6/13/11
I’ve already written more on the Anthony Weiner’s self-induced problems than the subject matter merits. See my 6/7/11 post “….’CUZ IF I WERE (A CONGRESSMAN NAMED) WEINER, EVERYONE (MUST) BE IN LOVE WITH ME!” and my 6/9/11 post “UNHAND ME, YOU FIEND!” However, the new pictures that came out this weekend (“Live, from the locker room of the Congressional gym, Anthony Weiner!”) prompted yet, and maybe not my last, post on the Weiner news that just won’t stop coming. Why? Because these pictures, along with those previously sent to comely, though presumably not nubile, young women prompted yet another big, but perhaps not as big as presumed, question, to wit: Does Congressman Weiner really think that young women in their twenties, and, in at least one case, in her teens, find men in their mid-40s physically attractive? To ask the question is to answer it, but Congressman Weiner seems to think, as I said in my 6/7/11 post, that he is the “very epitome of hotness” while most, if not all, women in the age group he was looking to target are doubtless replying with something like “Ewww.” So we can add stupidity to perversion, dishonesty, and narcissism when listing Congressman Weiner’s most salient character traits. When enumerating his physical traits, perhaps poor eyesight is the most notable.
Mr. Weiner’s lofty estimation of his physical attractiveness to women half his age reminds me of a story a friend of mine, who, like yours truly, is in the midst of what can charitably be described as “late middle age,” told me a few weeks ago over coffee. He said that he was at the gym that morning and on the next machine was a twenty something young woman of striking, almost indescribable, physical beauty. Impressed by this breathtaking young woman, my friend asked one of the trainers what machine my friend could possibly use in order to get to the point at which he might attract this young woman’s attention. The trainer promptly referred him to the ATM in the lobby of the gym.
In a similar vein, if Anthony Weiner were trying to impress the young women who aided in his self-amusement, perhaps he should have flaunted the power he holds as a United States congressman rather than his physical characteristics, at least if he were in the habit of doing his trolling during meal time. As Henry Kissinger once said (It is not hard to imagine the substance of the question to which this utterance was the answer.), “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.” Mr. Weiner’s forsaking the use of this ultimate aphrodisiac in favor of his somewhat lacking physical characteristics again points out that we must add dullness to the list of Anthony Weiner’s traits that lead one to wonder why he had achieved such a lofty perch from which he is currently crashing.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Sunday, June 12, 2011
“…TO WAR, TO WAR, THE COUNTRY’S GOING TO WAR!”
6/12/11
Senator Lindsey Graham (R., SC), perhaps the most predictable public official, other than John McCain, who has made a habit of decrying Washington while making his living there, was on Face the Nation today. It seems he and the usual suspects, John McCain and Joe Lieberman, are pushing for military involvement in Syria. Senator Graham, who has never, ever seen a war he has not wanted the U.S. to escalate, says that “if we care about the Syrian people,” we will not rule out military action in Syria, “along the Libyan model.” Apparently, the bipartisan War Party in Washington thinks Libya is a raging success while Mr. Ghadafi (or however he is spelling his name today) remains in power, people are being slaughtered in a war designed to stop the slaughter, and we have given nary a thought to the concept of “If you break it, you buy it” as applied to geopolitics and that is proving costly beyond measure in Iraq and Afghanistan. Further, Senator Graham apparently does not read the papers; in response to criticism from outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates that they are not doing enough in Libya, or anywhere, for that matter, our European allies protest that the Libyan adventure has stretched them to the limit of their military capabilities. If Messrs. Graham, McCain, and Lieberman get their wish and we respond militarily to the plight of the Syrian people, it will be a nearly exclusive U.S. operation, with perhaps some help from Turkey and a token plane or two from one of the Gulf sheikdoms we defend in the name of democracy.
On the same broadcast, Mr. Graham makes the case for broadening the Afghan campaign to Pakistan, saying that he is tired of telling South Carolina families that their sons have been killed in Afghanistan by IEDs manufactured in Pakistan and there is nothing we can do about it. Apparently, Mr. Graham discounts that the something we can do about it is to get out of Afghanistan; getting out of a war is beyond his comprehension. If the War Hawks insist on staying in Afghanistan, perhaps they could explain why we are there. Originally, we went in to avenge the attacks of 9/11 and capture and/or kill the perpetrators. Now we seem to be on some kind of nation building exercise in a country in name only in which our strategic interests are limited, at best and that looks poised to be the graveyard of yet another empire. But I digress.
Even if we care about the Syrian people, and we do, we cannot run a foreign policy based on feelings and compassion. Foreign policy has to be run based on strategic interests. While that sounds cold, such a foreign policy in practice is far more compassionate than policy based on compassion and, in our case, a certainty that we are the only nation capable of dispensing compassion because we are the only country that knows what is good for everybody. Why? Look at the results of our compassion for the Iraqi and Afghan people. How many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died so we could show out concern and care for them? Afghanistan’s numbers are smaller only because the country is less densely populated, and if Mr. Obama and the War Hawks who can only give him any credit when he is doing their jingoistic bidding continue on their Afghan “strategy,” Afghanistan will soon match Iraq in its number of victims of American compassion. A foreign policy based on strategic interests, on the other hand, would have resulted in no (0) Iraqi deaths and perhaps a handful of Afghan deaths as we quickly went in, got the bad guys, and got out.
