I kid. These days, people just leave the bucket in the kids’ room.

National Punctuation Day was started back in 2004 by a former copy editor (of course) named Jeff Rubin. You know it’s legit because he has a website. This gives it a lot more credibility than National Kick Butt Day (October 13) which is largely celebrated by beating the pudding out of all the panty-waists who celebrated National Bring Your Teddy Bear To Work & School Day (October 8).

It may confound some that one man deemed punctuation so important it became his raison d'etre. Though, we can’t all direct our energies to those noble labors of love like ending homelessness, or throwing telemarketers off a cliff. Perspective is a real kick in the pants that way. What some of us see as a world crisis, others call a molehill.

Count me among those who feel that knowledgeable and safe punctuation use is a worthy cause: I’m a huge fan of the serial comma; I prefer the British use of punctuation outside of quotes (if the punctuation is not part of the quote); I feel that the full colon needs to break free from the shackles of academic titles.

The exclamation point… [sigh]. It’s become a bit of a slut.

It is of note that the sibling of mine who made me aware of National Punctuation Day outright refuses to discern between an em dash (—) and a hyphen (-). She’s a kindred spirit in so many other ways, but that just sends me right up a wall. Yet, I don’t see this as some unforgivable transgression.

“Proper punctuation” is a term championed by the Buckley proselytes that want to exclude. This is such a pity. The guidelines of punctuation should not be used to lambaste someone for not knowing them. They are meant to bring harmony and understanding to the written word. What a disservice we are performing if we use these beautiful, little symbols to foster petty priggishness and division!

That said, there’s some shit that just ain’t right.

Last week, I used a boutique social networking service called Facebook to send a note to my 18-year-old nephew. I privately reveled in how cool I was. Rather than sending a fuddy-duddy old email, here I was using a slick trick to identify with the younger set.

The minute I read his response, my age came back like indigestion. I swear on The Elements of Style that the below is his unedited reply.

“i check both the same amount and most of them r from my school i email u back with my address”

While I am sure that using absolutely no punctuation at all saved him oodles of time, it took me about 20 minutes to read this and understand what it was saying. It may take you some time to realize, but there are three distinct thoughts in this word accident. They are separated by little more than sheer will.

Granted, this was colloquial, private communication. That’s why the lack of capitalization and the homophonic letter-words (“r”,”u”) don’t bother me at all. They don’t hinder comprehension. But the lack of any… kind of… dude! I mean, is there a period famine up at your school something?

All in all, my nephew is a really great guy. If his biggest problem in college is separating his ideas into multiple sentences, he’ll do a lot better than I did. Hell, if he shows up at class 50% of the time he’ll do a lot better than I did.

I digress.

Long ago I found myself on the wrong side of an argument with an editor over the use of a comma before "too" at the end of a sentence. I told him I didn't *feel* a comma there. He told me that there is a very clear and distinct rule regarding that comma placement and I was to follow it. I noted that I did not find this rule in our publication's manual of style, and that its worth as a rule in wider punctuation use was suspect. He then reminded me that he was a Senior Managing Editor, which reminded me that I was an Editorial Assistant. The comma stayed.

I'd like to say that I fought the good fight. I suggested a rewrite of the sentence, and of other sentences where this issue came up. I felt that, rather than one of us being right, the greater good was the clarity of articles in our magazine. Alas, they wanted a minion, not a mind. My feel-good, subjective punctuation stance was received like a nudist at a funeral. In the end, I was pushed out of my position; left to wander the streets in a whiskey-fueled dream carnival.

Alright... I actually lost my job because I was awful at filing and filling out check requests. I pretty much didn't do that part of the job because I hated it. But it's hard to position yourself as a Howard Roark figure when that's your story.

So tonight, as you gather around the Punctuation Fern and sing, just remember that National Punctuation Day is about understanding and communication. Thank someone when they suggest a better way for you to use punctuation. It’s meant to guide, not divide.

That said, this Jeff Rubin guy is apparently one of those people who takes a red pen to newspapers, “mails the corrections to the offending writer[,] and scribbles angry notes in column margins.” Yeah, so, some people aren’t on the whole peace, love, and understanding kick.

