The New Propaganda

I know that it is rather off-putting when, in the opening of an essay, the author begins at screaming level, with the emotional volume already on "10". I usually don't want to read on when that occurs, as the thought process tends to degenerate quickly.

In order to avoid that, I will say, as simply and as dispassionately as I can, that bankers and their political lap dogs have coined a new batch of phrases and terms that are designed to take your money and make it their money.

Barack's New Deal is quickly being wrapped in Bankers' New Bullshit.

The first term that I will present for your inspection is "toxic assets".

It is not unlike the old George Carlin "flammable/inflammable" routine. One is simply never certain what it means, so the usual decision is to let someone else handle it. Toxins are bad, so they must go, of course. The banks have "toxic assets" on their books, and for the banks to be healthy and for all of us to be happy and prosperous again the banks need to purge those toxins from their books. Mind you, these toxins are disguised as ASSETS, so we may infer that they are wily by nature, and the poor banks need assistance with this process, lest they be POISONED BY THE TOXIC ASSETS!!! SOUND THE ALARM, TO ARMS, CITIZENS, TO ARMS!!!

Slow down, Jasper, it's getting fragrant already.

Allow me to peel the layers of this particular onion. What is actually happening is that the bankers and the investors in the banks, some of whom include the bankers themselves by way of stock options, have screwed up to a fantabulous degree. They have pissed right thru the federal diaper that you and your kids and your kids' kids will pay for, for years and years and years to come. The bankers have made bad loans, ridiculously bad loans in many cases, and they want you to give them money to make the boo-boos better. You, taxpayer, give them more money, and at a time when they, the banks, have the whole goddammed country financially constipated because they aren't lending to anyone.

A little closer attention here to the term "toxic asset". This is so absurd that it would be cool, in a way, and if we didn't have to pay for it. It is elegant in its simplicity, as are many great swindles. Go back to junior high math to understand: a negative ("toxic") times a positive ("asset") is a negative. Unfortunately for the bankers/hucksters, bullshit is not arithmetic.

That allows us to consider the second popular term of the day "private participation will be required".

Bite me, banker boys.

In my business, when we screw up, we fix the screw up--at our cost. Screw up too many times and someone takes your place. It's basic Darwinism.

Our governmental units have become accustomed to "private participation" by raising taxes to cover their screw-ups: doing crappy stadium deals, financing ridiculous bad investments with public money, running inefficient governmental services, creating programs that bleed money endlessly instead of attempting to create solutions.

So beware, folks, when the new stewards of bullshit, the bankers, begin to inform us that "private participation will be required", what the are saying is that their political buddies are coming for your wallet, to make some more of your money their money.

That is where we began this quiet rant, so it would appear that we have come full circle.

That is all.

My New Favorite Commercial

I'm lovin' it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD64OhbG4ps&feature=related

Scandal Over Du Lac

(My co-pilot and daughter is at the controls today; buckle up!)

On Friday, my beloved Alma Mater Notre Dame (whose full name is "University of Notre Dame du Lac," in case you are wondering about the post's title) announced the identity of the 2009 commencement speaker. How cool. Barack Obama is coming to South Bend, IN -- the armpit of the United States -- to speak at Notre Dame's graduation ceremony.


I started the following Monday morning by reading the letters to the editor of the ND student newspaper, The Observer. The letters were overall very enthusiastic, but in the worst way. It seems that students and alumni are getting their knickers in a twist over this one. On Monday, I was also sent a link to sign an online petition protesting the selection of Obama as the commencement speaker. As I write this tonight, there are over 100,000 signatures. Needless to say I did not sign it.

One letter to editor stated the following: "Inviting Barack Obama to speak on our campus sends precisely the opposite message. The University administration is tacitly encouraging students to view the president with respect, awe and admiration simply by virtue of his election to political office. And perhaps most importantly, it is turning a blind eye to Obama's support of state-sanctioned killing in the form of federal support for abortion and embryonic stem cell research, to his continuation of the Bush administration's reckless foreign policy of interventionism and its disregard for civil liberties and to his irresponsible and destructive economic policies."

Well, if it is one thing I wish my parents had instilled in me it would be complete disrespect for the office of the President. That's really what I hope kids are learning in college - do not admire or feel awe for the President. He's probably some poor schlub that didn't even try that hard to get where he is. And its not like his job is challenging. Further, the author of this post - who incidentially is the co-President of the College Libertarians club, as if that wasn't enough to discredit him - seems to only have a problem with disregard for certain civil liberties with which he disagrees. I don't think people should have the civil liberty of cheering for the Chicago Cubs; he doesn't think people should have the civil liberty of having an abortion. We can't all get our way.