If Messrs. Graham, Lieberman, and McCain have their way and we intervene in Syria so that they can show their compassion for the people we will be bombing and their defense contractor contributors can get even richer at your expense, we will be involved in five wars if you include the very aggressive covert operation we are conducting Yemen in support of a brutal regime that behaves very much like the Assad regime in Syria we will be fighting in the name of humanitarianism. If the War Hawks’ Pakistani dreams are realized, that will be six wars. This during a time when the country is broke (and Messrs. McCain and Graham never cease to remind us until talk turns to the military) and the American people are sick and tired of seeing their kids killed to satisfy the imperial ambitions of the xenophobes who measure their patriotism by the amount of blood and treasure they are willing to spend to foster further hatred of America overseas.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R., SC), perhaps the most predictable public official, other than John McCain, who has made a habit of decrying Washington while making his living there, was on Face the Nation today. It seems he and the usual suspects, John McCain and Joe Lieberman, are pushing for military involvement in Syria. Senator Graham, who has never, ever seen a war he has not wanted the U.S. to escalate, says that “if we care about the Syrian people,” we will not rule out military action in Syria, “along the Libyan model.” Apparently, the bipartisan War Party in Washington thinks Libya is a raging success while Mr. Ghadafi (or however he is spelling his name today) remains in power, people are being slaughtered in a war designed to stop the slaughter, and we have given nary a thought to the concept of “If you break it, you buy it” as applied to geopolitics and that is proving costly beyond measure in Iraq and Afghanistan. Further, Senator Graham apparently does not read the papers; in response to criticism from outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates that they are not doing enough in Libya, or anywhere, for that matter, our European allies protest that the Libyan adventure has stretched them to the limit of their military capabilities. If Messrs. Graham, McCain, and Lieberman get their wish and we respond militarily to the plight of the Syrian people, it will be a nearly exclusive U.S. operation, with perhaps some help from Turkey and a token plane or two from one of the Gulf sheikdoms we defend in the name of democracy.
On the same broadcast, Mr. Graham makes the case for broadening the Afghan campaign to Pakistan, saying that he is tired of telling South Carolina families that their sons have been killed in Afghanistan by IEDs manufactured in Pakistan and there is nothing we can do about it. Apparently, Mr. Graham discounts that the something we can do about it is to get out of Afghanistan; getting out of a war is beyond his comprehension. If the War Hawks insist on staying in Afghanistan, perhaps they could explain why we are there. Originally, we went in to avenge the attacks of 9/11 and capture and/or kill the perpetrators. Now we seem to be on some kind of nation building exercise in a country in name only in which our strategic interests are limited, at best and that looks poised to be the graveyard of yet another empire. But I digress.
Even if we care about the Syrian people, and we do, we cannot run a foreign policy based on feelings and compassion. Foreign policy has to be run based on strategic interests. While that sounds cold, such a foreign policy in practice is far more compassionate than policy based on compassion and, in our case, a certainty that we are the only nation capable of dispensing compassion because we are the only country that knows what is good for everybody. Why? Look at the results of our compassion for the Iraqi and Afghan people. How many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died so we could show out concern and care for them? Afghanistan’s numbers are smaller only because the country is less densely populated, and if Mr. Obama and the War Hawks who can only give him any credit when he is doing their jingoistic bidding continue on their Afghan “strategy,” Afghanistan will soon match Iraq in its number of victims of American compassion. A foreign policy based on strategic interests, on the other hand, would have resulted in no (0) Iraqi deaths and perhaps a handful of Afghan deaths as we quickly went in, got the bad guys, and got out.
If Messrs. Graham, Lieberman, and McCain have their way and we intervene in Syria so that they can show their compassion for the people we will be bombing and their defense contractor contributors can get even richer at your expense, we will be involved in five wars if you include the very aggressive covert operation we are conducting Yemen in support of a brutal regime that behaves very much like the Assad regime in Syria we will be fighting in the name of humanitarianism. If the War Hawks’ Pakistani dreams are realized, that will be six wars. This during a time when the country is broke (and Messrs. McCain and Graham never cease to remind us until talk turns to the military) and the American people are sick and tired of seeing their kids killed to satisfy the imperial ambitions of the xenophobes who measure their patriotism by the amount of blood and treasure they are willing to spend to foster further hatred of America overseas.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
“UNHAND ME, YOU FIEND!”
6/9/11
In a further expansion of the tight spot Representative Anthony Weiner put himself, or would like to put himself, in (See my 6/7/11 post, “….’CUZ IF I WERE (A CONGRESSMAN NAMED) WEINER, EVERYONE (MUST) BE IN LOVE WITH ME!”), one of his spokeswomen (Emphasis mine) delivered a statement that included the following: (Wall Street Journal, 6/9/11, page A4)
“To reiterate, (Congressman Weiner) has never met any of these women or had physical contact with them.”
