that the much discussed risk of genocide in Iraq (post pullout) was, in fact, already in progress. I tended to think of the daily haul of bodies from the Euphrates in terms of civil war and sectarian violence. Newsweek points out that the ethnic cleansing in Baghdad has already profoundly changed its make up and, perhaps, contributed to the decrease in insurgent attacks. (Via Josh Marshall)

Also, although I was peripherally aware that we're wheeling and dealing for peace with everyone in Iraq, what I never expected is that Bush would meet personally with Sunni militias (and insurgent leaders?) in Anbar. Apparently we can now count them among our "frenemies"? I'm not sure what it will mean in the long run, exactly, but I don't think anything good has ever come from having "frenemies" in that region.

People Who Hate America...

...disregard the official spin.

Kevin Drum teams up with Juan Cole to dispel the "troop casualties are down" lie.

It would seem to me to be an unnecessary lie in the first place since I would expect to see troop casualties go up if we've got more troops over there actively engaging the enemy. It'll be interesting to see what happens now that the British have turned the south over to the sectarian-challenged Iraqi police. I wonder if 1) the surged troops will need to drift south to cover the gap, or 2) the south will become the new whack-a-mole reprieve location.

And jeebers... 120 degrees in Iraq. Our troops, every last one, are freakin' superheroes.

Heart

Appalachian State University beats Michigan 34-32.

"This game was supposed to be the prime example of what had gone wrong in money hungry college football. The powers that be had expanded the season a couple years back, adding an extra game so big schools could bring in cream-puff opponents while collecting millions in revenue.

Michigan had never played a I-AA opponent in its history. Now we know why, the Wolverines were ducking them.

Instead of an easy tune-up for Michigan, Appalachian State leaves with its most profound victory ever and a check for $400,000 that was supposed to be their pay for getting punished."

Maxed Out

I just watched a very interesting indy documentary called "Maxed Out". Being tragically unhip, I rarely watch indy movies or documentaries but I really enjoyed this one and highly recommend it.

A few related thoughts:

1. I take the concept of personal responsibility pretty seriously -- but -- I have to say that the whole bankruptcy 'reform' legislation of 2005 still burns my butt. Back in the day, lending institutions paid very careful attention to the balance between risk and reward. They made a nice profit on loans (reward) but they had to be careful not to lose the principle by lending money to folks without the means to pay it back (risk). In time, however, the lending industry learned that, for a variety of reasons, high risk loans often turned to be far more profitable than regular loans. And so it was that predatory lending went mainstream. With actuaries busily weighing optimal profit conditions against the price of default, suddenly every 18 year old student in America was receiving pre-approved credit applications in the mail. Sub-prime loan products, crazily concocted for maximum profitability, were being pushed (and, having some familiarity with the industry, I do mean PUSHED) onto unsuspecting consumers. But, like a junkie who starts thinking about his next fix before the needle is even out of his arm, lenders were already thinking about how to decrease risk in a way that would ensure an even greater profit. They also started to worry that continuing to downplay risk in favor of profit might be exposing them to a whole lot of ugly if the economy ever turned bad. They lobbied for - and achieved - the bankruptcy 'reform' legislation of 2005, which Bush happily signed with a wag of the finger to irresponsible borrowers. Irresponsible lending, of course, is still the shiznit.

2. For all of the endless conservative blah blah blah about the success of supply side economics (which, I'm sorry, is such a load of bullshit that I can't even type the words without rolling my eyes), I find it hysterical that in times of trouble, Bush (as did Reagan!) continuously calls on us to shop til we drop. So lessee... it's ok to give welfare to corporate America in the name of supply side economics while trash talking any kind of government assistance program for the people as evil socialist tripe. But when the economy is really in trouble, let's beg for a Keynesian consumer spending spree to bail it out.

3. If the current credit craziness turns into a full blown economic impact, I hope one of the outcomes is a close look at the credit reporting system and FICO algorithm. Credit scores make the world go 'round but the process for how the data is collected, analyzed, and maintained is apparently top secret stuff. Like some kind of KGB Gestapo organization, the big 3 credit bureaus are not required to fix or even admit mistakes in what they're reporting about your credit. In fact, they do not appear to be accountable to anyone at all for the data they keep. Scary.