Saalon Muyo

If you’re like me, you’ve been watching the stock market bounce around like a yo-yo for the past couple of weeks and hoping it gives you some kind of indicator as to how the financial crisis is shaping up.  And, if you’re like me, you’ve been unable to glean even a tiny bit of information from its gyrations.  As I learned today, the stock market is the wrong thing to watch.  It’s just reacting to something else: the frozen credit markets.

So how do we watch those?  Well, the wonderfully informative people at NPR’s Planet Money podcast point us to the right place.  The core of the crisis is that people don’t want to lend to each other.  This is the same thing that happened prior to the Great Depression, and our lack of response to that credit freeze may be what turned a financial downturn into a global depression.  When the solvency of institutions that are supposed to be stable, like banks, comes into question it makes people timid with their investments.  In fact, it even makes banks afraid to lend to each other, and that’s when things get really ugly.

So there are two things to watch.

The first is the rate on 3 Month Treasury Bonds.  These are considered very safe investments, so when people panic, the put their money here.  And the more money the put into them, the less of a return they pay.  What does that mean?

As the market panics, the 3 Month Treasury rate goes down.  As it calms, it goes back up.  Right now the rate is .11%  Last month it was at 1.58%. Not so good.

The second thing to look at is something called the TED Spread.  The TED Spread is basically the difference between the rate on one of those 3 Month Treasury Bonds and the rate banks are actually charging each other to borrow money.  The lower the TED Spread, the more confident banks are in each other. Why?  Because if you think someone is safe, you’ll charge them close to the same interest you’re getting out of the really safe government treasury bonds.  If not, you’ll charge them a lot more, because those T-Bills are way less of a risk.  A good explanation of this can be found here.

So historically the TED Spread has been at around .5%.  It went up to 1% for most of this year, which you can see on the chart at Bloomberg.com which I linked to above.  Then things got bad.  Now the TED is hovering around 4.5%, and is not yet going down. That means that even though we’ve dumped some money at the problem, banks still see each other as risky investments and are reluctant to give them money.

As the stock market flies all over the place, keep your eyes on Treasury bonds and on the TED Spread to see if the real cause of this crisis - frozen credit - is getting better.

So far it isn’t.

I’m refusing to make predictions on this election.  Part of that is superstition.  I believe very strongly that an Obama presidency is the best chance for this country to save itself from its current crisis, and I’m afraid of jinxing that win with presumptuous declarations of victories.  The other part is that I know how wildly elections can swing.  Up today can become down tomorrow with the right sequence of events.

I will say this, though: Senator John McCain’s campaign looks very, very confused right now.  It’s never a good sign when a campaign changes messages regularly, especially in the modern media environment.  It takes some power behind a signal to cut through the noise, and it often requires repetition.  Saying something once might - might - gain you a five minute spot on a new outlet, but you’ll be washed away by the next celebrity drug addiction.  It’s important to come up with a strong campaign narrative and carry it all the way home.  Adjustments will be required, but massive shifts can hurt you.

Look at the events of this last weekend.  It started with the rumbling of a new economic plan in the works that would help solve the credit crisis.

On Sunday, hours before attending a big strategy meeting at McCain campaign headquarters, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told Bob Schieffer on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that McCain was planning “a very comprehensive approach to jump-start the economy, by allowing capital to be formed easier in America by lowering taxes.”

There were even a few details leaked, such as a tax reduction on capital gains and dividends.  Putting aside the fact that giving a tax reduction on capital no one is gaining right now sounds fairly pointless, the intent of this release was the prime the public for a new phase of Senator McCain’s campaign.  This would replace the phase where we were expected to look away from the plunging Dow to stare at the name “Bill Ayers” and the one before that where Senator McCain was proposing we purchase mortages at inflated prices using tax dollars in an effort to stabilize home prices which are currently wildly overvalued.

Oh and before that was the bailout Senator McCain first helped negotiate, then didn’t help pass when it failed and then claimed to have “blew up” to keep it from passing, even though the day it was supposed to pass he was taking credit for it.  If that sentence makes your head spin, imagine how well it must be playing as a campaign narrative.

Yet, before it was even released, the new plan was off the table.

But when the meeting ended, so did plans for a new economy push. The campaign now says no new policy announcements are planned. Participants in the meeting refused to say what happened.

So, just on the crisis alone we’ve seen a suspended campaign to negotiate the bailout, credit taken for a bailout plan that got voted down hours later, insinuations that the Senator himself killed the plan he was taking credit for, a plan to buy up mortgages and renegotiate them and an econommic policy that no one could agree on that included tax cuts for income no one is currently receiving with the crashing stock market.

