It is, of course, common knowledge that our current President is a horrible man. A foreigner, raised in a radical madrasa by Communists, his sole purpose in life is to oversee the utter desecration and ruin of our fair republic and Christendom in general. Thank goodness we have staunch patriots like Rush Limbaugh to expose him for his many crimes (no longer solely theoretical—they are now scrawled in blood across the canvas of our victimized planet) so that the world may see Obama’s true face.

So what, might you ask, is the latest outrage? Sundered from its protective web of liberal fiction, it is this: not content to merely murder the innocent unborn, he targets kids for destruction.
Read the rest of this entry »

If you watch the Daily Show, you’ve already seen this. If you don’t watch the Daily Show because, like me, you’re too cheap to subscribe to Comedy Central, you may have missed Jon Stewart’s scathing, if measured, condemnation of financial punditry as a gaggle of cynical hucksters.

CNBC’s Jim Cramer bore the brunt of Stewart’s populist but eminently reasonable indignation like a champ, but make no mistake: Stewart destroyed Cramer’s—and, by inference, many journalists’—credibility.

If only we still had journalists as fearless as some of our comedians.

Another year, another crop of losers trying to finagle access to student accounts. I swear to God, I am mere inches away from beating someone to death with an axe handle. Seriously, I think the kids of these parents would probably be better off for it.

We hear all sorts of bullshit reasons as to why little Timmy can’t pick up the phone and call us himself to , but the top five are:

• But I’m His Mother! That’s nice and all, but, funnily enough, we don’t feel like violating Federal law just so you can continue to coddle your pwecious widdle babykins.
• But I’m Paying For It! That’s very generous, but access to their educational records isn’t part of the purchase. I mean, hey, some of my taxes pay for it, too; does that mean I can bust into your kid’s account?
• But She’s Overseas! Seriously. We actually get this one a lot. “He can’t call you, he’s in Europe.” Oh, right, the wild, uncharted, isolated expanses of France. Granted, there are cases when some particularly enterprising lad has an internship with an archaeological expedition to the caverns deep underneath the Plateau of Leng or something, but 99 times out of 100 they’re somewhere with impeccable connections to the rest of the planet, like London. Are there no telephones in London?
• He’s Too Busy! Look, I don’t care that your kid is out playing baseball until 8:00 p.m., has homework, or just can’t be found. No matter how you slice it, “too busy” means “doesn’t think it’s important”. If you really want your kid to attend the University, I really don’t think asking them to make a 3-minute phone call is any kind of outrageous imposition on their schedule.
• Well, Then, Maybe We Won’t Attend Your University: First off, unless you’re showing up for classes, it isn’t “we”. Anyhow, parents play this as some sort of trump card that will cause us to quail in our boots and acquiesce to their every demand. I’m sure that sort of threat works on your barista, but we are stewards of State and Federal records, and that shit don’t play here. We’d like your kid to attend, but guess what? 50,000+ hopeful students apply every year. Your special, unique little snowflake will not be missed.

After having suffered through a few weeks of public wrangling over the federal economic stimulus package, I’d just like to say that although it is a good and useful thing for the party in opposition to attempt to point out and rein in waste, the GOP’s recent posturing is laughable. I mean, suddenly the Republicans are the great defenders of fiscal responsibility? Fuck you.

This is the party that squandered a budget surplus during an economic bubble. A party that not only blew approximately $638,778,000,000 on ill-considered military adventurism, but didn’t even have the honesty to put the costs of it in the goddamned budget; no, instead, all we got was a bunch of smoke and mirrors, supplemented by “emergency spending” bills, as if our extended military presence overseas was a completely unforseen event, two, three, four, and five years into the operation.

And where was the GOP then? Busy cutting taxes, defunding regulatory oversight, and generally locked in a feverish embrace of Dick Cheney’s nether bits. Yeah. Cutting taxes. During a war. And yet, when a Democratic government wants to throw money around within our own borders for at least ostensibly constructive purposes, a hue and cry is raised. “It’s too expensive!” “We can’t afford it!” they moan. Which, I suppose, is true, considering that these idiots spent the last five years pouring the contents of our Treasury into the sands of Iraq.

I’m sorry, but where fiscal restraint is concerned, the GOP has all the moral authority of a Maenad at a WCTU meeting.

A rule of business accounting known as “mark to market” holds that the value of an asset on a company’s books must reflect its current market price. If you bought, say, 100,000 lava lamps that would reasonably fetch $15 apiece, your books are marked as holding $1,500,000 in assets. This is information that investors and shareholders use to help them determine the financial viability of your company.

So let’s say you’re still holding onto these lava lamps when the disco ball makes a big comeback. Suddenly, nobody is buying lava lamps anymore. Demand drops, and nobody is willing to pay more than $10 for a lava lamp. This new market value means you now report your assets are worth $1,000,000 (because, well, they are). What now?

Read the rest of this entry »

Has George Will’s necktie reduced the supply of oxygen to his brain? That might explain his recent column, in which he bemoans politicians’ focus on things like employment, inflation, and the viability of one’s retirement account. How myopic! After all, he notes, look at all the things money can’t buy: love, the satisfaction of reading a good book, or the sublime zen of fly fishing (which must be important, because he mentions it twice).

These are all fine things, “riches” sometimes forgotten or discarded in our occasionally relentless focus on economic matters. Will, though, would apparently have candidates ignore monetary woes altogether. Is it perhaps because he’d rather nobody thought about how wretched the last eight years of neoconservative economic policy have been? Why shouldn’t candidates ask voters to ponder their economic situation as they make their voting choices? Should they wax philosophic about intangibles instead? Can a McCain presidency ensure that all Americans fall in love? Is Obama promising that, if elected, your favorite sports team will win this season?

How asinine. Thank goodness we’re not the nation of lotus-eaters that Will is so feverishly hoping for! Ask the question yourself. Are you better off or not? If so, great. If not, vote for the candidate you think might help improve your fortunes, but don’t join George Will in his wistful stupor.