Hannity likes to say that if you work hard, you can achieve anything in
America.

My lone commenter proudly grows or hunts his own food and maintains a
lot of his own equipment. My wife works 10 hour days and then does
homework all night. My ex did very little other than work at her art.
My boss learned a new system that I have barely touched, yet it is I
who is supposed to be working with it.

Life seems to present me, again and again, with both examples and
opportunies where the missing ingredient is hard work on my part (for
instance, I have many things that could use cleaning, fixing, painting,
replacing, or putting away, and a little exercise would do me a lot of
good).

Betty Davis said that the one thing you can depend on in life is hard
work.

I wonder if there are examples of anyone or anything admirable that was
NOT the result of much effort. Also, whether there is a point at which
one declares that it's Miller Time, opens a cold one, and turns on the
TV set.

Is it possible to do *enough*, and then stop, completely certain that
one has not done too little? (If so, at what point, and, if not, then
why bother running farther only to fall just as short?)

Is there a satisfaction that comes from work? Does it get easier, even
natural, to set onesself one new task after another?

Excelsior? Onward and upward?

For a stock's price to keep rising, often, the greatest factor is
earnings growth. That means a company must keep growing or die.

But why be anything more than good enough? Why be any more profitable
than the previous year? Why not relax? How much is too much, and how
much is too little?

My main goal with work is, well, when I'm uncomforable, to work until I
am comfortable again, then stop. Sometimes, I'm intrigued, and that
makes me work harder. Sometimes, I want something badly enough that
extra effort seems worthwhile.

Much of the time, I think about purpose-driven lives, and I think, there
is no purpose, and so I am not driven.

There's also, always the question of whom the work is for.

(it's a good thing I don't)

I think it would have to involve puppets, like the lady who taught French in Montessori School... "Bonjour!" "Bonjour!" "Comment allez-vous?"... that's all I remember.


OK, that or the time machine ride from Idiocracy. What a great movie about a dystopian future that really is about the present.


It would star an Uncle Sam puppet, about teenaged, playing with money in the early 1900's.

Then around 1929, all the money catches fire, and he gets really really hungry.

Then he makes lots more money with a printing press and spends it on manufacturing weapons for WWII.

Then, all full of heroism and sacrifice, plus a lot of good factories and such, he sits down and spends all his time counting money and looking for someone to fight.

Now, somehow again all the money has caught fire.

And the little guy is still seeing himself as tough, ready to face austerity, but shouldn't have to because of WWII and all, still counting money to fatten his cat, and damn near broke because he doesn't do anything else, what with manufacturing done elsewhere, what with technology being done more and more elsewhere, what with foreigners with good schools and no medical bills ready to invent the next transistor over in some other country.

Maybe I'd put the moon landing in there somewhere.


You have at least (3) three comments!

comment 1:
Is it me, or do we have a system over here that's fundamentally unsound, that lurches from accident to self-made crisis like a drunk in a china shop trying to fix a computer with a sledgehammer?

comment 2:
BTW, W ran a company, then sold his stock just before it tanked, then got a bailout from the Saudis. Twice. Now, same thing with the US.

comment 3:
At least, we'll always have Paris blastocysts. And a few more months of US-funded clinics not being allowed to mention abortion. And sanctity of marriage imposed by the government. And the best health care you can't afford.

comment 4:
WTF is a credit default swap, anyway?

comment 5:
I need to learn to grow federal farm subsidy checks like the great folks back in real America.

I don't want war with Iran or Syria. If the wingnuts complain about the NY Times saying that Bush signed an executive order that directs our military to cross-border raids into Iraq's neighbors, on the grounds that this is giving away information to "the enemy", then I gotta say that the issue isn't what the Times printed.

(btw, "the enemy" falsely implies that we have one enemy, and that all we have to do to win is keep killing them. )

(btw, "New York Slimes" and "Washington Compost" really get on my nerves. Moneyed interests are generally aligned; pretending that Republicans are ill-served by a liberal press is outrageous kabuki.)

The issue, is that we're crossing into sovereign nations and then blowing up buildings and killing people, without invitation, permission, UN mandate, support of our allies, or apology to anyone.

