Corbett Thinks Aloud...

If Americans Were As Healthy As They Are Stupid, We Wouldn't Need Health Reform At All

Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:35:16 GMT

The level of ignorance on display in the health care debate is mind-numbing.

From "Death Panels" to "Keep government out of my Medicare," I can't help but think that we're completely doomed to continue our national slide, eventually making the 21st the century of the ascension of Asia. In essence, we're dooming ourselves because a large segment of the population can be so easily led by the irresponsible crowd of "No."

Some thoughts on particular parts of the "debate":

Death Panels: Seriously? I wager most of these people are also "birthers" and many likely also deny the moon landings.
Keep your hands off my Medicare: Hey, geniuses, Medicare is a government program. Of course, we all shouldn't be surprised by this nonsense, it wasn't but nine years ago that a guy running for president said that Al Gore "wants to run Social Security like it's some kind of big government program." The guy who said that ended up being president.
The Public Option: This isn't being set up as single-payer; it's being set-up to allow the government to broaden coverage from beyond government workers to offer it to all Americans. This isn't government-run health care, it's the best opportunity to force private insurers to actually compete. If your employer is super douchey and they drop your plan in favor the public option - guess what - they have to pay into the system, just as they do now to your private insurer, and you'll still have to pay the premium - like you do now - for coverage.
But, but, but the markets! If the markets were going to fix the problem, they've had decades to do so. They haven't, because for the markets there's isn't a problem. For individuals, there's a problem. And the markets aren't there to fix your problem; they're there to make a buck.
Townhalls: Guys, give up on this nonsense. The people coming and shouting down congressmen have no interest in listening to what is said and no matter what is said, they aren't changing their feeble little minds.

The Pigeon War

Fri, 22 May 2009 22:42:51 GMT

While I've never liked pigeons and geese, I've always had a fondness for the more visually-appealing birds like blue jays and cardinals, and, of course, ducks. Ducks, I'll always love. They'll always be on my side.

I don't care for geese because I find them to be the Republicans of the bird world - all they do is honk, attack even when unprovoked, and shit everywhere. For the most part, they haven't violated the Corbett-Goose Truce of 1999, which basically says they leave me alone and I'll avoid them as well.

Unfortunately, the pigeon lobby was effective in the late 90s in keeping their leadership away from the peace table, and so, through the years there have been confrontations. Let me be perfectly clear: each of the pigeon terrorist attacks against me have been unprovoked, with my intelligence group missing the signals that an attack was imminent.

In 2003, as I walked down 10th Street for breakfast from the diner, on a very snowy day, I was assaulted by a kamikaze pigeon, who slammed into the back of my head. Not knowing who - or what - was attacking me, I reacted, swinging my fist around and punching the bird (in mid-air) as it backed away. It fell to the ground, laying dazed in the blanket of snow on the sidewalk for a moment or two. I hurried into the near-by diner, to be haunted by thoughts of "oh god, what potential diseases did the pigeons attempt to infect me with?"

I raised the security level to red for several weeks, being cautious that another attack could be in the works.

But it wasn't. The pigeons, I learned, know how to be patient, how to bide their time and wait for the right moment to strike again.

And, as I became complacent over the years since that first pigeon attack, they plotted. And then they struck - this time another kamikaze dive-bomber hit me directly in the right temple as I exited Union Station in January. He really just winged me. Literally.

Again, I raised the security level to red. I also began discussions with the robins that returned to our backyard in February, in hopes I could persuade them to spy for me. I struck out with the robins. They wanted the backyard to return to its dog-free status, a compromise I simply could not make.

My attempts to use one member of the bird world against another must have rankled some feathers...

Today, as the sun was rising and I was enjoying my walk to the metro station, I was attacked by an unlikely ally of the pigeons: a blue jay, sitting high overhead on a power line, dropped a big bomb on my shirt sleeve. It hit me like a playdoh bullet in the forearm. I considered diving for cover, assuming it was just the first wave in an all-out bird attack; but I stood my ground, determined to stand my ground.

When I looked up, the blue jay seemed to nod to me, beforing flying off. I would know that look anywhere, having seen enough mafia movies: that was just a warning shot, next time we're coming for real.

I fear the pigeons are enlisting all the fighters they can, readying for all-out war. I only hope I'm ready when they come.

Corbett, Where Have You Been?

Thu, 21 May 2009 03:17:58 GMT

I haven't gone anywhere; I've been working on another writing project. I needed to trade off something, time-wise, and it turned out that the half-hour or hour I'd spend reading something online and then turning into a blog entry happened to be the time I could easily convert into a more, hmmm, let's use "useful" writing endeavor.

I'm still here. I'm still thinking.

And to quell a certain someone's concerns: my lack of writing blog entries has little to do with the change in government. To be clear, I'm absolutely not happy with Obama's unwillingness to go after torture and the illegalities of the previous administration. There are other issues I'm severely displeased about, including the purposeful avoidance of doing something about the nonsensical "don't ask, don't tell" and a forceful response to morons like Harry Reid about the closure of Gitmo.

I hope to return to more frequent blog entries soon. In the meantime, I'll just say that if the options were between keeping Gitmo open or finding a plot of land for a new federal prison, let's say on ranch land in Crawford, Texas, then I'd go with the latter.