So what’s next?  Perhaps recasting yourself as “a scrappy fighter on the comeback trail against an opponent who’s already ‘measuring the drapes’ in the Oval Office.”

Allies are calling this “hitting the ‘reset’ button” on the campaign, with McCain reemerging after a long Sunday strategy session with a feisty tack that uses candor and humor, at a time when his rallies have become known for raucous rage and clumsy attacks.

So now, after all of that, we’re just going to pull a Star Trek and reset button our way out of the past three months of campaigning?  If so, for the Senator’s sake this had best be the last sudden shift in messages that he tries.  Like I said, I refuse to make predictions, so I won’t go on record as saying this will not work.  But if it doesn’t - and I think there’s at least a good possibility that it won’t - he may be out of options.

I guess we’ll get our first real taste of this at the third debate on Wednesday.

I have been so disheartened by how much this election has divided us as a nation. Posts like this one make me sad (although I have nothing against the author, who was very brave to share her point of view), because it really grieves me that people are basing their opinion of a person on the candidate he or she supports- or in my case, is even thinking about supporting.

- Lindsay Ferrier, “The Lesser of Two Evils”

When people say that you shouldn’t talk about politics or religion in public, it’s all I can do not to pick the kind of fight people are trying to avoid with their advice.  Do we really believe that it’s better to be quietly ignorant of two huge, important things that certainly will affect our lives than to risk someone being a jerk to us?  Do we honestly think that our views of the nature of the universe are unimportant enough to allow them to be challenged?  Are we comfortable handing over power to a government we then won’t discuss in the company of others?

Here’s the thing.  We don’t like being disagreed with, and we like even less when a disagreement causes others to turn against us.  This is why people avoid discussions of inflammatory topics.  Losing a friend over a political or religious affiliation seems too high a price to pay for opening one’s mouth.  I’m sympathetic to their concerns, because if you’ve argued yourself into hating a once good friend you have likely done something wrong.  Civility in debate is something you gain with experience, though, and having a violent reaction to disagreement is more likely when you avoid them at all costs.

Lindsay Farrier, who writes the blog Suburban Turmoil, recently wrote about her reaction to the second presidential debate, which she attended as a member of the press.  In it, she stated how the debate changed her feelings on the election and on which candidate she’d be supporting.  Unsurprisingly, her post drew quite a reaction from her readers, some less civil than others.

Strike that.  Ferrier later wrote, “a surprising number of comments were downright hostile,” so perhaps I’m just used to the kind of reaction a statement of any preference of any kind made on the Internet will elicit. After saying something on reddit, if I don’t get accused of an ad hominem attack or compared to Hitler, I consider it a mild day in the tubes.

That said, I think Ferrier’s post does get to the core of why people are so cautious about bringing up politics or religion in public.  I quoted the line above, but I want to repeat it.  It’s important.  Ferrier says that it “really grieves me that people are basing their opinion of a person on the candidate he or she supports- or in my case, is even thinking about supporting.”  Though I commend her for her own openness to discussion on this topic, I think the reason we avoid bringing up politics or religion in public can be found in that statement.  We don’t want people to look at us differently over something we’ve decided is not a core part of who we are.

But it is.

It does all of us a disservice to suggest that who gets our vote or what deity does or does not get our allegiance says nothing important about our values and priorities.  Voting isn’t - or at least, it shouldn’t be - the equivalent of whether you prefer Coke or Pepsi.  How you think your tax dollars should be spent, who you think we should be at war with (if anyone), where the responsibility for our sick belongs, whether people should be incarcerated for consuming psychoactive substances; these should never be boiled down to some simple matter of opinion.  These are important issues, and your opinion on them says a lot about who you are as a person.

If you are a devout Christian, and you say that you believe literally in the words of the Bible, does that mean you also believe homosexuals should be stoned?  If so, is it really unfair for me to think less of you as a person for believing that?

If you support a candidate based on the recriminalization of abortion, but believe in the continuation of the death penalty, am I expected to ignore the blatant contradiction in an effort to agree to disagree?  If you supported the end of both, perhaps, but if my problem is that you hold two contradictory values that are largely punitive to the underprivileged, how does that not affect my view of what your moral priorities are?

I think the difference is in how important you feel your vote is.  If you believe that politics is as important to your life as a reality show, that the ambiguity of the choice between candidates - none of whom represent pure evil or undiluted good - makes the decision pointless, or that the concept of democracy is worthy without the passionate exercise of it, then I suppose the tying of political choice to a person’s quality of character seems silly to you.

