Alaska: Nominated for the worst place in America

I had posted about freshly-convicted (yah!) Ted Stevens’ (R-AK) chances to be re-elected to Senate a bit previously (here).  Thankfully, the end of the trial did not stifle the New York Times’ interest:

‘Alaska G.O.P. Still Backs Re-election for Stevens’

“Republican leaders in the Senate have abandoned Mr. Stevens, as has the party’s presidential ticket.

Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, called Tuesday for Mr. Stevens to resign, as did his vice-presidential running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, whose relationship with Mr. Stevens is not close.”

Yet the GOP has no choice but to back a convicted felon rather than concede the seat, as it is too late to change the name on the ballot.  Glad they planned ahead.  But I doubt Stevens would ever concede his office if his party asked him to.  And he certainly, if re-elected, won’t resign even if he does lose his appeal.  He won’t be shamed simply because he is shameless.

And for those who doubt the possibility that Alaskans would vote for a huge asshole, notorious government leach, and new convicted felon:

‘Ted Stevens Receives a Hero’s Welcome in Alaska’

The title says it all, really, but:

“Mr. Stevens faces a strong re-election challenge from Mark Begich, the mayor of Anchorage, a Democrat. Even as top Republican leaders have called on Mr. Stevens to resign and many political experts believe his chances of re-election are slim, some people refuse to rule out the possibility of his winning, given his stature here.

The senator, a 40-year incumbent known for delivering billions of dollars of federal money and projects to Alaska, was met in an airplane hangar here on Wednesday night with chants of “We need Ted.””

I don’t want to have to rely on the Senate doing the right thing by tossing the convicted felon out.  Step it up, people of Alaska.  This election is a referendum on Alaska’s willingness to sacrifice democracy and the national interest to keep a notorious thief (whose theft they profit from) in office.

(And yes, I still do believe that Ted will be pardoned.  And I do wonder if his desire to expedite his trial might be to ensure that Bush would be in office to pardon him)

… and the cow goes moo

The Sun Shines on Alaska! I was wrong! Ted Stevens to change his name to ‘Prisoner 1134-183D”

“Tomorrow will be the most beautiful day of Ted F. Steven’s life. His breakfast will taste better than any meal you and I have ever tasted.”

-Tyler Durden (mostly)

I posted about the Stevens trial previously here, and my skepticism that he would be convicted.  After reading the New York Times’ update yesterday morning, I didn’t even want to post about it.  It seemed so clear that Ted Stevens would manage to wiggle his way out.  But then the very same NYT made my morning for me today:

“Senator Ted Stevens, Alaska’s dominant political figure for more than four decades, was found guilty on Monday by a jury of violating federal ethics laws for failing to report tens of thousands of dollars in gifts and services he had received from friends.”

This must be a relief even to Ted Stevens.  All those lies can finally be put to rest.  He benefited from his largess in Senate for the forty years.  He enriched himself and his ego by building himself into the biggest jackass in the club of assholes we call the Senate.  And he got away with it for forty years and probably would have gotten away without punishment in this life had it not been for Bill Allen’s treachery.  It isn’t hard to escape enforcement.  It isn’t hard to steal money in the Senate.  It isn’t even hard to commandeer $398 million of Federal money to pay for a bridge linking to an island of fifty people.  But it is hard to look at yourself every morning and know that you are the blood engorged tick on the underbelly of America and go to work every day to stick the sore and porous flesh of America one more time.  For that, I applaud Ted Stevens.  He may not have been the most corrupt (though he certainly could have been).  He wasn’t the most evil.  But my God, was he consistent.  Forty years.  Bravo.

But he might not even be done yet!  As I posted in August, Ted Stevens did, despite being a total asshole and under investigation for his corruption, win the Alaskan Republican primary.  And the New York Times article from this morning has more about Teddy’s future:

““I am innocent. This verdict is the result of the unconscionable manner in which the Justice Department lawyers conducted this trial,” he [Stevens] said. “I ask that Alaskans and my Senate colleagues stand with me as I pursue my rights. I remain a candidate for the United States Senate.”