What Are These & How Do I Get Rid Of Them

Tue, 12 May 2009 00:50:00 GMT

First, the answer cannot simply be "Mushrooms. Eat them."

Now, take a look at what 10 days of rain caused in the backyard:

bunches

close up

the underside/gills

They are mushrooms. They taste like purple.

Now how do I get rid of them?

(Sorry for pretty poor quality... iPhone photos.)

What Kind...

Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:38:48 GMT

My Liberal Identity:

You are a Reality-Based Intellectualist, also known as the liberal elite. You are a proud member of what’s known as the reality-based community, where science, reason, and non-Jesus-based thought reign supreme.

Take the quiz at www.FightConservatives.com

I'm No Financial Wizard, But Here's What I Think Anyway

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 02:41:04 GMT

The original problem: Banks began lending to people they shouldn't have. The banks saw dollar signs when they should have seen stop signs. It was like a Nat Geo film of a shark feeding frenzy: the banks ignored the risks inherent in lending to those without income or in a sub-prime status because the addictive instinct for these guys is profit. Banks need to make money to be able to lend more money, after all. Yes, it really was that simple.

The deeper problem: Those mortgages are seen as assets (because if you default on your mortgage, they get to keep your house and you get to hurry up and find someone with a large truck to haul your stuff from the curb.) Now the bank has a real problem: they have an empty house, a money-making asset that isn't making any money. As bank-owned properties pile up near each other, the asking prices for the properties drop and the surrounding property values drop, leading to an even greater devaluing of all local properties. There's a tremendous amount of profit the bank has lost on this single mortgage that's gone tits up. Not only has the bank lost out on the gamble for homeownership-by-those-that-shouldn't, but now your home's value has dropped considerably as well. Oh, but it gets worse because...

The problem gets even more fucked up: Granted, to this point, it's sort of a no-brainer in that the banks brought this on themselves by throwing caution to the wind and not lending sensibly. As a nation, we've dealt with these kinds of banking problems before - most recently, the S&L issues of the Reagan years. But the problem is compounded several times in the whiz-bang 21st century era because of the rise of large financial bank-holding companies, hedge funds, large corporate insurance companies, and government chartered mortgage guarantee corporations. All of these their roles to play, but by-and-large what they all did was consolidate your mortgage and my mortgage and your never-employed neighbor's mortgage into something called a mortgage-backed security. These mortgage-backed securities were then sold as even larger assets to investors and banks as solid AAA-rated investments. Then insurance companies, like AIG, and others came along and made bets - they couldn't call it insurance because insurance is regulated by the government - called Credit Default Swaps (CDSs) that insured that these mortgage-backed securities would always make a profit and never lose money. Then there were default swaps on top of default swaps on top of default swaps.

Stop me when this starts to look like a house of cards. Oh, I suppose I should have made that suggestion right after the point where you take a mortgage with Bank A. Well, you know, if I had done that and if the world really worked that, a lot of already-rich guys on Wall Street wouldn't be as rich as they are today.

When The Cards Came Crashing Down: That house of cards began to fall when your unemployed douchebag neighbor walked away from the house he couldn't afford, defaulting on his mortgage. The millions who didn't understand the ramifications of No Down Payment, AltA, and Adjustable Rate Mortgages have made a massive impact as well. I already mentioned the problems that a default on the mortgage causes the bank holding the mortgage... and it doesn't really take a genius to see how that problem ripples upward through the house of cards built on top of those shitty mortgages: While the bank is losing money on the failed mortgage, the investment bank that owns the larger mortgage-backed security that includes that mortgage (or more typically, just a portion of that mortgage) is now taking a loss on the larger asset, which in turn means that investment bank can call up the guys at AIG and cash in on the default swap (that is: unregulated insurance on the mortgage security.)

But the insurance companies like AIG didn't have enough cash to pay out on the trillions - TRILLIONS - of dollars in credit default swaps that they made. If AIG could not make the agreed-to payments to the large banks and other institutions that held the mortgage-backed securities they owed, then those institutions would be in serious trouble of going bankrupt. The bankruptcy of investment houses holding trillions of dollars in mortgage securities would continue a cascading effect that would destroy the already troubled banks.

Ah, their arrogance and greed cuts them off at the knees, you say. Perhaps, but consider the consequences of the problem already: depleted bank reserves and so many defaulted loans brought the credit markets (that is, banks lending to other banks and thus lending to consumers) came to a screeching halt. Without a nearly flawless credit score, it's become nearly impossible to obtain a new mortgage, refinance at today's lower rates, or hell - even get a loan for a new car.

Consider this then: Because Bubba the Jobless down the block lost his home eight months ago and the bank has been unable to sell the property, like countless others, the property values in your neighbor (and many, many others like it) have plummeted. While the house was a great value and investment when you bought it five years ago, suddenly you're what's considered "under water". That is, the value of your home has dropped so much that you now have negative equity (meaning, you now owe more on your mortgage than the home can be valued at). Because of the broader problems in the markets and government intervention (has it really been helpful? For you?), mortgage rates are at a true low... but you can't do a damned thing to reduce your monthly payments because being "under water" means there isn't a bank or institution that would touch you. They aren't going to give you a loan to (re)purchase an asset (your house) at a price greater than it's actual worth (today). That is unless you are willing to pay off the full amount that brings you to current assessed value (PLUS the standard closing costs).

