Play Time is Over

The following was written to a thread on BlueOregon, but it might well have been written in response to John McCain, when he said this:

“Now what does that mean? He wants government to take Joe’s money and give it to somebody else-his hard earned dollars. We are not gonna stand for that. America didn’t become the greatest nation on earth by spreading the wealth."

McCain has a legitimate postion. Essentially, taxes are bad, wealth is good, quit your whining. If you hold this view, any encroachment, be it from 36% to 39% in the top marginal rate, or 75% to 91% ... well, it's all bad. Since this view holds that progressive taxation is wrong on principle, there's no way to appeal to them by arguing macroeconomics, externalities, or the societal costs of income disparity. Moral positions are insensitive to logic.

So here's what I say: suck it up. Your time is done. We've run the experiment wherein we entrust the rich with the country's wealth, and you screwed it up. In your greed and arrogance, you have brought devastation on the country. Our bridges are collapsing as fast as our financial infrastructure and you have created an economy where we produce nothing and make wealth by trading fraudulent slips of paper--a hallmark of the final stage in the waning days of an empire. Go ahead and hold to your moral position of "I got mine, screw the rest." It's an honest position.

But now, as my friend says, "man-up: it's time for the adults to come in and declare play time over."

Deep Thoughts

Back when Senators were hot to trot on that execrable bankruptcy bill, how many times did they lecture the poor and indigent about personal responsibility? Just a thought.

Also:

1. If the Congress passes the bailout of all bailouts and allows the golden parachute clause, Dems will forfeit their advantage within the next two election cycles. I will be among those who wash my hands of them. This is a moment of truth.
2. If a man shows up on your doorstep and says you must buy a bridge or millions will die, do you trust him?
   
3. If the man tells you there's no time to read over the details of the deal--you must sign now!--do you still trust him?
4. If the man tells you that he will oversee the deal and that you won't actually be managing it at all, do you still trust him?

Isn't that the situation Paulson describes?

Congress was offered the opportunity to buy a pretty new war under these circumstances. Remind me again--how'd that turn out?

Aggressively Fatuous

I missed the opening ceremonies to the Olympics last night (wedding), and so when NBC announced they were coming back to show clips, I made sure to be in front of the set. But back in the studio, Jim Lampley was sitting next to--was it, yes, oh no--Jimmy Roberts. Roberts has achieved special status in the pantheon of American sports journalists for being the most sentimental, and yet at the same time, substance-free, of all commentators. NBC rolls him out for their treacly and imbecilic athlete bios, always heavy on mental or physical barriers, always free of humanity. When Lampley turned to him for a report on the opening ceremony, he put his most appropriate foot forward (paraphrasing) saying,: "Well Jim, there's no way to capture that stunning spectacle in words ...." before going into his usual fluff piece, full of his over-emphasized narrative piffle.

There's a word for this, and I'd love it if Roberts' commentaries were cited in the dictionary as an example:

fatuous (adj.) - foolish or inane, esp. in an unconscious, complacent manner; silly

Roberts is the Homer Simpson of commentators, relying on heavy emphasis to sell his terrible prose, as when Homer lectures Lisa about something he doesn't even vaguely understand.

Ah, the Olympics, when NBC's coverage always threatens to overwhelm the actual drama with corporate sacharine, Jimmy Roberts handing out the packets of Splenda...