…

If Mr. Stevens wins and insists on keeping his seat, his fate will be in the hands of his Senate colleagues. A senator can be expelled only by a two-thirds vote of the entire Senate, so a conviction does not automatically cost a lawmaker his seat. Since 1789, only 15 senators have been expelled, most for supporting the Confederacy during the Civil War, the Senate Web site states.”

Even as a now convicted Senator, he can still retain his seat and serve.

And the real heartbreaker:

“In addition to his expected appeal, his supporters are also likely to explore the possibility of obtaining a pardon, or some form of executive clemency like a commutation of any sentence, from President Bush, a fellow Republican, before he leaves office.”

Perhaps this is why Stevens wanted to hurry his trial?  I certainly could see his odds of winning with an upcoming corruption trial being fairly high still (and certainly higher than after a conviction).  It wouldn’t hurt George W. Bush’s legacy in the slightest to pardon Ted Stevens.  Even if Ted Stevens loses his appeal (and I would think he actually has a fair chance in appeal considering the prosecutors’ blunders) there is a good chance he will spend the rest of his years a free man.

Nonetheless, I was buoyed by the news.  Corruption is still illegal in the US Senate.  They may only prosecute it one time out of a hundred.  And even then, the President who has been fucking the country up for the past eight years might opt to put a crown on Stevens’ 40 years of corruption by setting him free.  But still.  It’s nice to have some good news in the morning for a change.

… and the cow goes moo

Dowries back in style! GM and Chrysler looking to get hitched if the wedding gifts make it worthwhile

I had discussed the merger rumours a couple of weeks ago.

via the New York Times (found at Some Assembly Required):

“G.M. and Chrysler’s majority owner, Cerberus Capital Management, are said to be committed to a merger of the two troubled automakers but have yet to line up financing to inject more cash into the companies.

But investors are hesitant to put money into the deal without federal assistance in some form, possibly a direct loan or an equity stake, said people close to the talks who spoke on the condition that they not be named.”

Am I crazy to think that despite the 30-40% falls (that will continue for at least a year or so) in auto sales for GM and Chrysler that this might be a great time to buy GM stock?  I feel a bailout / Federal assistance is guaranteed, considering the employment and the idea of American productivity GM represents (or did represent).  And certainly both near-bankrupt companies, hemorrhaging money, are very fond of the idea of shedding much of their non-union staff in a merger.

GM is currently sitting at $5.60 (including after hours trading).  I am fairly optimistic in the Volt, especially with the $7,500 tax break for Volt purchases that was included in the TARP.  I can’t imagine the Federal government going halfway by providing $25 billion in loans and the tax break without doing what it can do guarantee GM and the Volt are still around to benefit from them in a year (GM is losing $1 billion per month, according to the article, but they also managed to lose $18.8 billion in the first half of 2008…)

So GM can’t go bankrupt, by my logic, but they could still continue to fall in share price.  I just can’t imagine by very much.

But how much could they gain even in the event of an announced merger with Chrysler?  Due to union rules, I imagine a very large number of redundant (and expensive) staff at GM-Chrysler will be difficult to layoff.  The research and development costs, marketing, and fully 60% of their dealership network could be shut down (not that a smaller percentage of dealerships weren’t heading to closure already).

I am going to pull a number out of my ass here… $14?  Why not?

I’m been watching GM since they first dipped below $10.00, but the climate was never quite as promising as now.  I think tomorrow morning, I may re-enter the stock market after a 3 week or so sabbatical.

I found this after reading the NYT article (Forbes):

“People briefed on the merger discussions previously have said GM would need a minimum of $5 billion to start restructuring Chrysler’s operations. The total amount needed could reach $10 billion, the sources have said.”

Whaaat?  That’s nothing!  That certainly isn’t enough to make Paulson work on a Sunday.  He might as well just give it up (and I say this BEFORE I become a GM shareholder).

To keep from having a major American institution go bankrupt and add further panic to the market (as well as any companies that might be closely tied to GM… I shiver at the thought of another CDS imbroglio), $10 billion sounds like a bargain.  Especially since unlike the financial institutions bailed out so far, GM actually has something in the works worth looking forward to (the Chevrolet Volt).