Maybe I should have held some demonstrations outside his house to let our predominantly black neighborhood know that a bigot lived among us, but it never seemed worth the effort. For one, he was just some old German guy, and—c’mon… old German guys are all racists. Also, ferreting out obtuse racism is not as honorable as it may seem to spirited throngs all hopped up on after-school specials.

With desegregation still in the nation’s living memory, we may want to believe that publicly branding Rep. Joe Wilson (R – SC) a racist ensures that the sun of our enlightened national conscience continues shining. But racism—or, rather, using that word—is just one more headline that sells newspapers, or clicks websites, or gets people to watch whatever the hell Keith Olbermann is doing on television that isn’t sports. It’s a hot button that vapid political sycophants like Maureen Dowd love to press.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not one of those Maureen Dowd haters. There are plenty of things I love about her:

1)       She has BA in English Literature.

2)       She graduated from one of my favorite D-III schools on the East Coast.

3)       She has a lovely name.

Actually, that’s it. Pretty much everything else about her makes me question if evolution is working in the right direction. But she is an excellent barometer for what is going on in the minds of angry homeless people and mid-level marketing executives.

Despite the fact that Jimmy Carter agrees with her, and despite the fact that , according to Politico, the entire Democratic Party is worried that President Obama’s “foes” all hate black people, there seems to be an emptiness in this national discussion on race. It’s argued about, but it’s an argument that has little substance beyond name-calling. Even President Obama’s administration has basically said that race is a non-issue for them. As well it should be for us all.

But wait! This Wilson guy is a Thurmond-loving, Dixie-Flag-promoting, hate-filled racist! I mean, he’s from South Carolina for crying out loud! And these Tea Parties are brimming with white people carrying signs! Signs that say awful things! How much more reason do we need to vilify them at every opportunity? Why should we turn a blind eye to the issue of racism in our midst?

Because there’s no consequence in it.

If you have a landlord that never seems to rent an apartment to a black person, or a construction manager that suddenly has a hiring freeze when a black person applies, you might have a problem. If people are being squeezed out of opportunity because of their race, you have a definitive and recognized action that stands in the way of just process. This is when racism should be fought.

If you have a representative that broke the rules of a body of legislature, and you posit that it was racially motivated, does that deliver more justice? If every single gathering of conservative protesters is racist and you point it out, does that change their right to assemble?

Not at all. It’s simply a part, albeit a foolish one, of their personal preferences. Some people like sushi, some people watch basketball, some people are racist. If they begin to take actions that deny opportunity to others based on those beliefs, it becomes a problem. Lacking that, it’s a nuisance.

Nobody is denying President Obama an opportunity because of his race. I mean, c’mon…he’s the President of the friggin’ United States. Ms. Dowd should take a cue from his administration, and realize that there are bigger—and more consequential—fish to fry.

PS – go to your web browser right now and type in "www.maureendowd.com". Go ahead, do it…. What the hell? Right? Kind of makes you wonder who else’s name points there. Is she gunning for an Ambassador role or something?

I am an undecided voter, and you can just sit there and deal with it.

Talk about a love-hate relationship.... If I lived in Pennsylvania or Ohio--even Virginia in this election--I would be continually wooed by both major political parties. They want to want me, love to love me, and need to need me. But if I read the opinion pages, I am roundly reviled for my apparent indecision. In fact, David Sedaris thinks that I can't tell the difference between a chicken dinner and a plate of feces filled with glass shards.

Is the plate of feces the guy whose running mate spent time prior to the VP nod hedging bets against him, or the one whose running mate spent time prior to the VP nod hedging bets against national sovereignty? Is the plate of feces the guy who voted for the $700B government-run penny-stock portfolio with no specific discussion of cost cutting, or the other guy who voted for the $700B government-run penny-stock portfolio with no specific discussion of cost cutting? Is the plate of feces the guy who is not afraid to finish a war in Iraq, or not afraid to start one in Pakistan?

Which over-spending, war-hawk candidate with an absence of character-judging ability are we talking about?