That's the situation millions upon millions of American find themselves in - through (largely) no fault of their own. They are right to be angry about the efforts to bail out the investment banks and insurance firms. [But we can't be too loud about it because these are the same firms that our 401Ks and IRAs and other investment and retirement accounts are invested in. Their downfalls could mean we're all working until we're 90.]

What to do then?

Again, it's been a while since I've said so (since the subject line, to be exact), but I'm no financial wizard and this is just my impression and could be totally off the mark.

The Obama Administration needs to stop concerning itself with the day-to-day will-they-or-won't-they failure options of the large institutions. Only by directing their attention to shoring up the mortgage failure problem itself, can the Administration hope to come out of this a winner.

But before I get to that, let me make a blanket statement about the institutional problem: Credit Default Swaps should be illegal. Period. I simply cannot see how a third party can wager money on an insurance policy for a asset that is, itself, not really an asset but a conglomeration of bits and pieces of smaller assets (in this case, mortgages). In my fucked up world where Mary McDonnell would be nominated for a Best Actress in a Drama for her work on Battlestar Galactica, such notions as Credit Default Swaps would be against the law.

When it comes to the mortgage problem itself - for those in good standing who have been accidental drag-alongs for this depression-in-the-making there's been little solace. And even less help. And, to be honest, this same thing could be said for the banks themselves. Sure the banks made many loans they shouldn't have, but those tend to be larger (national) banks. For smaller banks, they've been hurt by the ripple effect all of these troubles have caused.

It seems to me (again: no financial wizard) that if the government wants to help the banks and help homeowners, they should insist on a few conditions for the spending/acceptance of government funds (such as the $700 billion TARP fund). These are the conditions I think are lacking and could help alleviate some of the problems:

TARP for Closing Costs: It's prohibitive for far too many in-good-standing homeowners to shell out the $10k or more required out-of-pocket for closing costs to refinance at the today's lower rates. The government could insist that banks accepting TARP funds use a portion of those funds to cover the nonsense that makes up closing costs.
Closing costs incorporated into mortgage: This was a suggestion from Earl and after thinking about it, it seems pretty reasonable to me. The closing costs could easily be incorporated into the term of the mortgage without adding any truly substantial cost to the loan itself. It MAY require some additional financial expenditure up front by the bank issuing the mortgage, but I don't see how it could be a loss for them considering the length of mortgages.
Longer term mortgages for "under water" homeowners wishing to refinance: Again - far too many of those wishing to refinance to lower rates (thereby giving themselves possibly several hundred dollars a month... giving them additional spending capacity elsewhere) are unable to do so because they are unable to refinance. Homeowners "under water" should be able to have their mortgage term length adjusted (that is, lengthened) to accommodate a lower rate based on a 30-year-fixed mortgage but have the term extended up to a 50-year period. Such loans would have to include an option to pay off sooner without penalty. Such loans would be for the value of the home at it's original purchase price. The loan could be broken into two parts (or made as two separate loans): The current value of the home at a reasonable current rate for 30 years, with a possibly longer-term no-interest loan (backed by government guarantee) for the outstanding value of the original loan. (Example: You purchased for $400k; today's assessed value is $300k. Under today's rules, you couldn't refinance because you owe more than the property is worth. Under my idea, the bank could allow you to refinance the current value of $300k at today's rate, and allow (based on some scale) for a longer no-interest (government guaranteed) loan for the outstanding $100k in value lost.)

This probably wouldn't work, but hey, I don't hear anyone else - especially the president, his administration, or congress - making any suggestions to help out the homeowners who have played by the rules but been screwed by the financial house of cards.

I should have no interest in the existence of AIG and the investment banks and gamblers like them, but, at the end of the day, we all sort of HAVE TO because of our retirement and mutual funds.

As I've said, I'm not a financial expert, but it seems to me that the continued loss of 600,000 jobs a month means what we've been doing hasn't been working.

Happy Birthday

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:57:23 GMT

Happy 200th Birthday to one of the greatest minds of recorded time, Charles Darwin.

President Obama

Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:13:00 GMT

That's all I wanted to write. Just to type it for the first time.

Local TV Station Websites

Sat, 27 Dec 2008 05:33:36 GMT

You know, I don't wake up every morning and think to myself "Hey - self - what can I bitch about today that I haven't bitched about before" but it's awful hard not to feel that way.

But there is something that absolutely bugs the living hell out of me - why, oh why, is it a fact - yes, a fact - that it is damned near impossible to find the actual schedule for a local TV station on THAT station's website?

Why can't there a big damned button that says "SCHEDULE" somewhere on the station's website? Am I asking for too damned much? I've thought this for a while, but this evening I'm simply, absolutely fed up. All I want to know, WUSA9, is whether the fucking Ravens game will be shown on Sunday afternoon or not. I know those tremendously talented local guys known as the Redshits are playing at the same time - and that contractual obligations may apply - but for the love of Christ (and it is the giving season) will you please add your goddamned schedule to an easy to locate and access place on your website? I shouldn't have to, with growing agitation and resentment, search through the sub-menus on your shitastic site to discover that "TV Schedule" (you are a TV station, after all) is located under the roll-over sub-men for - oh yeah, this is classic - About Us. What? Are you freaking kidding? The business analyst douches who are paid six figures to determine these website designs need to have to have a sit down with freaking reality. And such reality should include 36" aluminum baseball bats.

Honestly, am I asking for too much?