Do it for me, Feds.  You owe me.  Those short bans ruined a bunch of my put contracts.

… and the cow goes moo

Mark Ames on the New York Times flip on South Ossetia

Mark Ames, of Exiled Online and The Nation, provides his unique American-Russian perspective on the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict and the press coverage in the US.

He cites a few of the articles I’ve referenced in the past (in a post directly related to the ‘he started it!’ contest here, and a quick update I posted about the NYT’s reporting on the state of Georgia’s media here) but with a fairly different take that I don’t altogether agree with.

Ames singles out the New York Times as having made an about-face on the issue of Georgia’s culpability in starting the war as well as the nature of Georgia’s democracy, which I feel is unfair.

Perhaps my exposure to other forms of American media have inoculated me from the NYT’s shift in focus, but they certainly are far from the worst offenders.  Had Ames been watching CNN at that time, I believe he would have seen the NYT’s relatively even-handed treatment of the conflict as a Godsend.  However to compare any newspaper to CNN would be using a very low criterion.

What he does point out that I think is very important is that while Georgia and South Ossetia were headlining the news, in print and on television, the embrace of Georgia and the opposition to anything Russian was complete and vehement.  Now that the moment is long past, and the issue is no longer even being discussed (due to the suitable shift in focus to the economic crisis), the public memory will contain both Democratic and Republican presidential candidates (seems strange calling John McCain a Presidential candidate at this point.  I have trouble even looking at him as a Senator any longer) voicing strong support (some stronger than others) for Georgia and the memory of an aggressor Russia that attempted to annex South Ossetia.  All the mea culpas and belated even-handed treatment in the world won’t matter when 99% of Americans have dropped the subject.

Because the New York Times, CNN, and most every other major American news organization opted to cheerlead an anti-Russian kneejerk response to Georgia-South Ossetia, the nation’s memory will always contain the mistaken impression that Russia invaded South Ossetia and bullied a pliant democracy into surrender.  I do not think the New YorkTimes deserves to be singled out as Mark Ames apparently does, but they certainly were guilty along with their competitors of running a free misinformation campaign for Georgia and Mikheil Saakashvili.  And any real democratic sentiment in Georgia, or peaceful sentiment in Russia, suffers due to the press’ eagerness to resort to the tired old prejudices against Russia.

… and the cow goes moo

So how about that Clinton Presidency?

Not to be a spoilsport as many are celebrating Obama Eve this month, but this very awesome New York Times graphic (found via The Big Picture) highlights some forgotten facts about past presidencies (not just Clinton’s).  Who says the traditional media is dead or stagnant?  This is excellent use of their mammoth resources and new(ish) technology.  Please go check it out and play with it.

As Barry’s cursor highlights, Reagan’s administration actually presided over our highest personal savings rate since Truman at 11.20% at the start of his presidency, although it was to quickly decline to 7% in his final years.  I do not want to give Reagan credit for the momentary spike, as the work of his predecessors made major contributions to the rise in savings and his administration did more to reverse it than to sustain it.

Most shocking may be the change in home prices.  Under George W. Bush, we had our only 3+ year consecutive 5+% increase in real home prices.  Only once before did we have even a 2 year 5+% consecutive increase:  At the tail end of the Clinton administration (I guess I could also include Carter’s +6.29% followed by a 4.98% increase).  Interestingly, two of the other many, many areas that George W. Bush is noted to have spectacularly failed in regards to the American economy is the stagnation of incomes among the bottom 99% of Americans, and the dearth in personal savings (and the shift to a society of financially juvenile debtors).

The share of income for the bottom 99% of Americans in the chart, from the start of the current administration to the present day, shows a fairly steady decline from a share of 81.78% to 77.18% (delta -4.7%).  Sad, but not disastrous.  Especially when the chart shows it as a steady decline that started during Clinton’s administrations (which actually reversed a short period of relative growth in Bush Sr’s administration).  Clinton presided over a share decrease from 85.76% to 78.48%, a fall of 7.28%.