So this is the married Congressman Weiner’s defense, to wit, he has never met any of the women with whom he fantasized about engaging in perhaps the most intimate of human experiences. Yes, he, er, entertains himself by discussing in great detail with women other than his wife the things he would like to do to them (or, in at least one instance, what he would like her to do to him), but it’s not so bad because, after all, these women are strangers and he is a do-it-yourself kind of guy.
This is America and Congressman Weiner and other consenting adults (Whether some of his handy helpmates were indeed consenting has now become an issue, but let’s leave that one alone for now.) have, or ought to have, the right to do most whatever they please as long as they don’t do damage to others. But, as voters, we also have the right to consider Congressman Weiner’s idea of relatively harmless fun sufficiently strange that we don’t want someone with such a perverted set of values representing us.
In a further expansion of the tight spot Representative Anthony Weiner put himself, or would like to put himself, in (See my 6/7/11 post, “….’CUZ IF I WERE (A CONGRESSMAN NAMED) WEINER, EVERYONE (MUST) BE IN LOVE WITH ME!”), one of his spokeswomen (Emphasis mine) delivered a statement that included the following: (Wall Street Journal, 6/9/11, page A4)
“To reiterate, (Congressman Weiner) has never met any of these women or had physical contact with them.”
So this is the married Congressman Weiner’s defense, to wit, he has never met any of the women with whom he fantasized about engaging in perhaps the most intimate of human experiences. Yes, he, er, entertains himself by discussing in great detail with women other than his wife the things he would like to do to them (or, in at least one instance, what he would like her to do to him), but it’s not so bad because, after all, these women are strangers and he is a do-it-yourself kind of guy.
This is America and Congressman Weiner and other consenting adults (Whether some of his handy helpmates were indeed consenting has now become an issue, but let’s leave that one alone for now.) have, or ought to have, the right to do most whatever they please as long as they don’t do damage to others. But, as voters, we also have the right to consider Congressman Weiner’s idea of relatively harmless fun sufficiently strange that we don’t want someone with such a perverted set of values representing us.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
YOURS TRULY ON WIMS TONIGHT!
6/8/11
I will be appearing on Brian Brophy’s radio show on WIMS AM 1420 (Michigan City, IN) tonight (Wednesday, 6/8/11) at about 8:15, CDT. Brian and I will be discussing, among other things, the expansion of gambling in Illinois, which is a very hot topic in Indiana, and the Blagojevich trial.
WIMS broadcasts stream live at
http://www.wimsradio.com/
It should be a fun half hour or so; I hope you can join us.
Thanks.
I will be appearing on Brian Brophy’s radio show on WIMS AM 1420 (Michigan City, IN) tonight (Wednesday, 6/8/11) at about 8:15, CDT. Brian and I will be discussing, among other things, the expansion of gambling in Illinois, which is a very hot topic in Indiana, and the Blagojevich trial.
WIMS broadcasts stream live at
http://www.wimsradio.com/
It should be a fun half hour or so; I hope you can join us.
Thanks.
A TRAGEDY WORTHY OF AESCHYLUS
6/8/11
Perhaps the biggest financial story of the last few weeks has been the maneuverings among the European Central Bank (“ECB”), the IMF, various European economic powers, and agencies created by those powers to avoid a default by Greece. Greece received about $160 billion in bailout money in May, 2010 but hasn’t been able access the private markets, as had been hoped (It does spring eternal, you know.) when the bailout was arranged, so a chunk of Greek debt coming due over the next few months can’t be refinanced without help from somewhere.
Why just not let Greece default, as Argentina did in 1992, and be done with it? If one believes in the free market’s disciplinary and recuperative powers, a default makes sense. However, eurocrats and the bankers they serve are afraid that a default by one eurozone country will affect the creditworthiness of other, perhaps all, eurozone countries, leading to what President Obama, not at all shy about sharing his manifest financial expertise with the likes of Angela Merkel, so financially doltish that she runs a country that is fiscally sound, called the “disastrous” results of an “uncontrolled spiral and (sic) default in Europe.”
The real reasons that the eurocrats feel they must once again hit up their taxpayers to allow the Greeks to live well beyond their means are two. First, if Greece defaults, the ECB will no longer accept Greek debt as collateral for loans. This would cause problems for European banks who have lent heavily to Greece knowing that they can use the Greek bonds as collateral for loans from the ECB and, doubtless, counting on the time tested strategy of privatizing gains and socializing losses. These banks would have to refinance such loans from the ECB elsewhere, and, wherever “elsewhere” is, it wouldn’t take defaulted Greek debt as collateral. This ECB problem, however, is far from insurmountable. In the event of a Greek default, the ECB could simply change what have become, over the last few years, its very flexible rules.
