the difference between 1929 and 2008

The difference between today's financial crisis and 1929's is that stockbrokers who contributed to the '29 crash jumped from serious buildings such as the Irving Trust and Woolworth's and other skyscrapers and wound up, 30 floors down, jam on the sidewalk. Whereas the hedge fund geniuses who got us into today's mess leap from snazzy office/fitness centers in Greenwich and Stamford and, two stories down, suffer a sprained ankle on the manicured lawn. A few months later, their "injury" long healed, their money-market reserves intact, they will score another $350,000 per annum job; while the people whose 401(k)s full of AIG shares evaporated in the meltdown face a retirement in financial freefall.

Or maybe the difference is that the 1929 version of financier retained a 19th century sense of moral hazard--whereas the morals of the modern version are so arbitraged, and program-swamped, and reinsured, that these derivative desperadoes stand as much chance of feeling personally responsible for anything as they do of losing their shirt.

GOP and Dem bailout foes are both right--and wrong

It's fun to hear Republicans and Democrats opposed to the $700 billion banking system bailout elaborate their reasons. The right figures that the bailout is a sneaky way to turn the US into a socialist state through massive government intervention. The left insists that it's a sneaky way to save the hides of rich, amoral finance corporations while making the working- and middle-classes pick up the tab.

They're both right. The US has been a socialist state in all but name since the Great Depression. It's a centralized, interventionist economy, regulated on some level by government bureaucracies fully as huge as Stalin ran, primed annually by hundreds of billions of dollars in federal and state subsidies both hidden and overt: highway construction funds, defense contracts, porkbarrel projects, to name but a few. 

The difference between a European socialist state (like Sweden, say) and the US is that Swedish socialism focuses on providing a safety-net for the middle- and working-classes, whereas US socialism specializes in bailing out the rich; rescuing Chrysler and S&L banks in the late '70s and '80s; Fannie, Freddy and AIG now; doling out tax windfalls for some of the biggest corporations, and for the top five percent of the population.

And you jokers on the "left"--you supported this from A to Z. You bought the ridiculous mantra that cutting taxes, and letting market forces do as they willed, was always jake. You endorsed the idea that what was good for big business was good for America. You never wondered whether it might not be risky to let our lives be run by huge institutions both public and private, when it was clear that the effects of their policies would be far beyond the reach of ordinary political processes. You never thought to ask whether the obsession with growth at all costs might not be somewhat short-sighted in a world of finite resources. 

Well, this is what happens when you ride on the back of a runaway mastodon; suddenly we're all stuck with making sure it doesn't run off a cliff.

why i wish sarah palin would win

If only we could line-item-veto McCain, and keep Sarah. Think about it: she's pure white trash. There's some class to that. Deep fried Americana. A certain proud ignorance. We could count on pallets full of Hamburger Helper and Doritos in Blair House. Better than those White House chefs trying their hand at quenelles de brochette. Damn French chow.

Plus, she's cute. Much cuter than Cheney, and possibly smarter, not that that's saying a whole hell of a lot. Even if she massacres wildlife from a chopper.

Finally, she clearly loves to abuse the powers she is entrusted with. Nothing like a little continuity in government.

Vote Sarah!

how to support al qaeda

How to support al Qaeda? Vote for John McCain. The wonderful conceit the Bushie neocons came up with was that the war in Iraq was a war against al Qaeda because so many al Qaeda fighters ended up coming to Iraq to blow up Americans. Which is like saying that walking into the South Bronx handcuffed and with 100 dollar bills stuck all over you is a war against muggers, because before you know it you will be surrounded by them. McCain, I need hardly remind you, is a supporter of the Bushie neocon position.

Any Middle East expert will tell you that Iraq, run by Ba'ath socialists, was one of the Muslim countries that was the sworn enemy of al Qaeda. The situation there is incredibly complex, and full of peril, but one thing is certain: the presence of U.S. troops will inevitably perpetuate the volatility of the situation, and it will continue to degrade American influence not only in the Middle East but throughout the world.

This is not defeatism. It's called picking your battles.