The personal savings fall likewise started not with George W. Bush, but perhaps with Clinton.  Personal savings managed to grow slightly under George H.W. Bush, which was rather dramatically reversed under Clinton (from a 5.80% savings rate in 1993 to a 2.30% savings rate in 2000).  George W. Bush furthered this decline from 1.80% in 2001 to 0.60% in 2007.  Each of our last two president’s effectively reduced personal savings, during his administration, to a third of what they were when they took office.

Clinton is given great credit for his presiding over a momentous swing in the federal budget from a period of constant and extreme deficit, highlighted by the blood-red years of Ronald Reagan and the not-much-better years of Bush Sr., but when you tie that to the historically low interest rates at the time that reduced the cost of debt servicing for the nation, compared to any time other than the present and the early ’70s (see this chart tracking the Federal Funds Rate changes from 1970 to present), the economic windfall from skyrocketing home prices, the American consumer’s shift to that of a consumer-debtor nation, and the ascendancy of the tech boom, merely balancing the budget seems like a meager achievement.

Considering that Clinton, like George W. Bush, failed to increase personal savings, minimum wage, and the share of income for those other than the super-wealthy, the idea that what the nation needs is a return to the halcyon Clinton years is a mild lie.  I will not (and nor will anyone else, if they are being honest) argue that George W. Bush proved to be a better overseer of the American economy than Bill Clinton, but George W. Bush largely continued the slide that had begun perhaps in Clinton’s administration and had the poor fortune and appropriately poor insight to have the housing bubble (and tech bubble) blow up in his face.  Not to mention the fact that George W. Bush failed to use the revenues from the growing consumer culture as well as the real estate bubble to even balance the budget.

I’ll be ecstatic to see George W. Bush out of office, replaced by anyone-but-Palin, but I have extremely tempered expectations for what Barack Obama can personally bring to the Presidency when it comes to economics (I won’t make judgments on the opinions of his advisors until I know their level of influence on policy).  He reminds me very much of Bill Clinton, and I think the myth of the Clinton Economic Miracle is an extreme distortion (or based on extremely low expectations).  Especially now that we’ve seen both bubbles that Clinton’s administration saw the inflation of burst in our faces.

… and the cow goes moo

The Vet Who Did Not Vet

Normally I’m not too fond of these videos (I get pretty annoyed when friends send me a bunch of so-so videos and viral-whatevers without making sure I should care first) but this one is fantastic.

(Found via Angry Bear, which I found through Naked Capitalism)

Rather than spew attacks that would only appeal to those that are already commited to one side of another, the video stays focused on the one idea encompassed in the title: That McCain (McCain’s handlers, I guess, since it is very likely that John McCain was never too fond of Sarah Palin candidacy in itself), by bringing Sarah Palin to prominence and giving her the opportunity to become Vice-President in 2008 (and President in 2012, or 2016, or sooner) has put the entire naiton at risk of an easily manipulated idiot (full disclosure:  I thought the Palin pick was a smart strategic choice initially, before learning anything about her, because I thought that there was a very large number of politically neutral supporters of Hillary who wanted to make history for female candidates, and because the lack of any excitement in the McCain campaign needed an energetic element and something worth talking about… I did NOT think they needed another idiot that was selected on the fairly accurate but deeply disturbing low-expectations politicians have of the American voter).

The video does go a bit overboard (but only a bit, considering that Palin could easily be worse than George W. Bush) with it’s warnings of further military and economic crises should Palin become VP/President.

The video itself is fantastic.  The production is simple, but surefooted.  The narration is Saturday-morning-educational-cartoon perfect.  The content is accurate and appropriately concise.  The writing is flawless.

And futhermore, it touches a part of me that current campaigning from any side hasn’t so far:  Sure, Democrats have to be a bit vigilant to the chance of a sudden resurrection of the cold and dead McCain campaign, but EVERY AMERICAN should be concerned with the resurrection of Sarah Palin / George W. Bush politics of finding the dimmest, most docile ’spokesperson’ you can and installing them into office by appealing to the most base and vile intuitions and indulgences of the (slight) majority of Americans.  And then rape and pillage the country through experimentation and corruption while letting the blame fall on the blow-up doll installed in office while you inflate his or her successor.