Update: After finally finding the location of the schedule on WUSA9's website, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the Ravens game against the Jaguars is, in fact, going to be televised. While still severed displeased with the usability of the TV station's website, I am tickled I could possibly see my home-town team possibly make the post-season. Suck it Redshits.

Yeah, I probably overreacted, but honestly...

On Gift Cards

Fri, 26 Dec 2008 04:29:20 GMT

Screw every asshat that says gift cards are impersonal and lack vision or forethought. That comes across as a sarcastic, crass, post-modern version of the old adage "it's the thought that counts". How cynical... and typically right up my alley. And while I do think there's truth in the aged saying, I find the line of thought about gift cards to be wildly off-base.

Here's four examples from this Christmas:

Being a little late in gifting this year, I was hard-pressed to find some of the specific items I wanted to purchase and rather than do consolation prizes - this isn't Jeopardy!, after all - I chose gift cards to the stores where the unavailable items could eventually be purchased.

I acknowledged that I wanted to get them a specific gift - and if I must give specifics, I told my brother I wanted to get him The Force Unleashed for Wii or PS3 and two of the local Best Buys were sold out - and gave the gift card in it's place. Is that impersonal? I don't think so. It allows the individual to either make the same purchase I wished to make for them or to make a different purchase without the hassle of doing a "this asshat doesn't know me, why would I ever want this crap" gift receipt exchange.
The gift card is a great gift when you know the giftee loves a particular store but you don't know why. This might be able to go without explanation, but as I love to explain, I will. A particular person may enjoy the fashions of H&M and do much of their clothes shopping there. I personally find H&M to be crap that falls apart after a single run through the wash. But if said person loves the fashions at H&M and I do not, why should I make some sort of shot-in-the-dark guess at what they may like? That doesn't make sense to me, so enters the gift card: It allows me to acknowledge "Hey, I know you absolutely love the low quality of the hipster shit from H&M" without adding any personal twist on the choice. In this instance, it's about giving choice... but then, wasn't that the bottom line of the first bullet above?
The gift card doesn't have to be used tomorrow (though, with the sales it might be a good idea). I might give my mom a lovely dress for Christmas. What if it's a summer dress that: 1) isn't appropriate - obviously - until summer; 2) doesn't fit come summer; 3) is totally out of fashion when June hits. The gift card allows mom to have something in her purse that, come June, gives her the opportunity to say "That dress is hot" and make the perfect purchase for the time. It also then allows her - as my mom has done on occasion in the past - to call me months after receiving a gift card to say "Thank you for the new dress" which leads to confused silence on my end of the receiver before she explains "I used the gift card you gave me."

You know what, it's a wonderful feeling getting a call in April from mom saying "thanks for buying me this pair of shoes" from a gift card given in November for her birthday.
Lastly, on the receiving end, two gift cards came into my position this Christmas: Kohl's and Home Depot... And I am thrilled to have received both of them. Sure, Dark Knight on DVD was great, and new socks and undershirts were (expected - as in, every year - yet) greatly appreciated, but a gift card to Home Depot - NOW that's something I could find a million ways to use! With the new house, I need a new grill (the gift card, used in full, could pay for 1/3 of a good grill) or I could get replacement CFLs for the entire house meaning an energy savings in 2 years greater than the value of the original gift card (yes, I'm a dork, I did the math) or it could pay for my half of the tall extension ladder we are going in on with our neighbors Bill & Aric (for such things as emptying gutters and the like) or it could mean some much needed backyard landscaping gets done. Honestly, I don't mean to geek out (or flame on) about the possibilities, but a gift card to Homo Depot opens up so many opportunities to flex my masculinity.

And then I remember there's a gift card to Kohl's... and I do like nice (yet comfortable) pants... and I'm reminded I'm the gay for liking nice (yet comfortable) pants and suddenly that whole Home-Depot-masculinity-thing becomes some kind of Freudian joke. I think.

Gift cards. Forget the conventional wisdom; there's a reason we buy and give so many of them: Because they are quintessentially American: providing freedom to buy what you want!

And isn't that what America - and Christmas - are all about?

First Christmas in the New Home

Fri, 26 Dec 2008 04:18:13 GMT

What an interested day it turned out to be: Earl's mother baked cakes early, and then I took control of the kitchen. I wrestled it to the ground and pounded it into submitting to my will. And by late afternoon, with the assistance of my lovely partner and my brother, dinner was a success.

Thanksgiving marked the first major holiday and family gathering at the new home; but looking back on it now, with Christmas dinner behind me, Thanksgiving was a dry-run for the main event more than anything else. The November feast was only myself, mom, my brother, and my uncle. Christmas added Earl and his mother. (Not only was this the first true holiday meal at the new home, it was the first meeting of the moms [queue dramatic music].)

Today's menu consisted of:

Turkey - a 6/7 pound breast-only deal
Ham - an 11 pound piece of pork basted in a home-made honey, brown sugar, and citrus glaze
Red Mashed Potatoes - skin-on with crushed garlic
Stuffing - need one say more than simply "stuffing"? I thought not.
Green Bean Casserole - a simple dish consisting of fresh green beans, sour cream, cream of mushroom soup, salt and pepper, and coarsely crushed Ritz crackers
Candied Yams - fresh yams with a home-made brown sugar, syrup, and butter sauce
Biscuits - the one corner cut... Pillsbury's frozen biscuits-in-a-bag come out perfect if you don't follow the directions (do 400 degrees for 15 minutes on the middle rack-level, and not what the bag says)
Earl's Mom's White Potato Pie - what, you ask? White Potato Pie. It's good. Very good. And apparently very much a "Maryland" thing. Here's a recipe as proof.