The biggest reasons that avoiding a Greek default (Language gets tricky here.) seems so imperative to the eurocrats and the banks they serve is because a “credit event,” which is not necessarily the same as a default, would trigger the credit default swaps (“CDS”s) written by an array of financial players, including, in large part, European banks. If whatever solution is concocted to bail out Greece short of more lending from European taxpayers under the fig leaf of the European Financial Stability Facility (“EFSF”), be it a “voluntary” exchange of maturing debt for debts with similar terms (Such an exchange would definitely be considered a default by the rating agencies; the agencies have already stated that an exchange of maturing debt for debt with terms more generous to the debtor than those available in the secondary market, in which Greek debt is trading, when it does, with yields in the 15% to 20% range, would constitute a default. But a default is not necessarily a “credit event” for CDS purposes.) or a technical payment at maturity matched instantaneously with an “encouraged” purchase of new debt, is considered a “credit event,” buyers of CDS could collect from those who wrote the CDS contracts. The supposition seems to be that the writers of the CDS contracts are largely European banks; thus, a Greek “credit event” could trigger a financial “crisis” in Europe and in our interconnected financial world. So the general consensus among the eurocrats seems to be that the possibility of a “credit event” must be avoided at all costs, and thus the only solution is for European (EFSF) and world (IMF) taxpayers to save Greece and its creditors by reaching further into their pockets.
But think about this for a minute. Eurocrats, along with the IMF, are striving mightily to avoid a Greek “credit event” in order to absolve supposedly sophisticated financial actors of the responsibility to make good on contracts they voluntarily entered into. If Greece does not experience a credit event, the writers of the CDS contract make money, in some cases, considerable money. The other side of that coin, in a free market, is that if Greece does default, the writers of those contracts lose money, in most cases, considerable money. Isn’t that the way a market is supposed to work? But, the way the eurocrats and the IMF see it, the writers of those contracts ought to be able to profit from those contracts if Greece is saved but should be able to pass their potential losses onto other parties, maybe onto Greece’s lenders, often the people on the other side of the CDS trade, who will be forced to “voluntarily” extend their debt but not collect on the CDS contracts they may have purchased, but more likely onto European taxpayers.
So again, what we are seeing is an example of “too big to fail,” socialization of losses and privatization of profits, and a perversion of capitalism, all in the interest, supposedly, of maintaining financial stability. This system stinks. Taxpayers in Germany, Finland, and other fiscally responsible countries see this. The politicians in such nations better open their eyes or there is bound to be trouble in Europe and beyond; restive populations are not a prescription for “stability.”
Perhaps the biggest financial story of the last few weeks has been the maneuverings among the European Central Bank (“ECB”), the IMF, various European economic powers, and agencies created by those powers to avoid a default by Greece. Greece received about $160 billion in bailout money in May, 2010 but hasn’t been able access the private markets, as had been hoped (It does spring eternal, you know.) when the bailout was arranged, so a chunk of Greek debt coming due over the next few months can’t be refinanced without help from somewhere.
Why just not let Greece default, as Argentina did in 1992, and be done with it? If one believes in the free market’s disciplinary and recuperative powers, a default makes sense. However, eurocrats and the bankers they serve are afraid that a default by one eurozone country will affect the creditworthiness of other, perhaps all, eurozone countries, leading to what President Obama, not at all shy about sharing his manifest financial expertise with the likes of Angela Merkel, so financially doltish that she runs a country that is fiscally sound, called the “disastrous” results of an “uncontrolled spiral and (sic) default in Europe.”
The real reasons that the eurocrats feel they must once again hit up their taxpayers to allow the Greeks to live well beyond their means are two. First, if Greece defaults, the ECB will no longer accept Greek debt as collateral for loans. This would cause problems for European banks who have lent heavily to Greece knowing that they can use the Greek bonds as collateral for loans from the ECB and, doubtless, counting on the time tested strategy of privatizing gains and socializing losses. These banks would have to refinance such loans from the ECB elsewhere, and, wherever “elsewhere” is, it wouldn’t take defaulted Greek debt as collateral. This ECB problem, however, is far from insurmountable. In the event of a Greek default, the ECB could simply change what have become, over the last few years, its very flexible rules.
The biggest reasons that avoiding a Greek default (Language gets tricky here.) seems so imperative to the eurocrats and the banks they serve is because a “credit event,” which is not necessarily the same as a default, would trigger the credit default swaps (“CDS”s) written by an array of financial players, including, in large part, European banks. If whatever solution is concocted to bail out Greece short of more lending from European taxpayers under the fig leaf of the European Financial Stability Facility (“EFSF”), be it a “voluntary” exchange of maturing debt for debts with similar terms (Such an exchange would definitely be considered a default by the rating agencies; the agencies have already stated that an exchange of maturing debt for debt with terms more generous to the debtor than those available in the secondary market, in which Greek debt is trading, when it does, with yields in the 15% to 20% range, would constitute a default. But a default is not necessarily a “credit event” for CDS purposes.) or a technical payment at maturity matched instantaneously with an “encouraged” purchase of new debt, is considered a “credit event,” buyers of CDS could collect from those who wrote the CDS contracts. The supposition seems to be that the writers of the CDS contracts are largely European banks; thus, a Greek “credit event” could trigger a financial “crisis” in Europe and in our interconnected financial world. So the general consensus among the eurocrats seems to be that the possibility of a “credit event” must be avoided at all costs, and thus the only solution is for European (EFSF) and world (IMF) taxpayers to save Greece and its creditors by reaching further into their pockets.