I could watch this video all day.

… and the cow goes moo

US Military Trying to Reduce Fatalities… By Offering Motorcycle Training?

Interesting, short article at the New York Times:

“In the last 12 months, 50 of the 58 sailors and marines killed on motorcycles were on sport bikes, which are faster and easier to maneuver than their cruiser counterparts. The Army, which also has a training program, lost 36 soldiers in sport bike accidents in the same time period.

…

Tracy Martin, who runs a private riding program aimed at high-performance motorcycles, said an Air Force safety official told him that he could predict who was going to die next.

“He said it would be a guy under 25, working in maintenance, he’d have a sport bike, and he’d own it for about a month,” Mr. Martin said. “He said, ‘The only thing I don’t know is his name.’ ””

This is a fantastic idea.  Of all the things the military could do to protect their valuable resources (the soldiers and technicians they spend thousands or millions to train and rely on) from killing themselves on bikes, this is the best approach.  I imagine the Navy and Army could include clauses in insurance contracts that nullify the policy if the person is injured or killed while riding a motorcycle, or they could simply ban motorcycle use by all staff, but these approaches would be heavy-handed, authoritarian, and deeply insensitive to the families of army personnel killed or injured in motorcycle accidents.

I took a Canadian Motorcycle Safety Foundations course earlier this summer and not only had a great time, but became a much safer rider as a result (I still dropped my bike a few weeks after the course, but the fact that I was hardly hurt probably had a lot to do with my experience in the course).  Being a 20-something year-old male, I have many friends, family, and co-workers who are eager to get motorcycles.  In Canada, due to the substantial insurance break that comes from passing a MSF course, taking the course is a no-brainer.  I do not know a single person who did not take the course before riding (assuming they received their license in the past 10 years) nor do I know a single prospective rider who is not planning on taking the course.

What is very shocking to me about the American system in contrast to the Canadian system, according to this article, is the lack of concern for American riders when they are NOT members of the armed forces.  According to the New York Times:

“Some military officials are concerned that industry pressure to sell motorcycles and lax state licensing are allowing riders with poor skills on the road.

…

“We’ve got machines right now that are governed at 187 miles per hour that you can buy on a showroom floor in our country and not even have a motorcycle license to buy it,” Mr. [Dan] Wisnieski [who manages the Navy MSF program] said.

…

Military personnel already have stricter motorcycle regulations than civilians. To take a motorcycle on base, riders must have at least passed the beginners’ course offered by the Motorcycle Safety Foundation. They must also wear helmets, regardless of state law.

Nevertheless, officials say, many simply ride without a motorcycle license when they are off duty.”

W?HAJT???  You can buy a bike without a motorcycle license???  Some states don’t require helmets when riding motorcycles??  Many military personnel are riding bikes without licenses??  What the hell is wrong with America’s licensing and motorcycle sales system??

Riding a motorcycle is nothing like riding a bicycle or driving a car:  It requires very deliberate and careful training, optimally in a closed off environment, to learn how to simply ride safely on crowded city streets.  Not to mention riding through adverse conditions like rain or snow (my first accidental snow ride home from work came just this week.  Not a lot of fun).

And as much as it sucks to spend maybe $1,000 on a fancy Shoei or Arai helmet and have it ruined on a crash or a drop, it will save your life or much more than $1,000 in medical expenses and pain.  Even in my minor 40kmph (or so) spill where I was tossed off the back of my bike, my helmet probably saved me from a few stitches on my head.  Since I landed on my back (wearing leather, so no road rash;  I did end up with a bruise on my left lower back which, had I landed harder, could have left me with a burst kidney), the impact caused my head to snap back lightly.  Had I not had my helmet on, I likely would have cracked the back of my skull on the very hard pavement and road debris.  Since I did have my helmet on, I felt no pain or shock except the shame of having dropped my bike the day after I bought it some 100 meters from my own house.