Another post, this one from an alum from the class of '88: "I will be in attendance on commencement day with several thousand others to show my distaste for this decision. We will bring with us the graphic photos of what abortion does to its victims so there can be no doubt about the hatefulness of the man chosen to instruct Notre Dame graduates in how to be a success in life. I would suggest that if the administration does not want to suffer the embarrasment of pictures of dismembered children lining Notre Dame Ave. on what should be the happiest day of our newest graduates' lives, they withdraw this invitation immediately."

Whoa whoa whoa, crazy! Pictures of dismembered babies? That's not so much appropriate, eh? Obama's not coming to extoll the virtues of abortion; in fact, I'm pretty sure the subject won't be on the agenda. I'm sure he'll be way too busy talking about things like serving your community, reaching for the stars, dreaming big, etc., to even be able to broach the subject. Jeez, dude, way to ruin the day for all the parents who want to take pictures with their hungover graduates and their siblings, grandparents, nieces, nephews, etc. The dead babies in the background will look great on the mantle. Psycho. Oh and one more thing, buddy, I'm pretty sure it's not the best etiquette to rescind an invitation to the President of the United States.

Bishop John D'Arcy, whose diocese encompasses Notre Dame, and who has vowed to boycott the graduation ceremony (what a loss!) said the following of Obama's decision to federally fund embryonic stem cell research: "While claiming to separate politics from science, he has in fact separated science from ethics and has brought the American government, for the first time in history, into supporting direct destruction of innocent human life."

Um, the first time in history? The first time? Bishop, I know the New Testament cuts out before the last two millenia, but come on. Obama's decision wasn't even the first time the American government supported direct destruction of human life that week. There are two wars going on, remember?

There are more zealots I could quote, but I'll refrain, because they are all saying the same thing, and quite frankly, it is embarassing. It is people like these that made me less of a Catholic upon my graduation from a Catholic university that I was when I enrolled because I fundamentally disagree with almost everything they believe. My response to everyone disgusted by the selection of Obama as the commencement speaker is this: Are you aware that he is the President of the United States? And are you aware that he's pretty busy back in Washington dealing with wars and a busted economy, and has no ties to Notre Dame whatsoever, and is still coming to campus to address the '09 graduates? Some say that he accepted Notre Dame's offer so he can influence the Catholic community...I say who cares why he accepted. In my view, whatever your beliefs, however you vote, the bottom line is the President is coming to Notre Dame and that is pretty effing sweet.

To conclude, to those who can't get over a couple tenets of Obama's platform, go ahead and sign the petition at notredamescandal.com or come out on graduation day, protest the speech, and litter campus with pictures entirely inappropriate for graduation day. Further, I invite any '09 graduate who is disgusted with his/her commencement speaker, or whose family is disgusted, to give their spare graduation ticket to me. If you can't see how awesome it is to have Obama - who is not even speaking at his own alma mater's commencement - speak on graduation, I certainly can.

Public Enemy

This is too goofy to make up.

Did you know that there's a John Dillinger Museum? I didn't. Did you know it's in Indiana? I didn't. Did you know it's closer than the casinos? Almost certainly not.

There's a John Dillinger Museum in Hammond, just off I-80 at Kennedy Avenue, in the Indiana Welcome Center. Now, I didn't know Indiana had a welcome center, and I didn't know it was still the municipality of Hammond over there.

Either or both: most people don't know about the Dillinger museum -0r- most people dont' care -or- both. According to a NY Times story, the South Shore Convention and Visitors Authority (ANOTHER thing we now know exists, how 'bout that? or it might be the Lake County Convention and Visitors Bureau, they get credit for owning the museum, in case anyone really cares) bought this Dillinger collection for about $400K from some guy's estate over by there in Crown Point, spent $600,000 more to turn the old museum into a new museum and VOILA! they grossed $10,000 from admission fees last year, when they were open.

That was $10,000 before operating costs. Aggressive local government in action. Spend a million to bring in almost nothing. Pret-ty shrewd investment spending.

That phrase back there "last year, when they were open" is an eyebrow raiser. There's some distant relative of the late bank robber who has taken the mission of protecting the Dillinger name. Yes, ladies and germs, protecting the Dillinger name...and licensing it and presumably making a scheckel or two for his noble efforts. Noble efforts, as they are the result of a promise he says that he made to his grandmother, who was a half sister to Dillinger.