But think about this for a minute. Eurocrats, along with the IMF, are striving mightily to avoid a Greek “credit event” in order to absolve supposedly sophisticated financial actors of the responsibility to make good on contracts they voluntarily entered into. If Greece does not experience a credit event, the writers of the CDS contract make money, in some cases, considerable money. The other side of that coin, in a free market, is that if Greece does default, the writers of those contracts lose money, in most cases, considerable money. Isn’t that the way a market is supposed to work? But, the way the eurocrats and the IMF see it, the writers of those contracts ought to be able to profit from those contracts if Greece is saved but should be able to pass their potential losses onto other parties, maybe onto Greece’s lenders, often the people on the other side of the CDS trade, who will be forced to “voluntarily” extend their debt but not collect on the CDS contracts they may have purchased, but more likely onto European taxpayers.
So again, what we are seeing is an example of “too big to fail,” socialization of losses and privatization of profits, and a perversion of capitalism, all in the interest, supposedly, of maintaining financial stability. This system stinks. Taxpayers in Germany, Finland, and other fiscally responsible countries see this. The politicians in such nations better open their eyes or there is bound to be trouble in Europe and beyond; restive populations are not a prescription for “stability.”
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
“….’CUZ IF I WERE (A CONGRESSMAN NAMED) WEINER, EVERYONE (MUST) BE IN LOVE WITH ME!”
6/7/11
Anthony Weiner’s sticky situation is the perfect story for modern news; it’s salacious, comically tragic, and provides further evidence, for the legions of us who fervently believe this to be the case, that our government is in the hands of a group of strange, aberrant people whose concerns, ideas, and values could not be more divergent from our own.
Opinion on Mr. Weiner’s gripping situation spans a wide, but not wide enough, range. His supporters spout such inanities is “What he does on his own time and in the confines of his own home is his business, so I continue to support him.” Those who oppose him decry Mr. Weiner’s sleight of hand (outright lying, really) to the press, the public, and his colleagues in public office. Some might go so far as to denounce Mr. Weiner’s dishonesty to his new wife; if he can lie to her, he can surely lie to us, goes the logic.
While lying is one of Mr. Weiner’s faults that have been exposed by this brouhaha, it is not the only peccadillo that ought to outrage the public. So far, though, no one has gone so far as to say what I am going to write now: Mr. Weiner’s lying was despicable, but it is standard operating procedure for just about all politicians. Politicians lie because, for them, to do so comes at least as naturally as telling the truth. They rationalize their lying, sometimes calling it, in the words of our immortal former governor in the Land of Lincoln, a “misdirection play” or some such cutesy-pie periphrasis for dishonesty. The lying was not Mr. Weiner’s only, or even, perhaps, most serious transgression. Simply put, it is perverted, immoral, depraved, and sick, especially, but not only, for a married man, to send illicit and explicit (mild words, to be sure) messages to women he barely knew, at least one of whom was young enough to be his daughter and, for all he knew, some of whom could have been minors. The image of a leering, middle aged man biding away his time at his blackberry texting pictures of the man he considers the very epitome of hotness (himself) to much younger woman and doing who knows what while doing so evokes memories of the Jethro Tull classic “Aqualung.” Once upon a time, we considered such behavior sick, perverted, and creepy. The only reason that Mr. Weiner had to lie, and the only reason that his actions were, as he called them, “dumb” was that all of us, even Mr. Weiner, know that he’s a pervert. What is strange is that, in this enlightened new world, everyone is afraid to, in this case, call a spade a spade. Instead, we castigate Mr. Weiner for dishonesty, while, fearing censure by the enforcers of modern morals, refrain from criticizing the handiwork that necessitated, in Mr. Weiner’s mind, the dishonesty we so decry.
Of course, it is Mr. Weiner’s right to occupy himself with his fantasies on his own time (How does such a busy Congressperson have time for such diversions? That is grist for another mill, I suppose.) and on his own computer and blackberry. Thank God he wasn’t using other people’s equipment, electronic or otherwise, for such activity! But I digress. While many of us would consider such behavior immoral (sick, really), it isn’t, and shouldn’t be, illegal, unless, of course, the objects of Mr. Weiner’s dexterity were minors. However, just as Mr. Weiner has the right to fritter away his time, and his other personal resources, imagining performing the most intimate of human acts with complete strangers, the people have the right not to be represented by those who dismiss what their constituents consider morally repugnant behavior as a mere harmless diversion.