I'm astounded that anyone, no matter how well-paid, would read that in the Times and then complain that it's a secret that should not be revealed in the press lest it give "the enemy" an advantage.

On the contrary, it should not happen.

Imagine if Mexico flew war choppers into Arizona or Texas and took out a building or two where they believed some drug lords were hiding. If that happened, the same folks who complained about the NYT revealing our secret strategy of violating international law would be calling for a nucular [sic] strike on Mexico City.

Who do we think we are, Israel? (don't answer that)

Watch and listen as those who call themselves conservatives start foaming at the mouth now that they have nothing to lose. Dignity is for victors. Cue the Judas Priest.

Election election election. So jittery and strange.

People think things will change. They won't. They don't. All the wingnuts will wake up snug in their beds and go on complaining about the government and poor people and gays and foreigners and religion and anything else that worked for Rove to make 49% into 51%.

Land Slaheeeeeeed!

Apple VS PC: copying a folder over another folder of the same name merges them together in windows and erases the old folder in Mac OSX.

Backups backups backups. External hard drive enclosures with fans are loud. Close the cabinet.

I can't tell you how tired I am. It's a secret.

Thanks to Tom I found a gazillion possible myspace friends, and my emails will say "are you the Fred Garvis I knew before I changed from a woman into a man?" or "Are you the Jenny Roundtree I stole $500 from back in the 80's?" or "Hey, ex-girlfriend, have you had any interesting test results lately? Just curious."

The aged guy complains to cheering crowds and all will be well once the dirty lazy commie peacenik welfare indigents get sent back to Sesame Street to sing with muppets.

Aw, who am I kidding? Er, whom am I kidding? I am kidding whom? I'm kidding someone. Who is it? Whom is it? No. Who.

We're all going to die, and the rest is all kicking and screaming. And the occasional joke.

President McCain

Seriously.

President McCain


I'm so used to W being president. McCain. He's old, he's white, he's sold out his maverickyness to get in better with the base, he picked a very surprisingly outside-of-the-beltway running mate, he sang "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," he replied to "what are we going to do about that bitch [Hillary Clinton]" with "heh heh heh. That's a very good question. heh heh".

You may not agree with that characterization of that exchange. That's fine. Pick something else he's said or done lately, think about it, and think "President John McCain" at the same time. It hurts my head.

Pick something or other you know about McCain. He's 72. Without him, the Keating Five would have been the Keating Four. Weeks ago he said he didn't know much about the economy. He says "I know how to win wars"... I guess he meant by saying "Petraeus" a lot. He's against Roe V Wade and late-term abortions when the health of the mother is at stake, and wants to confuse us about what "health" means in that context.

He was against torture before he voted for it. He said the fundamentals of our economy are strong. He equates being on an advisory board with a college professor (who, thirty years prior, had bombed a government building, then turned himself in) with being in Bin Laden's top 5.

Booga booga.

I can't handle this. What about Israel? Iran? Trade with South America? Alternate energy (he keeps listing different forms of it, then talking about nuclear subs in the debates). Privacy? Wartime powers? Torture? Surveillance? Habeus Corpus (right to know why you're being locked up and to argue your innocence to a judge)?

Ayres. AYRES??? REALLY???

Excuse me. Pick your own issue or whatever you like.

8 houses. Beer heiress. I don't care. Straight talk. Country first. POW.

President McCain.
President McCain.
President McCain.
President McCain.
President McCain.
President McCain.
President McCain.

And how's his health? Cause you know what that means:

President Palin.

My friends, these are interesting times indeed.

How do partisans gain by not trying to convince people having opposing points of view? Is it impossible to change anyone's mind with words?

A couple of years ago during the heyday of Air America radio in 2003 and 2004, I noticed the obvious fact that left-leaning political blogs and pundits say things with which I agree but which I doubt would convince a right-leaning person.

Also, of course, right-leaning radio commentators do the same.

Neither side addresses arguments made by the other. Mostly, they repeat their own arguments, insinuations, talking points.

When a liberal calls in to some of the AM radio shows I've heard, the host will turn the conversation away from points the caller is trying to make, the conversation will fall apart, and then the host will insult the caller after he's off the air.