If you’re like me, and you believe that the choice you’ve been given in this nation is the chance - however small - to see the things in which you believe acted out across the nation, it’s impossible not to connect your choice of candidate to your character.  I’m not suggesting that supporting a candidate I consider toxic makes you a terrible person.  I’m merely saying that if democracy means anything at all, then your vote should be representative of your own moral and ethical beliefs, and I should be able to make a character judgment based on it.

Let me put it another way.

Do I believe that someone who attends a church I take issue with is evil? Absolutely not.

Do I lose all respect for someone for disagreeing with me politically?  Of course not.

Would I seek to end a friendship simply over a political or religious difference?  Not a chance.

Do someone’s political views and priorities, as evidenced by their choice of candidate, affect my opinion of someone?  Yes.  They absolutely do.

I expect that my friends do this to me as well, and I’m fine with that.  There’s a reason I talk openly about politics and religion on this blog.  I believe my opinions and views on these subjects are reflective of who I am and what I stand for.  I’m comfortable with someone making a character judgment based on my political affiliations, and I open to being challenged or even judged based on them.  If someone wants to think less of me because they honestly feel my vote represents a flaw in my character, I can accept that.

It helps if you’re prepared to back it up.  Then we can talk about it, and we might even find we have common ground we didn’t expect.  We might discover that we’re disappointed in someone in one way, but respect them in another.  There’s nothing wrong with that.  I can be disappointed that your economic beliefs are hostile to the poor while respecting your advocacy to improve the lives of disabled children.  I can be appalled at your church’s intolerance of homosexuals while being pleased that its youth group gives kids a place to be safe once a week. Life is like that.  We’re all lesser evils when you get right down to it.

Or we could agree to disagree, which is what got us here in the first place.  We could pretend our differences in beliefs should not be discussed, should be held back and privately protected.  Or worse, revealed without discussion and then wheeled back into the garage after taking them for a spin around the block.

What do you think it says about our political and religious views when you think we shouldn’t talk about them?  That we’re different, right?  That we are so different that my views and your view can only clash without purpose should they be released into the same room.  Perhaps, even, that I’m inherently better than you and that the actual discussion of our ideas is a waste of time.

I’ve had enough of agreeing to disagree.  I think it’s time to learn to just disagree.  We can do it without violence and without rage if we spend some time learning how.

I’d rather you think less of me than not have heard from me at all.

As the Dow continues to scare the living crap out of you, take a moment to laugh at Betty White saying “crazy bitch.”

I have no doubt you could put together an equally embarrassing and stupid video of Obama supporters, but I’m not sure you’d get a quote as baldly racist as “He’s got the bloodlines.”

Bottom line: McCain wants to cut taxes and reduce spending. Obama cannot say no to any of the left’s interest groups. McCain is Reagan. Obama is Kerry/Gore/Dukakis. America has faced this choice before.

- Grover Norquist

We have?  Because that sounds like three people who didn’t run against Reagan.

By the way, congrats on drowning government in the bathtub.  That’s worked out well for us.

Bottom line: I’d be more likely to listen to you if you were blue and lived on Sesame Street.

This was the worst-moderated debate in the history of presidential debates,” one McCain campaign insider told me just moments after John McCain and Barack Obama left the stage at Belmont University in Nashville. “The audience and the American people should feel robbed — that the one opportunity they had to ask questions of the presidential candidates was taken from them by Tom Brokaw.”

- “McCain vs. Obama: The Snoozer In Nashville”, Byron York

Tom Brokaw, long known to be a vicious privateer on the seas of journalism, last night sailed into the Belmont Straight and pilfered America’s one and only chance to find out what our candidates are really like.  Bystanders claim Brokaw was wearing an eye patch, sported a fashionable new hook for a hand and shouted “Avast!” no less than seven times.

People do know that the format of these debates are carefully negotiated over for months before they happen, right?  These are not freewheeling improv sessions.  Representatives of the campaigns do their absolute best to pare away any possible advantage from the other team, leading to debates like the one we had last night.  Talk as little as possible about as little as possible, try not to look at each other, try not to get too close to the audience, and for the love of God don’t let anyone follow up.

Even the presence of the dastardly Cap’n Brokaw was the result of inter-party negotiations, just like what we get in Congress.  It’s the very spirit of bipartisanship, leaving us with legislation that pleases no one, helps few but will probably not get anyone voted out of office.  Do you know what “stole” our chance to ask talk to our Presidential candidates?  The existence of a national media that promotes ad-length clips over discussion combined with the natural desire of any politician to answer any question but the one that was asked.

Tom Brokaw is as much a debate thief as your little nephew Johnny is a pirate for downloading the new Linkin Park album.  Drink up, me hardies, yo ho!