I suppose this is the point at which modern morality dictates that I add “I’m no prude, but…” However, in this new, promising, modern age when we can criticize a man for dishonesty but dare not criticize a married man for entertaining himself by sexting with complete strangers half his age, I suppose that, as a guy who abhors both dishonesty and the type of behavior Mr. Weiner deemed so harmless, I completely qualify as a prude.
Anthony Weiner’s sticky situation is the perfect story for modern news; it’s salacious, comically tragic, and provides further evidence, for the legions of us who fervently believe this to be the case, that our government is in the hands of a group of strange, aberrant people whose concerns, ideas, and values could not be more divergent from our own.
Opinion on Mr. Weiner’s gripping situation spans a wide, but not wide enough, range. His supporters spout such inanities is “What he does on his own time and in the confines of his own home is his business, so I continue to support him.” Those who oppose him decry Mr. Weiner’s sleight of hand (outright lying, really) to the press, the public, and his colleagues in public office. Some might go so far as to denounce Mr. Weiner’s dishonesty to his new wife; if he can lie to her, he can surely lie to us, goes the logic.
While lying is one of Mr. Weiner’s faults that have been exposed by this brouhaha, it is not the only peccadillo that ought to outrage the public. So far, though, no one has gone so far as to say what I am going to write now: Mr. Weiner’s lying was despicable, but it is standard operating procedure for just about all politicians. Politicians lie because, for them, to do so comes at least as naturally as telling the truth. They rationalize their lying, sometimes calling it, in the words of our immortal former governor in the Land of Lincoln, a “misdirection play” or some such cutesy-pie periphrasis for dishonesty. The lying was not Mr. Weiner’s only, or even, perhaps, most serious transgression. Simply put, it is perverted, immoral, depraved, and sick, especially, but not only, for a married man, to send illicit and explicit (mild words, to be sure) messages to women he barely knew, at least one of whom was young enough to be his daughter and, for all he knew, some of whom could have been minors. The image of a leering, middle aged man biding away his time at his blackberry texting pictures of the man he considers the very epitome of hotness (himself) to much younger woman and doing who knows what while doing so evokes memories of the Jethro Tull classic “Aqualung.” Once upon a time, we considered such behavior sick, perverted, and creepy. The only reason that Mr. Weiner had to lie, and the only reason that his actions were, as he called them, “dumb” was that all of us, even Mr. Weiner, know that he’s a pervert. What is strange is that, in this enlightened new world, everyone is afraid to, in this case, call a spade a spade. Instead, we castigate Mr. Weiner for dishonesty, while, fearing censure by the enforcers of modern morals, refrain from criticizing the handiwork that necessitated, in Mr. Weiner’s mind, the dishonesty we so decry.
Of course, it is Mr. Weiner’s right to occupy himself with his fantasies on his own time (How does such a busy Congressperson have time for such diversions? That is grist for another mill, I suppose.) and on his own computer and blackberry. Thank God he wasn’t using other people’s equipment, electronic or otherwise, for such activity! But I digress. While many of us would consider such behavior immoral (sick, really), it isn’t, and shouldn’t be, illegal, unless, of course, the objects of Mr. Weiner’s dexterity were minors. However, just as Mr. Weiner has the right to fritter away his time, and his other personal resources, imagining performing the most intimate of human acts with complete strangers, the people have the right not to be represented by those who dismiss what their constituents consider morally repugnant behavior as a mere harmless diversion.
I suppose this is the point at which modern morality dictates that I add “I’m no prude, but…” However, in this new, promising, modern age when we can criticize a man for dishonesty but dare not criticize a married man for entertaining himself by sexting with complete strangers half his age, I suppose that, as a guy who abhors both dishonesty and the type of behavior Mr. Weiner deemed so harmless, I completely qualify as a prude.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
“…A LADY DOESN’T WANDER ALL OVER THE ROOM AND BLOW ON SOME OTHER GUY’S DICE…”
6/1/11
One of the big local stories today is the gambling bills’ being passed out of the Senate and hence being headed to Governor Pat Quinn (no relation) for his signature or veto. Given that Mr. Quinn’s convictions are as ephemeral as a Cubs’ winning streak, his protestations that the gambling bill is “top heavy” mean little; hence, I would bet on the former. So, if all goes as expected, we will have a big new casino in Chicago, two new casinos in the suburbs, casinos in Rockford and Danville, slot machines at the airports and at local race tracks (See my very insightful 3/1/11 post, “HERE THEY COME SPINNING OUT OF THE TURN…” on slot machines at race tracks.), and, apparently, a slot at the trough for just about every special interest group with the ability to whine and write a campaign check, not necessarily simultaneously.
I would feel more strongly about this largest expansion of gambling in the state that gave us Tony Accardo and nurtured young Al Capone if it all didn’t seem so inevitable, but I still have objections to the plan based primarily on the weakness of the arguments in favor of this gargantuan expansion of gambling, er, sorry, gaming.