After dinner we exchanged gifts and I couldn't have been happier with the way the day went.

A nice, yet exhausting, Christmas. Indeed.

Today is...

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:47:20 GMT

Today is Festivus... I'll spare the airing of grievances for another day - but just this once!

The After-Party at Chadwick's: A Tale of Two Skanks

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:08:56 GMT

It was Saturday evening, a cold and windy night around the nation's capital. The forecast was calling for the dreaded wintry mix after midnight, but judging from the lack of the traditional holiday crowd in the early evening in Old Town Alexandria, the financial crisis was likely more to blame for the little traffic we encountered.

The night began with a quick stop to pick up a coworker in Arlington before heading to Old Town. The event? My company's holiday party, consisting of a three hour tour of the Potomac on the Dandy riverboat. The disappointment of the evening came with just two free drink tickets; unlike two years ago on the Dandy, the remainder of the evening would be cash bar. (See previously mentioned global financial crisis.)

At 10, the boat docked and all were hurried to disembark. A small contingent of coworkers and their spouses, or spouses-to-be, opted to not call it an evening quite yet and decided on a few post-party drinks at Chadwick's. Why Chadwick's? I can't say for certain, other than it was bone-chillingly cold and the bar was but a block from the pier.

The bar was smoky - it is Virginia, after all - and the crowd largely engrossed in either their cigarettes or the smackdown that the Ravens were putting on the Cowboys.

The coworker we picked up on the way to the party graciously bought our drinks. Seemingly out of nowhere, between Earl and myself and the bar, appeared two women out together, smoking and if not drunk then fairly-well buzzed. Homely with teeth like the Welsh, they engaged us in conversation which began innocently enough but quickly evolved into an awkwardness I'd rather not relive if it were not for the humor Earl and I found in it by the end of the evening.

For simplicity's sake, I'll refer to the two drunken slobs as Skank 1 and Skank 2, and I'll spar us all by condensing some of the conversation between Skank 2 and Earl.

FADE IN:

INT. CHADWICK'S - NIGHT
A trendy bar on it's last leg, this is the kind of place aging fratboys well past their prime come in an attempt to relive their drunken youth. The saving grace of the place is the large blackboard behind the bar with an impressive list of imported beers. The bar is crowded with regulars, couples eating barfood, and holiday revelers. SEAN and EARL are enjoying their drinks with a group of COWORKERS when SKANK 1 and SKANK 2 enter the bar and take up positions opposite our heroes. Sean is holding a set of photos taken by the Dandy photographer of Earl and himself.

Orson Welles (V.O.)
The terror you are about to witness is factual. You may want a shower to scrub off this horror.

SKANK 1
(To Sean)
Cute pictures.

Sean
(Uncomfortable)
Thanks.

SKANK 2
Yeah. It's Vanilla Ice and MC Hammer.

Earl and Sean exchange a look.

SKANK 2
So why you guys here?

SKANK 1
(Irrationally irritated)
This place sucks. This place used to be cool. It sucks now.

Skank 1 burps and then takes a long drag of her cigarette.

SKANK 1
We used to come in here a lot. It used to be the place all the restaurant works came to when they got off. It sucks now.

EARL
Holiday party.

SKANK 1
(To Skank 2)
They were on the Dandy. Those are nice pictures.

Earl and Sean exchange another look.

SKANK 1
We aren't hitting on you. Just making conversation.

SKANK 2
This place sucks. It sucks here.

SKANK 1
I see you guys have rings. That's cute. I have a friend who's a lesbian. And my uncles have been together 22 years or something. How old are you?

EARL
Thirty-seven.

SKANK 1
(Lying; or truly devastated by the ravages of time)
I'm thirty-four.

SKANK 2
(To Skank 1)
This place sucks. Let's go.

SKANK 1
Where you from?

EARL
We live in Silver Spring.

Sean, awkwardly avoids the conversation by watching the football game on the various flatscreens around the bar. He elbows his COWORKER, who turns toward him.

SEAN
Remember at the conference when I had to help rescue Dave... we could use some help here.

COWORKER
(Laughs)
Oh Yeah.

Coworker 1 snickers, winks, and turns back to the rest of the company group, leaving Sean and Earl to escape the skanks on their own. Not a moment too soon, the Ravens score a touchdown, sealing the win against the favored Cowboys. He pumps his fist in triumph.

SKANK 2
You a Dallas fan?

SEAN
No. I'm from Baltimore so I'm rooting for the Ravens.

SKANK 2
So you're not a Dallas fan?

SEAN
(Growing agitated)
I'm only a Dallas fan when they're crushing the Redskins.

SKANK 2
(Insulted)
This place really sucks.
(to Skank 1)
Let's the fuck out of here. This sucks. I hate this place.

Skank 2 puts her beer down on the bar and quickly walks toward the exit, while Skank 1 strangely hugs Earl. Skank 1 then reaches over and hugs Sean... then kisses him twice on the neck before drunkenly, whorishly, licking his neck from shirt collar to earlobe.