I'm not so much angry about that, because it's not a right-wing or left-wing behavior.

I just wonder what the strategic value is. Maybe it rallies the base to hear or read mockery of opposing points of view. Maybe hammering talking points moves the overton window, I mean, gets people to consider as possible things that they would have dismissed outright (maybe human minds are like cattle who move if you prod them enough).

What baffles me is how any side can hope to further their goals without convincing opponents to join them?

I am not an economist. Maybe I'd be less broke, if I were.

1) banks, homeowners, brokers, all paid too much for houses or mortgages or leins on houses or mortgage-backed securities (which are slices of piles of mortgages). Then thye claimed that what they had, from house to portfolio, was worth way more than they paid for it, borrowed money against that claimed worth, and spent that on more house, houses, leins, mortgages, or slices of piles of mortgages.

Everything has been going down in value for a while. The ones who loaned money to all the ones who borrowed it are going to get less than they loaned out.

The loaners are running out of cash to loan.

The U.S. government is going to borrow cash from foreign countries (who are also losing value in portfolios and in loans made to people who borrowed them). The government is going to trade this borrowed cash for all these slices of piles of mortgages that may never get paid.

Loaners will have money to loan again. Banks will borrow this money and loan it to people to buy houses and cars. Big banks will loan money to businesses who have lots of cash tied up in slices of piles of mortgages. Piles of mortgages that the government does not buy will be worth more because of the ones just like them being bought, so loaners of cash will be more willing to loan to holders of slices of piles of mortgages because now those piles have market value.

But it's based on just one more level of borrowing money to buy property in the hope that its value will rise.

2) For the piles of mortgages to be worth anything, they need either for the values of the homes to go up, or for the debtors (who were counting on the value of the homes to go up in order to pay of the loans by selling or re-financing) to make lots of money at their jobs to pay off the loans.

3) with fewer people having money to spend on home improvement or anything else (because they're paying off big mortgages), there are fewer jobs and less money being made to pay off piles of mortgages.

4) with fewer people able to borrow money, and less money available for home loans, home sales will not go up, and home values will not go up.


SO, for the bailout to work, there will have to be enough cash put in place of piles of mortgages to let banks and businesses and governments to borrow again.

AND, for the bailout to not lead to yet another, bigger bailout, those slices of piles of mortgages will have to be worth something -- home prices will have to stabilize and/or debtors will have to keep their jobs.

As far as I know, the only thing stocks are good for is betting that someone else will want it more later than you do now, i.e. betting that the price of the stock will rise.

That, and companies that sell stock keep half or so of the shares, and they use those shares as collateral for loans the way homeowners use their houses as collateral.

Sound about right?

Maybe I'm going to ruin my credit.

See, housing prices were going up, so lots of people were taking on risky loans.

Brokers were getting people these loans, on behalf of banks who never met the borrowers.

The banks sold the loans to other companies, who bundled them together into mutual funds.

Brokers got their fees and took off. Banks got fees for selling the loans and did nothing futher with the mortgages.

The mortgages got to be hard to pay off. You know, wages are flat, health care is more and more expensive, people make mistakes, credit cards get maxed out because people try to live to the same standard whether or not the money's there. Bankruptcy laws get tighter, so people can't get out of the obligations.

Mortgages go into default.

Because it's not between the bank and the borrower any more, there's no way for everyone to talk it out and make a plan whereby the mortgage does not go into default.

It's part of a portfolio. It's part of a mutual fund.

People's retirement savings are in this fund. Ooops. not so much, anymore.

The mortgages are insured. By AIG, I hear. AIG lives on credit, as all big companies do... it's called bonds, I think. The higher the bond rating, the more a company can borrow. If the rating goes down, the company needs to show that it can pay back those bonds. To do that, it needs assets... if those assets are defaulted mortgages, then, well, the company needs help. Capital. A LOAN.

Enter the US Government. Here's 85 billion dollars for AIG. It's a loan. Based on defaulted mortgages based on the false hope that housing prices would go up. That 85 billion went to brokers, banks, credit card companies. That 85 billion comes from all of us. About $250 per US citizen. Gone.

How much is your house worth? Mine's not worth enough right now.