And to those who think buying a motorcycle without a license isn’t such a bad idea, please see the 2009 Suzuki Hayabusa (Carguide Magazine Review here):

• 320 kmph top speed (200 mph, for ‘you folks’ in America)
• 485 lbs dry (220kg, ‘my friends’)
• AND:  194 horsepower (Holy Crap!, for anyone anywhere)

To try to put that into perspective, the average sedan probably weighs in around 3200 lbs and has something near 160 hp.  15% of the weight, with 120% of the horsepower.  Even relatively tame bikes, like the 2008 Kawasaki Ninja 650R, at around 62 hp and 400 lbs (178 kg), can go from 0-60mph in 3.84 seconds and can complete the quarter mile in 12.11 seconds (I’ve actually heard closer to 3.1 seconds for it’s 0-60mph from other sources).  This is widely considered, in North America, “a practical choice for beginners”.  That would be like saying the 2008 Dodge Viper or a 2004 Porsche 911 Turbo X50 is a good beginner’s car (3.5 sec 0-60mph, and 11.5 sec quarter mile, and 3.7 sec 0-60mph and 11.86 sec quarter mile, respectively).  At least the Viper and Porsche have four wheels, airbags, seatbelts and ROOFS.

Furthermore, the average car buyer is very much like the average person: They want to enjoy their car, but primarily they want to get where they want to go alive and safely; they have years of experience riding in cars; they have automatic transmissions.

Contrast that to the average motorcycle buyer: They want to look really good, ride really fast and low, and have lots of fun; they want to arrive their safely, but if riding with full CE-rated protectors on makes them look dopier than riding in a t-shirt and trackpants, then screw safety; they have probably spent like than an hour on a bike before they start riding; they have a six-speed, foot actuated manual transmission.

“Motorcycle licenses are relatively easy to obtain in the United States. In other countries, including Britain, beginning riders are generally restricted to smaller, less powerful motorcycles.”

And that relates very closely to my previous comments about the type of driver/rider motorcycles attract: People like me, who love the look and feel of a bike and couldn’t care much less about its role as transport (though I do love going to work and getting free street parking in Toronto, as well as 2.7L/100km, around 85 US mpg).  And being that purchase price of a ‘beginner’s’ motorcycle like the Kawasaki Ninja 650r is merely half that of a veritable land rocket like the ‘Busa, even young idiots like myself are not necessarily priced out of owning the fastest thing in the world should insurance companies and regulators fail to intervene.

As much as I want a faster bike, I am very glad I’m spending my first riding season on a pissant Honda CBR125R.  There are times I feel frightened due to the wind exposure, road conditions (my snowy trip home a few days ago), and the traffic that surrounds me (every time I ride).  The last thing I need to worry about, as a new rider, is that a 90 degree twist of my right wrist could unleash 194 horses.

… and the cow goes moo

Isiah Thomas: Embarassment to the League

Not only did he ruin the CBA, the Knicks (and thus, the city of New York), perhaps sexually harass a co-worker, apparently say misogynist things to that  same co-worker, and allegedly he “doesn’t give a fuck about these white people”, it appears he may even be a shitty father (ESPN has the story).

“There is some breaking news that there was a medical emergency that took place at Thomas’s home.  Apparently, Isiah told the New York Post that the medical issue involved his 17 year old daughter.  However, police have confirmed it was actually Isiah Thomas who was taken to the hospital for an overdose of sleeping pills.

It “wasn’t an overdose,” he told the newspaper. “My daughter is very down right now. None of us are OK.”

[Police Chief David] Hall forcefully refuted Thomas’ statement.

“My cops … know the difference between a 47-year-old black male and a young black female,” Hall said.”

And if it was indeed Isiah who overdosed, considering Isiah’s spectacular failures after his career as a player ended,  we have to wonder if it was intentional:

“No suicide note was found, and police were classifying the case as an “accidental drug overdose” on “a number” of prescription sleeping pills, Hall said.”

So at least it doesn’t seem like he tried to kill himself.