SKANK 1
We're going. See you guys.

Skank 1 weaves her way toward the front door as a stunned and thoroughly disgusted Sean turns and shares what just transpired with the group of coworkers still huddled nearby. MUSIC swells as the re-animated Sean tells the tale.

INT. CHADWICK'S - MOMENT'S LATER
Skank 1 and Skank 2 are still hovering by the front door, putting on their coats. Sean, coat on, hurries past them on his way to the men's room. Zoom in until Sean's POV. Over his left shoulder...

SKANK 2
This place fuckin' sucks. We come in here and talk to these two guys and they're the gay. Let's fuckin' go.

FADE OUT.

Majel Barrett Roddenberry

Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:18:03 GMT

The Voice of Star Trek passed away yesterday and I'm completely bummed by the news. Majel Barrett, wife of the show's creator, was the original first officer - the original "Number One" - before she was Nurse Chapel in the series as it aired. She was Lxawana Troi in The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine.

And through every Star Trek series and most of the movies, she was the voice of the Enterprise computer. No matter where the shows went, how bad they may have gotten from season to season, there was one constant through 40 years of Star Trek: Majel Barrett.

I think I'll watch some Trek when I get home this evening.

The Federal Position I Want

Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:30:19 GMT

For the last 20 years the feds have gone czar-happy. Just as every scandal must have -gate attached to it, any new overseer must be some kind of czar.

There is the drug czar who oversees the various fed offices dealing with narcotics. There's soon to be an energy czar overseeing energy programs; a health czar overseeing a possible fix of our damaged healthcare system; and my personal new favorite - passed by Congress just yesterday - a car czar to oversee the auto bailout loan program.

And now I'd like to suggest to President-Elect a new oversight overseer role that I would like to be considered for... In my new role of czar czar, I would be responsible for reporting to the president on the progress the other czars are making in their czardoms. (And yes, if as czar czar, I uncover a scandal within the office of the lesser czars, it would quickly be labeled "czargate".)

Part of the Financial Bailout: Cap One Buys Chevy Chase Bank

Thu, 04 Dec 2008 13:57:53 GMT

So the Post reports this morning that Capital One is set to buy Chevy Chase Bank, which was apparently falling on hard times like so many other banks because of bad mortgages.

Capital One took over $3.5 billion in bailout money from the Treasury. Today they're buying Chevy Chase Bank - which, while it does have a serious problem with mortgage defaults, does have $11 billion in deposits. Capital One wants access to those deposits.

Perhaps this all means that it will allow Capital One to continue to lend, thus spurring spending by consumers and other banks to which it lends.

But here's the flip-side: As Capital One gobbles up banks like Chevy Chase, growing quickly, aren't they pushing themselves further and further into the "too big to fail" territory that has taxpayers even further on the hook if Cap One falters?

Oh No! Dems Don't Get 60!

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:01:14 GMT

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

That's the media-driven headline about the fact that douchenozzle Saxby Chambliss's won - as he was always expected to do - in Georgia yesterday. It is Georgia after all.

The Democrats will have 58 seats in the Senate once the recount in Minnesota shows that Norm Coleman's eked out the narrowest of wins against Al Franken.

And you know what... 58 seats was exactly what most analysts believed the final tally would be. Hell, on election night, those around the tv at our place generally agreed that 58 was the upper limit.

But to hear anyone in the media tell it, 60 was easily possible. And so the story to be told will be how the Democrats didn't get to he hallowed filibuster-proof 60 seats.

You don't have to take my word for it that the entire idea of 60 seats was a media-driven fantasy - try doing a few simple Google searches and you'll see that aside from one or two ads produced in the last few days of the Franken campaign saying he could be the 60th seat, there was no talk of 60 seats. And when election day was over, the only people talking about getting to 60 were the tv talking heads. And now, if you tune in, you're bound to hear several days of how, by not getting to 60, the Democrats are screwed.

And that's absolute nonsense as well.

Something a Little Lighter Than Normal

Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:20:37 GMT

clicky to take yourself

The Sucking Sound is the Economy: Spending vs. Saving, Credit, and the "Detroit Bailout"

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:06:40 GMT

There are a few things you've undoubtedly read in the paper or seen on the talking head shows that are wrong, and I'm here this morning to point out how I see things...

Consumers aren't spending; they've discovered savings again.

The above is the today's favorite line by the financial analysts seen on TV. Look, let's be honest here - they've got it completely and totally wrong - Consumers aren't spending because they are saving; consumers aren't spending because they don't have the money to spend. Americans have been living on expanding credit for more than 15 years, living as they say "beyond their means". So when the credit markets came to a screeching halt three months ago, many Americans began losing the opportunity to open new credit card accounts or take out new car loans (or other types of loans). With no new credit, they couldn't - and largely, still can't - expand their personal credit sinkhole. This absolutely doesn't mean people have suddenly discovered how to save; rather, they are making payments on what they already owe. (And paying a credit card company or the bank or your loan guy doesn't seem to mean you are "spending" since you've already done that.)

Paulson announces hundreds of billions of dollars to institutions to allow them to start lending to consumers again.

Yesterday, the Treasury Secretary said upwards of $100 billion will be used to allow banks to start lending again to consumers.

Aren't bad lending practices part of what got us into this mess in the first place? The reality is that, by and large (with the exception of student loans), those with good credit ratings can still get the credit they want. And the rest of us? The problem doesn't come down to credit, it comes down to cash.