Maybe it's not that my ability to discern between sustenance and offal is nil, but that I am actually a ticking time-bomb of racism waiting to go off. I just need the right trigger. (Imagine David Banner meets David Duke.) Dick Meyer of NPR has done the yeomen's work of looking into some "private polls that probe more deeply into racial angles than the public polls have." These underground polls, which apparently cannot be mentioned by name, are clueing Mr Meyer into the fact that "Most undecided voters simply haven't focused on the elections yet".

It's not that I am having trouble making a choice between the guy who talks about change after he votes a party line 95% of the time and the guy who talks about reaching across the aisle to fix Washington after his most notable bi-partisan effort was the Keating Five scandal. Nope. Not that at all. It's just that I haven't been paying attention.

And the degree to which I have not been paying attention is "astonishing"....

This polling indicates something else astonishing to the politically plugged in: Many undecideds haven't really connected their negative feelings about race to Obama yet. Their view of Obama is unformed, and their negative feelings toward African-Americans could be easily triggered when they finally tune in.

      - from "Obama, Race and Undecided Voters" by Dick Meyer

Holy crap! Is he saying there's a black guy in this election? I have to warn the others!

One of the other possibilities is that I have already decided and I don't know it yet. A bunch of Canadians studied a bunch of Italians and determined that people have pre-existing notions. This could mean that people are actually thinking things ALL THE TIME! Then, when presented with stimuli, they react internally without keeping you up to date on every reaction. Can you believe that? I could be thinking something about the candidates right now and not telling you. I've got a website for chrissakes! Why would I not be telling you everything?

By the way, I am thinking about pancakes right now.... Hold on... ok, now I'm thinking about tits.... Man I gotta send that Netflix movie back.... Imagine if U2 sung all their songs with a diminutive Mexican accent.... Pancakes again.

It doesn't matter what polls you're reading, whether it's the supposed right's polls, or the supposed left's polls, or the supposed center's polls (wherever the hell the center is), Sen Obama is in the lead. But what does matter is by how much. Depending on the day, and depending on the poll, Sen Obama has held a 5-15% lead among registered voters, or likely voters, or voters who will be voting against left-handed machines in domed voting stations during double-headers. It doesn't matter that most of the Electoral College simulations have him winning by a decent margin, what is most troubling to the "decideds" is that depending on the day, and depending on the poll, the Undecided could make this election much closer than it seems. Nothing is more nerve-wracking than an insecure lead because nothing is more American than a comeback (like Rocky, and The Quarterback Princess). So if we can just nail it down to a specific generation of people, or if we can ridicule them into obscurity by calling them "infuriating creatures of tepid doom" maybe THEN we'll know who is going to win the election for sure.

There are plenty of reasons why we, the Undecided, appear so nebulous in so many ways. Maybe we are considering a candidate from one of the non-establishment parties. Maybe we've already decided on Chuck Baldwin, or Bob Barr, or Jonathon Sharkey, but the only other choice was "undecided" in the poll we took.

Maybe we just don't feel like telling you.

It seems that a whole host of anxious columnists and pollsters out there think that someone owes them this information. I'm not sure if everyone is aware of this, but the election isn't until Nov 4^th. That's when we owe the information, and that's when it will be remitted. I realize as much as the next person that presidential elections are almost punishing in the amount of information that is pumped out, but we the people who are taking our time deciding are not indicative of a problem. We are simply the people who like to work up until deadline.

You know that boss that gives you a deadline for something next week, but then every day he comes into your office and asks how close you are to being done? No one likes that boss.

We don't even have to tell anyone who we voted for once it's over. We could all just sit around and wait for the results for all I care. We owe you nothing. Are we, the Undecided, hindering the political process somehow? No. This is simply a national impatience epidemic. I realize, Mr Sedaris, that the details of your life and mind have been well-publicized, but the same behavior in kind from the rest of us is not your due.

One guy, in fact, has decided to be undecided for the duration of the campaign. Why? Because he's teaching his kid a lesson in non-partisan civics. Good for him. Now I'm thinking about writing in his name for president because I agree with his stance on education. One more candidate to extend my indecision and further try the patience of a bunch of columnists--and David Sedaris.

Tough (glass-filled) shit. They will have to wait.