Did Isiah OD and try to avoid the shame and speculation by attributing it to his daughter?  Was it actually his daughter that overdosed, with the police somehow erroneously announcing it was a 47 year old male?  I’m not going to say I know what happened (who had ODed and for what reason), but I do know this:

Isiah Thomas is the greatest embarrassment to a league that is already known for the likes of The Birdman, Shawn Kemp, and Tim Donaghy.

… and the cow goes moo

Mitch McConnell (R-KY): The last honest man in the Senate

From the New York Times:

“Mr. McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, boasts in a series of campaign advertisements about how he has showered federal money on towns, airports and universities in Kentucky, like the nearly $60 million he won for the face-lift for downtown Owensboro.”

According to the NYT as well as the Senator himself, Senator McConnell utilized his position on the Appropriations Committee and his position as Senate Minority Leader to secure funding for projects that would benefit his constituents (handy NYT graph that makes the out-sized benefits to Kentucky obvious).

Apparently, judging by the content of this article, Senator McConnell has opted to campaign on his ability to bring federal funds to Kentucky, rather than his abilities as a Senator to serve the nation.  It is doubtful it is his preferred campaign message but perhaps his only option at a time when the country is reeling and falling on all fronts from a Republican presidency and an extremely pliable Republican congress.

Those who wondered how so many members of Congress who seemed to oppose the TARP on ideological or practical grounds (I post about an NYT article that explores the decision-making process of some members of Congress here), especially while it was such an unpopular piece of legislation (during its first attempt to pass through the House), found it worthwhile to vote for it could look at Mr. McConnell’s campaign as illuminating.  The ~$140 billion of tax breaks that were required to lubricate the TARP’s passing in the Senate certainly makes a lot more sense with McConnell’s campaign in mind.

Votes in favour of the TARP are unpopular enough to warrant attack, as Mr. McConnell’s competitor, Bruce Lunsford, is doing in his campagn:

“Mr. Lunsford has hit Mr. McConnell for ties to special interests and rewarding campaign contributors, first making the accusation that Mr. McConnell was too close to the oil industry when gas prices were climbing this summer. He then turned his commercials to the economic crisis and Mr. McConnell’s support of deregulation, the $700 billion bailout and his millions in contributions from Wall Street.”

This does not necessarily apply specifically to Mr. McConnell and the TARP, but the mechanism seems fairly clear to me:  A legislator can support a bill at risk that his or her support will be thrown back in their face.  As the legislator cares about little else beyond his or her own re-election, they will only support a bill if it likely has a re-election-benefiting component attached with a greater impact or a much higher probability of being advantageous.  In the case of those who voted for the TARP, the tax breaks and handouts to their constituents were judged to provide better campaigning material for their own re-election than the vote for the TARP’s passage would provide for the election of their competitors.

With nothing else to run on, Senator McConnell’s campaign is relying heavily on his proven ability to disproportionately redistribute federal resources to the profit of those who keep him employed.

Senator McConnell’s campaign (and likely re-election) brings the lie of government service to light: The quality of a Senator is not judged by his or her ability to strengthen the country but their ability to strengthen their constituency at the expense of their fellow citizens.

… and the cow goes moo

J.D. Power: “The global (automotive) market in 2009 may experience an outright collapse”

Very short Reuters article with the source quote here.

I have friends who work in the automotive industry (and I did not that long ago) and it has become increasingly difficult to discuss cars even casually without casting a pale on the conversation.  The times are uncertain for nearly everyone.  I work in banking and we are all aware of the situation the global financial system is in, but we still have a fairly optimistic view of the ‘temporary’ nature of the downturn, almost to a man.

That optimism does not extend to the automotive industry: Everyone I speak to who is directly employed by the industry seems to feel an almost impending sense of doom.

The automotive industry is just one very poignant example of an industry in decline.  Is there an industry on the rise?  For those investing in choice stocks now, are they betting entirely on the oversold / undervalued nature of some stocks or do they believe good times are a-coming in the next few years for their targetted stocks?

As an investor, I’m on sabbatical.  It will take an overwhelming candidate to pull me back in.

… and the cow goes moo