The American people don't necessarily need more credit, they need better wages. For damned near 8 years now, the numbers have been pretty clear that the average American's purchasing power has steadily diminished because wage averages have stagnated. As prices rose disproportionately to wages, the credit available to each of us expanded dramatically. It isn't hard to see how such a situation would end up putting many people in a financially untenable circumstance.

I believe the bottomline here is that two things need to happen: the stagnation of wages must end, and if the government is going to send out hundreds of billions of dollars to free up credit, the money should be sent to people, not to banks or credit card companies. At least by doling out to the public, the money eventually makes its way through the credit markets a step or two further down the line.

Let the Big Three go under

I can't agree with this argument either (EXCEPT under one condition) because the consequences are so broad and so deep, that it's difficult to comprehend exactly how bad things could get.

There is no doubt that GM, Ford, and Chrysler are three of the most irresponsible corporations in the country. They have brought their troubles completely upon themselves. Unfortunately, much like places like Citi and AIG, the ramifications allowing them to file bankruptcy would send the economy is a real tailspin.

Hyperbole? Not really. Consider that each of these corporations have hundreds of thousands of employees, tens upon tens of thousands of retirees and beneficiaries collecting pensions and health benefits, and upwards of 3 million jobs nationally that are connected to them in the form of independent dealerships and parts manufacturers. For all of these people to lose their jobs would be catastrophic. When corporations with defined pension benefits fail, those pensions are picked up by? You guessed it - the American taxpayer (through the PBGC).

If - and it's a worrisome if - a $25 billion or $50 billion loan (and yes, the auto bailout would be a loan) could help potentially keep upwards of $200 billion of eventual pension benefits being transferred to taxpayers, it's something seriously worth considering.

Oh, and it's not as though the Treasury hasn't done this kind of thing before. In the late '70s, a similar loan helped keep Chrysler afloat long enough to move back into profitability (and to pay back the loan). And in 2002, Congress doled out over $15 billion to the airlines to keep them above water. (Of course in the case of the airlines, they had, ahem, 9/11 to use an excuse for requesting money they were going to have to request whether the attacks on that day had happened or not.)

Naturally, if such loans are to be approved for the auto-makers, there must be serious strings attached. And the very first should be the ouster of their management teams. Rick Wagoner, of GM, can go before Congress and say he's worried what not getting billions in a loan would do to his company... ok, Rick, prove it - if you are truly concerned about the working men and women of GM, you should see that falling on your sword is the honorable thing to do. (But that isn't likely to happen, the arrogance and hubris of the guys who run these companies is mind-numbing.) The approval of loans to the auto companies should also be contingent on the restructuring of union contracts. In fact, I think an independent board - made up of former federal IGs approved by the Senate - should have oversight and approval authority over renegotiated contracts. Lastly, the Big Three should not be allowed to spend a single dime on lobbying efforts until every penny, plus interest, of the loans is repaid. A lobbying restriction should ease the way for Congress to do what the Big Three's congressional lackeys (that is, the Michigan delegation) have stymied for decades: substantial increases in CAFE standards. Because, as we know, only through federal mandates will Detroit come kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

And you know, I hope - after all that - that they make it and succeed. Unfortunately for them, I'm probably still buying a Toyota.

Win!

Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:02:10 GMT

Can you believe it?

A Good Sign?

Mon, 03 Nov 2008 13:02:45 GMT

This morning as I walked out of Union Station, heading toward the office, a flock of pigeons dive-bombed the sidewalk around me. One decided to attempt to land on the side of my face.

I was a bit startled, naturally. It's not every day that you take a karate chop to the left temple from a pigeon.

But that initial startle quickly faded when I remembered what the Greek historian Herodotus wrote in The Histories: "It may strike you with disease, but a flap in the face by a pigeon, and great change comes on Tuesday."

It's a loose translation.

For Halloween, I'm a McCain Supporter

Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:35:06 GMT

For Halloween, I'm going to be a McCain Supporter.

So no trick-or-treating! Giving away candy to strangers is nothing more than socialism!

Get off my lawn!

This One voted for That One

Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:19:22 GMT

As a registered voter in DC, I took advantage today of the inperson absentee voting the city iniatiated last week. (Because all required was a short form with name, address, and marking a checkbox saying I would be temporarily outside the District on election day, I will call what I did today early voting.)

I have wavered in my thinking for the past week about the idea of early voting.

At first I thought "Hey, let's just get this out of the way. There's not a chance in hell my mind is going to change." It also helped, in my initial thinking, that the inperson absentee/early voting location is located right at the Judiciary Square metro station, which happens to be the in-city station I use twice a day.

But then, earlier this week, I was listening to the arguments being made by guys like Marc Fisher at the Post about how early voting isn't good for democracy and how it ruins that community-coming-together civic duty feeling most of us enjoy on Election day. That seemed like a fair argument to me. I do think that the argument being made that does have some value.

There's a "but" coming, isn't there?

Why, yes there is. Sure it's nice to be out, standing in line for a time, being seen by your fellow citizens doing the greatest civic duty asked of each of us. BUT I saw the lines, the throngs of people waiting in the states that allow early voting and I weighed that against the same lines that will appear on November 4. So I went to the inperson absentee location in DC today to check out what was going on.