In my private conversations about Sarah Palin, I’ve described her as a church greeter who seems so happy to see you when you’re new to the church, but gives you the cold shoulder as soon as they decide you’re not going to join their congregation immediately.  If you’ve been at one church your whole life, this comparison may not mean much to you, but if you’ve ever gone somewhere once or twice you may have run across people like this.  I can pick them out of a crowd now, and I do my best to avoid their phony kindness.  I prefer people to dislike me up front.

Sarah Palin, the Vice Presidential candidate who has been unironically praised for both her faith and her meanness, has decided that Barack Obama’s supporters will not be joining the congregation.  So it’s time for this good, Christian lady to take the gloves off and show us what turning the other cheek is all about.

“Okay, so, Florida, you know that you’re going to have to hang on to your hats,” she said at a morning rally in Clearwater, “because from now until Election Day, it may get kind of rough.”

I’ve been waiting to see if race would emerge as more than a sub-textual theme in this election, and hoping that it would.  I know that there is still a strong undercurrent of racism in this country, because the kind of racial issues we’ve had do not go away without being confronted head on.  Also, I know a lot of racist people.  Hell, I’m related to some of them.

The point is, there are still people in this country who will not vote for someone purely because they are a different color than they are.  The question I’ve been asking myself is “How many?”  I don’t know the answer to that.  If Obama were revealed to have magic economic correction powers and proved to us he would win every war single handed while growing high-valued currency on trees, these people would still not vote for him.

These people mask a probably larger group of people, though, who are conflicted on issues of race.  Their parents had strong racial opinions, perhaps, or their own views on race have been challenged by real world experiences.  For them, it’s easiest to let race be a factor when it’s not challenged and they can attribute their behavior to something else.  In an election where race is merely subtext, these people might never question that vague discomfort with seeing a black man nearing the Oval Office.  But if confronted head on, many, I believe, would reexamine why they were voting and make a more honest decision, whatever that decision is.

This is why I am at once horrified and relieved that Sarah Palin is bringing out the crazy for all to see.

Worse, Palin’s routine attacks on the media have begun to spill into ugliness. In Clearwater, arriving reporters were greeted with shouts and taunts by the crowd of about 3,000. Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric’s questions for her “less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media.” At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, “Sit down, boy.”

God’s Barracuda isn’t just turning up the heat on Obama’s character.  She’s giving people permission to let loose with their ugliest, nastiest feelings.  How else do you describe something like this happening at a rally, during her speech:

…Palin, speaking to a sea of “Palin Power” and “Sarahcuda” T-shirts, tried to link Obama to the 1960s Weather Underground. “One of his earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers,” she said. (”Boooo!” said the crowd.) “And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, ‘launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,’ ” she continued. (”Boooo!” the crowd repeated.)

“Kill him!” proposed one man in the audience.

If this behavior doesn’t disturb you, I don’t know what to say.  Let’s give Palin the benefit of the doubt and say she didn’t hear someone propose killing a fellow American in front of her.  Let’s assume she didn’t tell the crowd, “No!” because she didn’t know assassination had just been put on the table.  But this story has been out in the wild for at least a day, and I have yet to see a McCain or Palin spokesperson respond to it in any way.

What does that say to me?  It says they want people in their audience to get the hate boiling a little bit.  I doubt they want actual assassination, but getting a crowd full of people who are afraid of colored folk to fear the prospect of a black man in power certainly gets a block of people out to vote.  Why else would John McCain only raise his eyebrows in silent surprise when an audience member called Obama a terrorist.

So yes, I’m horrified, but as I said, I’m also relieved.  Palin and McCain did not create this nastiness.  They might share it, certainly, but for the most part they’re just stirring it up.  That guy who shouted “Kill him!” did not suddenly get that idea in the presence of Sarah Palin.  He felt that way when he walked in the door, and has probably said worse at family barbecues.

What Palin has done by hopping into bed with these people is - I hope - show the country that there is no kinship between them and the hatefully racist.  You may have grumbled about affirmative action or welfare or what you feel is a racial propensity for drug use, but you’ve never thought “I’d sure rather see a black politician killed before he gets into office.”  Palin’s behavior is appalling - not because of the nasty coming out of her mouth, but because of her non-reaction to murder talk at her rallies - but it’s best if the country looks this right in the face before election day.

Since Obama became a serious contender, I’ve hoped that America would finally be forced to see that racism is not gone and that it is not something to be shrugged off.  If Obama loses, especially after the racial undertones have been elevated to overtones, we may finally be forced to admit that we didn’t vote someone into office purely because we were afraid of someone’s brown skin and odd sounding name.  Maybe then, the next time someone suggests we kill a Senator and presidential candidate, someone next to him will hold him down until the Secret Service can bring him in for questioning.

