Whazzinnitfuhmee

OK, so we're spending $700B on a financial bailout. That's easy to understand, but there is something very creepy and hauntingly familiar about the selling of this action. First, the real problem.

I am not, nor will ever be, an economist. I am a fiscal Libertarian with a social conscience (I like to tell myself). That means I believe government was put in place to build roads, protect the borders, and provide emergency services. Everything else should be private venture that meets a market need (if we had a private education system, I doubt we'd be in the state we are currently, and your taxes would be lower, but I could go on all day with like material). So I am generally chafed by any suggestion of spending billions on anything that doesn't meet the above criteria.

Unfortunately, I don't have a very clear idea of a) how we got into this mess, 2) what the ramifications are within the financial sector, ii) the short and long-term costs of the bailout package or b) the short and long-term costs of NOT acting. This leaves me in a quandary of trust. When we don't / can't / probably don't have time or inclination to spend several tears studying enough micro and macro economics to understand a situation like this (which is, I am told, unprecedented in the history of modern civilization), we have to trust those making the decisions.

Which brings us to the creepy and frighteningly familiar part. When the chuckle-head looks into the camera, furrows his brow and tells me "banks will close in your neighborhood, the value of your house will go down", etc., all I can think about is the absolutely imminent mushroom cloud that would circle my head had we not invaded Iraq. It's Lucy holding Charlie Brown's football. Countless billions have been funneled into the military industrial complex based on this administration's obviously disingenuous agenda. Same sales guy, same sales pitch, same bunch of bushmen standing in line to benefit.

The timing is also curious. It's at the merciful end of the lame-duck administration's kidnapping of our constitution, so there can be no deep, time-consuming assessment of all the aforementioned ramifications, nor can there be any accountability of the administration five years from now if the bailout blows up in our face (this can happen in a plethora of ways, and is as likely as its success).

So, like a good Libertarian, I say "What's in it for me?". Unless there are iron-clad, inescapable mechanisms in place to return the investment (give me back MY damn taxes) upon the financial success of ANY of these measures, I say let the markets do what they may. If the economy falters, goes into recession, or my local bank fails, so be it. We have seen this before, and we apparently didn't learn from it. Maybe we will this time, maybe not, but I am dead-set against buying this snake oil from that salesman. Hey, Warren Buffett just invested $5B in a failing financial institution, so that means there IS opportunity for private enterprise to affect the situation. My money's on his investment making better returns than my involuntary one.

At the end of the day, if they wanted me to get on board, they should have put somebody with greater credibility on the dais. Like Mel Gibson. Or Elliot Spitzer. Or somebody that could help me, in simple terms, understand what I currently don't. Help me, help you. But don't you dare try to sell me on another coffer-draining exercise premised on George W. Ass-hat's latest fear-mongering. I ain't buying.

I am the New Veep

There are 13 Republican governors with more experience than Glasses McGee. Take out Jodi Rell because she was installed due to....wait for it....a corruption issue with then-Governor John Rowland. Take out The Governator because he is ineligible for election as a nationalized foreigner. That leaves 11 more qualified (by the definition of Shlockey Mom #1) folks to hold the job of Executive-In-Waiting-For-Ancient-Pseudo-Maverick's-Obvious-Destiny.

Did any of these 11 ever broadcast scores form the local high school hockey teams? No. Did any of their local hockey teams play in a public debt-funded arena pushed through by the mom of some hockey players? Was any of their hockey players' moms the mayor that took on the debt, then left for higher grounds? No.

I have no issue, however, with sportscasters. It just seems that if you trumpet your experience as tantamount to serving in the United States Senate or organizing communities in the nation's third-largest city, you should come correct. Palin isn't even the most qualified FEMALE Republican governor. Linda Lingle is.

Who is this Lingle you say? As Governor of Hawaii (see any parallels so far?) she actually took the state's coffers from a $230MM deficit to a $730MM surplus. Yes, a surplus. When every other significant GOPper is cutting taxes and bathing their fiefdom in long-term debt to cover their immediate tracks (while lining the pockets of friendly financiers fromforeign countries), she saw a way to create a surplus, lower unemployment, and sign important human rights legislation into law.

Prio to being a governor, she was mayor of an ENTIRE COUNTY!!! That county has a greater population (672,188) than Alaska (619,258), and she not only DIDN'T leave it bathed in debt, she helped improve public education and safety. Those accomplishments got her elected Governor. Not local celebrity, bombastic demagoguery, or pork-barrel jumping.

So why, you ask, wasn't this excellent public servant chosen over the political infant? Several very depressing reasons.

First, she is twice divorced with no kids. How would we have her pose on the dais? With Cindy's half sister(s)? Then there was the invective speech reading contest. When given equally falsified libelous speeches written in Karl Rove's bathroom, she exhibited only a fraction of the foam around the incisors as Mrs. Not-enough-time-for-my-special-needs-family. Finally, she doesn't really look very "hot" (see picture above). It probably doesn't help that she's Jewish.

So when you're casting aspersions on community organizers to throw a spell of "under-qualification" on career public servants with distinguished and, relative to tenure, impressive accomplishments, Grannytard, remember that you are nothing but a desperate political choice of the most hirsuit nature. You are there because you can deliver a speech. You will never know what the Bush doctrine is, because you are either a little too busy to care or lack the candle-power of Charlie Rose (whoa!). You were never an executive of any geography that you didn't either drive into long-term debt or soak tax-payers for hand-outs for your childrens' benefit. Your integrity is only undershadowed by your depth of qualification to lead.

It is with these assertions that I humbly accept the nomination as McCain's inevitable pall-bearer.