Somewhere in a cave...

.... in the mountains of Afghanistan there's a tall, bearded man smiling at the destruction he has wrought.

Watching MSNBC yesterday morning, sick as dog from a head cold and stomach virus, I listened as Henry Paulson, Ben Bernanke, Christopher Cox, and Jim Lockhart squirmed to explain to the Senate Banking Committee why the credit markets need a $700 billion dollar blank check, courtesy of the American taxpayer. I could not help but imagine the bogey-man of our worst nightmares point at his huge flat-screen television and laugh to his cohorts, "Dude, look what we did!"

I know I'm being a bit too simplistic about the Bin Laden connection. What's happening now to our financial markets has it roots in events and circumstances that go back much further than the moment America became aware of Osama Bin Laden. As I was researching information for this post, I came across this article that appeared in The Washington Post back in June:

Anatomy of a Meltdown: The Credit Crisis

Do you think Messers. P., B., C., and L. read the story? How about Bin Laden?

I can't help but wonder: Is he smiling? I'll bet a king's ransom he is. As our country hemorrhages money out every orifice like some poor soul suffering from E-bola, he is smiling because he probably pushed the first domino that set us on this ruinous path.

The cost of fighting terrorism now stands at $581 billion and counting:

###
Iraq War Cost


But that doesn't count. That's the cost of taking the fight over there, so that Americans can be safe here.

Ha! Safe. I feel it. Don't you?

In meantime, while the country's attention was transfixed on the war, the Bush Administration purposely turned a blind eye, as men like Paulson, who was the head of Goldman Sachs before his government gig, gutted the banking industry.

And now they want us to pay for their fuck up.

Listen to Paulsen, Bernake, Cox, and Lockhart as the beg.... BEG!... the Senate Banking Committee for the $700 million dollars.




They look like a bunch of junkies begging a dealer for another fix. Even after Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) suggested that the money be paid off in installments, they we're adamant in stating that they needed the money now, much in the same way, that Bush was adamant about need for cash to fight the war.

Let's do the math folks:

$581 (Iraq war cost)
+
$1,100 (A.I.G., Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Bear Stearns)
+
$700 (All the rest)

= 2,381*

* - figures in billions

That's alot of cheddar for a fix.

Now that the shaft has been inserted into our collective asses with the war, the Bush Administration now wants to give it a nice shove for good measure with this bailout.

What angers me about our present predicaments is the fact that the warning signs were there.

The warnings leading up to 9/11/01 were obvious. Bin Laden had been trying to goad us into a fight for the longest time, blowing up embassies and ramming a bomb-laden boat into the USS Cole. You can blame President Clinton all you want for his administration's tepid reaction to those events, but I quite admire his reserve. Why commit military resources to what is essentially a job for Interpol and the FBI? As we know now, it would have cost us billions to use the military to catch him, and with no guarantee of success. Instead Clinton chose to focus on the economy, on building relationships with foreign nations, and making government run more efficiently. Is it any wonder we had a budget surplus on January 20, 2001?

Listen to Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) take the motley crew of financial gurus to task over the warning signs of this financial crisis:



But it's too late now, I'm afraid. As Congress figures out what to do about Wall Street, people are losing jobs and homes left and right; our infrastructure is crumbling as we speak, and our military is stretched to the point of breaking.

I hate to say this folks, but the wolves are circling the carcass and shooting them from a helicopter won't help.

Russian navy ships head to Venezuela

Our once great nation has fallen to its knees and is holding the ropes taking an eight count.

And somewhere, in a cave in the mountains of Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden is smiling.

You've Got Some Balls!

Out here on Long Island, whenever you want to express outrage over someone's hubris, one would likely say, "You've got some balls!" and then continue on explaining their point. There are certainly variations of this expression that will play much better in Peoria -- "you've got some nerve" immediately comes to mind -- but they don't quite deliver the same blast of indignity.

This is the expression that immediately came to my mind after reading about a confrontation that Karl Rove had with a high school student at a New England prep school over gay marriage .

The brief blurb from Huffpo can be seen here.

The high schooler asked a very pointed but simple question: What threat does gay marriage pose to others?" Try as he might, Rove attempted to sidestep the question by stating "that the issue 'should be resolved by a legislature or a referendum, not a court.'"

What a douchbag! Man, he's got some balls. So, it's okay to decide Presidential elections through the courts -- rather than conduct meaningful recounts in Florida (2000) and Ohio (2004) -- but not let the courts interpret existing statutes on what constitutes a lawful union? Giving me a fucking break.

This story gets better because the young Ms. Marla Spivack would not relent. ""You never actually answered," she said. "How does it threaten anyone?"

Here's the punchline folks. I hope you're sitting for this. The turd blossom responded by asking:

"What's the compelling reason to throw out 5,000 years of understanding the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman?"

My response to him would be "Where should I start, TB?"

Okay....let's respond to the esteemed asshole, Mr Rove.

• Granting the right to marriage to same sex couples in no way diminishes the rights of heterosexuals to do the same. It does not. In fact, legalizing gay unions affords two people the ability to enter into other essential legal agreements - health coverage for one - that would be a benefit to society as a whole. Surely, Mr. Rove, you would not be against something that benefits society, would you?
  
  
• So now it's a question of age, is it? Well, if we use that reasoning, why not throw out our understanding of the latest laws of chemistry, physics and biology while you're at it. Those laws from which we benefit are not quite 5,000 years old either. While we're at it, why not say that Copernicus was wrong and that the Earth really is flat and that it sits in the center of the known universe. Karl, just because an idea is old, doesn't make it revered and unchallengeable. It just makes it old.
  
  
• And since were on the subject of age and institutionalized belief, how do you figure that marriage is 5,000 years old? I'll concede that heterosexual monogamy is a very old concept but that's because it was an essential element for human survival, but what does that have to do with marriage? You don't need a ring or a marriage certificate to suck and fuck and make babies, just the right physical plumbing. The fact is that marriage as an institution is far younger than you've been led to believe and stems not from romantic love or species propagation, but pure political and business sense. Don't believe me? Read about it here.
  

The truth of the matter is Karl is that you really don't know what the fuck you're talking about, do you? Your real answer to Ms. Spivack's questions should be "Ah...I don't know. Let me get back to you on that." While you're at it, tell her how much of a fucking hypocrite you are for endorsing a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage while you get to be married twice.

You got some balls, Karl Rove. You really do.