As for the Christian Pit Bull, Sarah Palin, I wish I could say I was surprised that the candidate running on faith and family values seems the most eager to get nasty in this election.  The What Would Jesus Do? philosophy never survives the crucible of politics, but, in my experience, people like Palin don’t need much prompting to act more like Tomás de Torquemada than Jesus of Nazareth.

Here’s hoping the upcoming nastiness shows people the difference between Sarah Palin and Jesus is much more than lipstick.

The economy was really good under Bush, right?

Right?

And Democrats like Bill Clinton are really bad for the economy, right?

Oh, wait…

This seems to be a popular genre for fear mongers these days.  Write an essay pretending to be a traveler for a future (or describing an encounter with one) that warns of a dire apocalyptic collapse of our world that we could have prevented if we weren’t so damn stupid.

It goes something like this.

Imagine that that future I have made up whole-cloth with minimal research is not fiction in the slightest.  See all the scary demons that live in my made-up future world?  Don’t you think you might have nightmares about them?  Your kids will be miserable or dead.  Socialist Islamofacists will urinate on your grave while inserting foreign objects into the orifices of your granddaughters.  Everyone will wear turbans but nothing else, because our soft, socialist economy will have left us with nothing save our newly adopted Islamist faith.  If only someone in your day had been smart enough to realize all of this!  If only he could have written some pseudo-fiction, we could have all been saved!

The good writers do a decent job of it.  Simmons’ time-travel terror tale was as well constructed as it was overblown.  He’s one of the best horror-fantasists I’ve ever read, and even when he’s delivering a dubious message he’s capable of doing it well.

Glenn Beck is no Dan Simmons.  (He’s not even an Orson Scott Card).  His core point is actually sounder than Simmons’ is: this Wall Street bailout is very likely to hurt us more than it will help.  Unfortunately, he has run out of ways to deliver this message and has fallen back on 60 year old Red Scare tactics and moronic time travel hyperbole to get his point across.  It’s the kind of article I’d expect to see linked on p1k3 as “Asshattery.”

It’s probably not worth breaking the thing down point by point - I mean, it’s signed “Worker 2744A” for God’s sake  - but I should at least give something other than a vague head shake at it.

It didn’t take long before so many of our tax dollars were going toward interest payments that we couldn’t fund even the most basic of government programs without massive tax increases on everyone. People now work most of the year just to pay Uncle Sam (or, as we now call him, “Comrade Sam”).

Hmm, yeah, ok, interest payments for our debt are going to become overwhelming.  Not a bad point, Glenn, not bad at–

–wait, Comrade Sam?! Sigh.

At least he avoided a Fear The Muslims rant, right?

You might want to spend a little less time worrying about carbon and a little more time worrying about Iran. We’re now in a new mini-Ice Age but, believe me, Iran isn’t using their nukes to warm any homes. (PS The International Atomic Energy Agency just revealed to you that Iran appears to be refitting their long-range missiles to carry nuclear payloads. Did you think they were joking or were you just too busy with lipsticks and pigs to notice?)

Oh.  Never mind.

Meanwhile, he uses one of my favorite devices of this genre:

Good call on not worrying about protecting our borders. That works out really well for you in 2019.

Note how the specific date-dropping makes it sound like the author has actual knowledge about the future, and that you should maybe have a few nightmares about what occurrence he’s referring to in 2019.

Here’s my question.  Did he pick the date out of a hat, or did he spend a couple of hours employing fake logic to go along with this fake time travel story?

In closing, remember this golden rule and you should be fine: Your Constitution will never fail you, but your leaders will. Be wary of anyone who tries to convince you that it’s the other way around.

You mean, like George W. Bush?  Who you compared favoribly to Batman in The Dark Knight, in particular to  how he breaks laws to catch evil terrorists?  You mean leaders like that, right?  Because it sounds like you’re saying that even though you don’t like Bush much,  you respect that he’s willing to go outside the bounds of our laws (or, if you will, our Constitution) to fight terrorists.

If you want a fictional view of the future, I advise sticking with actual science fiction that doesn’t cloak itself in essay form to scare you into agreeing.  Your average episode of The Twilight Zone is both scarier and more plausible than this kind of crap, and it didn’t need to dredge up antique Red Fear or remind us of the perils of Islamofacism to make its point.  Hell, WALL-E is smarter than this, and that guy’s last film was about talking fish.

As a side note, Beck might want to rewatch The Dark Knight for subtext.  Just saying.