So this chap saw the museum, saw his dear distant and long departed relative being villified as having murdered an Indiana police officer back in 1934, a crime of which Mr. Dillinger was never convicted, Mr. Dillinger having been highly shot to an extremely dead condition outside the Biograph Theatre in Chicago before there was an opportunity to migrate the accusation from "alleged" to "hell, yeah", and back to the relative, he presumably being outraged at having great-half-uncle Johnny D inaccurately portrayed --and with the ongoing mission to be true to his promise to his granny-- cranked out a lawsuit.

The result? The museum, a rollicking enterprise that brought in ten grand in admissions revenue for an entire year, settled with this chap for -get this- $375,000 PLUS $1,500 A MONTH until the year 2034, at which time great-half-uncle Johnny's image is no longer protected by law, and therefore of much less value, or harder to protect, depending on which side of the money you're on.

By the way, the South Shore Convention and Visitors Authority is funded by a tax on the casinos.

So if we follow the thread, beginning years back,

• the casinos took a bunch of corrupt land,
• invested a ton of dough in order open their monuments to sin (yes, I have sinned...and we made $400 last time we went sinning over there),
• they get highly taxed (why not?),
• a part of the tax revenue (in this case a million bucks) goes to this local visitors bureau that puts up a museum that nobody goes to,
• that gets sued and pays out $375,000 and $1,500 per month for the next 25 years (that's about $450,000 and I'm not interested enough to figure out the present value) to this promise keeper guy.
  

The museum website is http://www.dillingermuseum.com/info.html

Better than the new museum website, look at this old description of the original museum from Roadside America, a fine publication that keeps track of stuff like "World's Largest Ball of Twine" and stuff like that http://www.roadsideamerica.com/news/15291

By the way, if you use the Skyway to go sinning, you won't be anywhere near the Museum That Is At Least A Million And A Half in The Hole, aka The John Dillinger Museum, Hammond, Indiana, USA.

You pick who the real criminal is.

Live from Wisteria Lane

Alright, alright, I'm outed, I watch this crap, Desperate Housewives. This one I'm writing as I'm watching.

Purely in respect of the impending deceasement, I have found an Edie car wash photo. In respect of the situation, you see, and for no other reason. Back at the Lane, the girls are rockin' tonite, but when will Dave shoot Edie?

Bree is all set to sell Chil Bitch Enterprises to save her marriage to the unlikeable fop, Orson. She looks over the Bree Van de Kamp wall of fame (verrrry remininiscent of the Gaylord Fokker wall of mediocre fame, except with success instead of old jock straps) when whe's overcome with passion...for her business. Take that, Orson, you thieving stroke, and get a normal haircut while you're at it! Once again, when will Dave shoot Edie?

Gabby lusts for Carlos, and insists on service now, thank you. Carlos responds with a little bondage quickie set up, then leaves Gabby tied to the bed and heads back to work. Very worker-guy-ish and responsible, and yeah, yeah, we're all impressed that you left the tart unsullied, Carlos, but when, oh when will Dave shoot Edie?

Mike and China Beach woman go camping with Dave, and Dave takes his hunting rifle with the scope and tries to shoot China Beach woman and he misses 'cause Edie has phoned him at the very instant that he attempted to consumate the murderation! DAVE, WHAT ABOUT EDIE? WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO ABOUT EDIE? YOU SAID YOU WERE GONNA SHOOT HER!? YEAH, HE'S RACING HOME TO SHOOT HER!

Lynette strikes back at the tyrannical Monster Marketing Woman at Carlos' business by letting MMW humiliate herself by berating the cleaning lady and Carlos' kids, blah-blah-blah NO SHOOTING EDIE??? GODDANGIT, LET'S GET SHOOTING HERE ALREADY!!!

Dave comes home and Edie's liquored up and she has figured it all out. There's actual acting going on, did someone change channels? Edie is throwing verbal haymakers; now she calls Dave a freak and keeps on blazing away. Dave's pissed, is he gonna shoot her -- NO!!! He's grabbed her around the neck, one hand, now two, and he's choking her to death, and her eyes bug out and she slides backward and out of his grasp and-- she's not dead. So he's gonna shoot her now? NO! She splits, and jumps in the car and you know the rest.

The teaser for next week shows Edie isn't dead yet.

And don't trust that lying S.O.B. Dave. He SAID he was gonna shoot Edie.

Dang.