First, why is gambling so evil and reprehensible if done in by private entrepreneurs (yes, including the aforementioned Messrs. Accardo and Capone who, under today’s legal structure, would be legitimate businessmen rather than bloodthirsty gangsters) but suddenly eupeptic and beneficial if it gets the imprimatur of the government (or, in the case of the upcoming paean to tackiness that soon will be housed in Chicago, ownership by the government) and the politicians get a hefty chunk of the proceeds? Either gambling is a social evil or it is not; that the government has the biggest piece of the action should have no impact on its desirability from a moral/ethical/criminological standpoint.
Second, the argument that gambling will help us get out of the fiscal morass our public servants have spent us into is laughable to the point of asphyxiation. Why? Giving politicians more money to spend does not solve fiscal problems; it causes fiscal problems. If you give a pol a dollar, s/he will spend two. Inevitably, politicians will make spending commitments, on such anodyne projects as “infrastructure,” “investing in human capital,” and, of course, “for our children,” based on hockey stick projections for casino revenues that will fail to materialize. The commitments, given their “urgency,” (the power of the interest groups benefiting from them, really) will not go away. The taxpayers will be stuck covering the shortfall.
But, some might object, our public servants have earmarked the $1.5 billion to be generated from licensing fees for paying down existing debts. But the $500 million in annual taxes, profit splits, etc. to be generated is not similarly earmarked; it can be spent anyway our public servants deem meritorious. And the earmark of the $1.5 billion is itself a feint. Money is a fungible good; remember how the lottery money was supposed to go for education? It did. But the money that would have been spent on education in the absence of the lottery was spent elsewhere when lottery money went to “our children.” The same thing will happen in this instance. Note that, according to this morning’s (Wednesday, June 1, page 14) Chicago Tribune
It’s (the $1.5 billion in upfront licensing fees) money earmarked to help pay some of the state’s overdue bills, and the cash would free up other dollars for social programs. (Emphasis mine)
So money that would have been used to pay bills can now be blown on social engineering programs that somehow benefit those doing the engineering more than those on whom it is performed. Great deal.
If gambling were a fiscal panacea, New Jersey would be the portrait of fiscal health. It isn’t such a financial Valhalla because the pols in Jersey spend all the money generated by the Atlantic City casinos…and then some. For that matter, if gambling is such a fiscal shot in the arm, why is the state of Illinois in such bad financial shape? Gambling has been quite widespread in this state for well over twenty years; when it was introduced, its proponents touted the salubrious effect it would have on the state’s fiscal health. Some might cite Nevada, which, until the housing crisis body-slammed it, was in pretty good fiscal health. But that happy state of affairs was not the result of a gusher of casino revenue. Nevada’s fiscal house was in order, and its taxes relatively low, because Nevada pols, like their brethren in that part of our country, dared not outrage their naturally fiscally conservative constituents. Gambling per se has little impact on fiscal health; rather, it is the propensity of the pols to be parsimonious that affects a state’s (or any level of government’s) finances. Gambling isn’t going to change the spendthrift habits of the Springfield crowd. Notice that, in the same session in which this gambling panacea was concocted, the legislature put off pension reform for another day.
Third, the casinos are supposed to foster “economic development.” Have you driven through downtown Aurora or Joliet lately? How about taking a walk a few blocks inland form the casinos in Atlantic City? How’s Detroit looking lately? Again, it isn’t gambling that has a salubrious effect on economic development; it is many things, including the willingness of the political leadership to foster a business friendly environment, and by that I don’t mean handing out special dispensations to the politically favored from otherwise onerous taxes and regulations. (See my 5/18/11 piece “…AND IF YOU EVER LEAVE ME I WILL LOSE MY MIND…”) Just as gambling isn’t going to suddenly change the typical Illinois pol’s lascivious designs on the fruits of your labor, it isn’t going to change his or her outright contempt for those who hire and those who work. Note that in the same session that gave us this gambling expansion, we got a workers’ compensation “reform” package that makes a fig leaf look like a burka.
If legalizing casino gambling could eliminate, or even mitigate, its societal side effects and if pairing those casinos with slot machines in airports and race tracks would solve, or even help, our fiscal problems and reinvigorate our economy, I, like just about anyone, would be in favor of the bill that is awaiting the signature of Governor Quinn (no relation). But further expansion of legalized gambling has been neither the fiscal nor economic panacea its proponents would have us believe, and, even when legal, gambling still has all the nasty societal downsides that the pols found so reprehensible when they were not, at least officially, getting a piece of the action. So who benefits, other than the pols and those who write them checks, rather than, as in the old days, hand them envelopes stuffed with cash?
One of the big local stories today is the gambling bills’ being passed out of the Senate and hence being headed to Governor Pat Quinn (no relation) for his signature or veto. Given that Mr. Quinn’s convictions are as ephemeral as a Cubs’ winning streak, his protestations that the gambling bill is “top heavy” mean little; hence, I would bet on the former. So, if all goes as expected, we will have a big new casino in Chicago, two new casinos in the suburbs, casinos in Rockford and Danville, slot machines at the airports and at local race tracks (See my very insightful 3/1/11 post, “HERE THEY COME SPINNING OUT OF THE TURN…” on slot machines at race tracks.), and, apparently, a slot at the trough for just about every special interest group with the ability to whine and write a campaign check, not necessarily simultaneously.