And you know what? It was BY FAR the most orderly and pleasant voting experience I have ever had. Hands down. Bar none. There was a sizable line as I entered the building - maybe 50 people long. A dozen election officials passed out clipboards with the absentee ballot form. By the time you were down filling out this short form, it was time to make your way through the metal detector (it IS a government building, after all). From there it was on to a shorter second line to wait to hand your form to an election official, behind a raised rostrum. It gave the feeling of being an attorney asked to approach the bench. There's just one question: "Paper or electronic?"

Electronic, of course.

You have to wait a few minutes - there are rows of seats, as though waiting to be called at the DMV - before they have the right ballot for you.

And here's where the whole "coming-together" argument goes out the window: while sitting and waiting to be called, voters around me where asking each other questions, talking about the process, talking about the election, talking about the candidates. It was civil and polite conversation. It was something I had never experienced while waiting in line to vote on Election day in the past.

It wasn't five minutes before I had my ballot and was directed to another room to vote.

And vote I did.

As the title above denotes, I followed through and voted - oh no! - for That One. For the black guy. You know, the guy with the best plans for getting us out of the ditch George Bush and his Congressional Republican sycophants - including John McCain - have put us in.

BUT I also voted for a Republican. It's true. I'm serious, I really did. In fact, my vote for a Republican was a write-in. Carol Schwartz for city council. And you know, I feel good about that vote.

I was out of the polling station in less than 30 minutes. And I couldn't have a better feeling about the experience.

Why Obama?

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 14:50:16 GMT

"I just can't vote for another empty suit... You've told me why I shouldn't vote for McCain, but you haven't told me why I should vote for Obama."

Someone left that in a voicemail for me yesterday. This is my response.

And I'll start by linking to the NY Times endorsement of Obama this morning: Obama for President

The Times does a good job of weighing the reasons for Obama as much as it does the rationale for saying no to McCain.

To build on what the Times editors wrote, I'd add that on taxes it appears that Obama will benefit me greatly. And by me, I mean anyone reading this - because as far as I know, no one reading my little old blog resides in the top 2% of wage earners. While we are mired in a serious economic mess, it's important that we not forget the obligations to not saddle the middle class today with the burden of fixing the messes created by those at the top. It's also important that we not chain so many future generations to the fiscal quagmire that Republican presidents and Congresses have built. Senator Obama is a believer in returning to balanced budgets and reducing the deficits as soon as we can. But unlike John McCain, he isn't going to blame the relative pittance (roughly $18 billion out of a $3 trillion budget) that make up the much ballyhooed earmarks. (Certainly there are abuses - just ask Governor Palin where the $280 million for the "bridge to nowhere" went - but completely cutting off earmarks isn't going to solve a half trillion dollar budget gap.)

One that that is abundantly clear is that Senator Obama understands the connections between energy, national security, jobs, and climate change. Unlike McCain who talks a good game on global warming, Obama is willing to do something about it. As he's spelled out, it's imperative that we come to grips with our dependence on oil - and not just foreign oil, but oil. Obama understands that by making a large federal push for clean, renewable energy, we will create millions of new, high-wage jobs. And those jobs won't be transferred overseas - they can't be outsourced to China or India or Mexico. I do see the issues of jobs, energy, and climate change - and their inner-connectedness - as the true game changer in the decades to come. (And I'm not alone in this, pick up the NY Times and read Tom Friedman.)

Obama also promises to make much needed changes to the tax code. Namely, that companies and corporations shouldn't receive tax breaks for sending jobs overseas. And he's absolutely right - companies that bring jobs back to the US, or those creating decent wage jobs should be the ones getting tax breaks. It's time to stop rewarding greedy CEOs and executives for believing that the bottomline is their own compensation or quarterly dividends.

Colin Powell said that Obama has the chance to be a "transformational figure" and I think that an initiative centered around a modern, grand Apollo-like program devoted to getting the nation off of fossil fuels - as Obama and my buddy Al Gore have suggested - would fill that role Powell envisioned.

You can't argue that Obama isn't looking out for the working guy. Why else would a Harvard law grad turn to the streets of Chicago as a community organizer if he didn't believe in helping the little guy? You can't argue that Joe Biden isn't looking out of working people either. But can you say the same of McCain? Or Palin?

And something else to consider: We did it their way for eight years. And it's done dramatic harm to my country. The pendulum swung way too far to the right and it's time we get a few years of a left-ward tilt to get us back to where we were before the nightmare of the Bush years. With sizable majorities in the House and Senate, a President Obama - tempered with the knowledge of the missteps of the early Clinton years - will be positioned to get us back on the right track. The next president will likely make multiple appointments to the Supreme Court. Honestly, I don't think I need to say anything more than that, except I'll repeat it: The next president will likely make multiple appointments to the Supreme Court.

I've rambled somewhat, but look, at the end of the day, I'm not voting for Obama because he's the Democrat in the race. And I'm not voting for Obama because I hate what George W Bush has done to this country. And I'm not voting for Obama because John McCain scares me (he does though).

I'm voting for Obama because he's the guy best suited to make things happen.

The Montgomery Cinema & Drafthouse is Open AND...

Tue, 14 Oct 2008 19:53:20 GMT

This Thursday, they are doing a Big Lebowski event!

They also have live stand-up comedy shows every Saturday for $15. This place should provide a bit of fun.