I would feel more strongly about this largest expansion of gambling in the state that gave us Tony Accardo and nurtured young Al Capone if it all didn’t seem so inevitable, but I still have objections to the plan based primarily on the weakness of the arguments in favor of this gargantuan expansion of gambling, er, sorry, gaming.
First, why is gambling so evil and reprehensible if done in by private entrepreneurs (yes, including the aforementioned Messrs. Accardo and Capone who, under today’s legal structure, would be legitimate businessmen rather than bloodthirsty gangsters) but suddenly eupeptic and beneficial if it gets the imprimatur of the government (or, in the case of the upcoming paean to tackiness that soon will be housed in Chicago, ownership by the government) and the politicians get a hefty chunk of the proceeds? Either gambling is a social evil or it is not; that the government has the biggest piece of the action should have no impact on its desirability from a moral/ethical/criminological standpoint.
Second, the argument that gambling will help us get out of the fiscal morass our public servants have spent us into is laughable to the point of asphyxiation. Why? Giving politicians more money to spend does not solve fiscal problems; it causes fiscal problems. If you give a pol a dollar, s/he will spend two. Inevitably, politicians will make spending commitments, on such anodyne projects as “infrastructure,” “investing in human capital,” and, of course, “for our children,” based on hockey stick projections for casino revenues that will fail to materialize. The commitments, given their “urgency,” (the power of the interest groups benefiting from them, really) will not go away. The taxpayers will be stuck covering the shortfall.
But, some might object, our public servants have earmarked the $1.5 billion to be generated from licensing fees for paying down existing debts. But the $500 million in annual taxes, profit splits, etc. to be generated is not similarly earmarked; it can be spent anyway our public servants deem meritorious. And the earmark of the $1.5 billion is itself a feint. Money is a fungible good; remember how the lottery money was supposed to go for education? It did. But the money that would have been spent on education in the absence of the lottery was spent elsewhere when lottery money went to “our children.” The same thing will happen in this instance. Note that, according to this morning’s (Wednesday, June 1, page 14) Chicago Tribune
It’s (the $1.5 billion in upfront licensing fees) money earmarked to help pay some of the state’s overdue bills, and the cash would free up other dollars for social programs. (Emphasis mine)
So money that would have been used to pay bills can now be blown on social engineering programs that somehow benefit those doing the engineering more than those on whom it is performed. Great deal.
If gambling were a fiscal panacea, New Jersey would be the portrait of fiscal health. It isn’t such a financial Valhalla because the pols in Jersey spend all the money generated by the Atlantic City casinos…and then some. For that matter, if gambling is such a fiscal shot in the arm, why is the state of Illinois in such bad financial shape? Gambling has been quite widespread in this state for well over twenty years; when it was introduced, its proponents touted the salubrious effect it would have on the state’s fiscal health. Some might cite Nevada, which, until the housing crisis body-slammed it, was in pretty good fiscal health. But that happy state of affairs was not the result of a gusher of casino revenue. Nevada’s fiscal house was in order, and its taxes relatively low, because Nevada pols, like their brethren in that part of our country, dared not outrage their naturally fiscally conservative constituents. Gambling per se has little impact on fiscal health; rather, it is the propensity of the pols to be parsimonious that affects a state’s (or any level of government’s) finances. Gambling isn’t going to change the spendthrift habits of the Springfield crowd. Notice that, in the same session in which this gambling panacea was concocted, the legislature put off pension reform for another day.
Third, the casinos are supposed to foster “economic development.” Have you driven through downtown Aurora or Joliet lately? How about taking a walk a few blocks inland form the casinos in Atlantic City? How’s Detroit looking lately? Again, it isn’t gambling that has a salubrious effect on economic development; it is many things, including the willingness of the political leadership to foster a business friendly environment, and by that I don’t mean handing out special dispensations to the politically favored from otherwise onerous taxes and regulations. (See my 5/18/11 piece “…AND IF YOU EVER LEAVE ME I WILL LOSE MY MIND…”) Just as gambling isn’t going to suddenly change the typical Illinois pol’s lascivious designs on the fruits of your labor, it isn’t going to change his or her outright contempt for those who hire and those who work. Note that in the same session that gave us this gambling expansion, we got a workers’ compensation “reform” package that makes a fig leaf look like a burka.
If legalizing casino gambling could eliminate, or even mitigate, its societal side effects and if pairing those casinos with slot machines in airports and race tracks would solve, or even help, our fiscal problems and reinvigorate our economy, I, like just about anyone, would be in favor of the bill that is awaiting the signature of Governor Quinn (no relation). But further expansion of legalized gambling has been neither the fiscal nor economic panacea its proponents would have us believe, and, even when legal, gambling still has all the nasty societal downsides that the pols found so reprehensible when they were not, at least officially, getting a piece of the action. So who benefits, other than the pols and those who write them checks, rather than, as in the old days, hand them envelopes stuffed with cash?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