The episodic adventure-show "24" was referred to on a teaser commercial recently as "the series that changed the face of television". Since I have never seen a complete episode of “24” I think I can stand in as an unbiased observer when I say that television’s face looks remarkably similar to how it did before “24” existed. Granted, 2001 was an eon ago (in our current understanding of eons), but the changes that we have seen in the seven years since could likely be attributed to other factors commonly known as “the passage of time” and “everything else”. Their statement may therefore fall into one of two common logical fallacies; either 1) post hoc ergo propter hoc, or 2) not giving a shit about what you just said.

It is one of the many fine examples of how hyperbole has become the standard, shock has become the norm, and something is only worthwhile if we can see, right now, how it has a lasting impact into perpetuity. This is a trend that has undoubtedly changed the face of communication.

“Viewer discretion” is now advised, through an ominous voiceover, on "House", "Fringe", and "Kitchen Nightmares", all shows on the FOX Network. (This particular random sample is used because I happened to be watching the NFC games last Sunday.) The “viewer discretion” tag is a great advertisement; piquing your interest by letting you know that this show may push the bounds of what you consider acceptable network television. The last one is a cooking show, by the way. That’s right, a cooking show… that tests your social turpitude.

Granted FOX is the network that has taken the maxim "if it bleeds it leads" to a new level on the nightly news. If you get your local news from the FOX channel, you are likely doing it because you feel as though, if you don't, your garbage man and/or your municipal government and/or your grocery store will knife you in your sleep, steal your identity, or corrupt your legacy through a subversive use of social networking sites. So maybe my sample over-exemplifies the case of overstating the case. Hey, I’d gladly accept a grant to hire some statisticians and study this further. Otherwise, if you want science, watch Nova.

If we wish to find examples of capricious use of superlatives infecting a higher brow, we need look no further than the final presidential debates Wednesday evening. At one point, Sen Obama [D-IL] described his running mate Sen Biden [D-DE] as “one of the finest public servants that has served in this country.” Not a great public servant. Not even one of the best currently serving. Oh no. One of the best ever. Any room on Mt Rushmore for Sen Biden’s star-quality chompers?

Sen McCain [R-AZ] is not immune to overzealous description either, nearly catching himself in a constitutional impossibility. When asked about how he would qualify a nominee to the Supreme Court, Sen McCain said he “will find the best people in the world,” before quickly correcting himself and noting that a nominee of his would likely be American. Comportable reality occasionally has its victories.

(Maybe we should have watched CNN in order to chart the public’s reaction to description unbound on a running ticker. Alas, the Mrs and I generally catch the debates on PBS; robbing us of the dynamic sentiment of Ohioans, but soothing us with the luxurious calm of Jim Lehrer, and those eyes that stab you directly in your ignorant soul.)

The English language has an economy of its own, and could be on the verge of hyperinflation. When you abuse devices such as superlatives and hyperbole, the market for description becomes overpriced. Eventually, words become worthless. If there is no confidence backing up your description of something, people will start expecting more aggrandizing descriptions for everything. Let’s look into the future of description inflation and see what a basic conversation might be like in 50 years.

---------------------------------

Setting: The year is 2058. A woman has just walked in the door to her house after a day at the office.

Wife: Honey? I made the unbelievable trek home!

Husband: That must have rivaled the lowest levels of hell! How was your day? Did you have that conference call with those guys from GE-Googlecenture?

Wife: Yeah, It was mind-bending! They are probably some of the greatest implementation impresarios that I have ever spoken with in my entire career!

Husband: Unbelievable!

Wife: I know! How was your day?

Husband: It was pretty transcendental! I think I may have completed one of the most gut-wrenching cycles of dish-washing that this house has ever seen!

Wife: That’s phenomenal! Did you pick up the dry cleaning?

---------------------------------

Is this the road that you want to travel down? I should say not. This is why I am calling on television to dial back the hyperbole and the shock that has lost a great deal of its connotative value. I know. It seems far too easy to pick on television, but we can’t deny how ubiquitous it is. It has become a recognized standard in promulgation from the important to the entertaining. If you totaled up all the hours of activity for a kid between the ages of 5 and 18, he has spent 1.86 years in school and 2.44 years in front of the television. (This doesn’t even take into account the 12-30% national drop-out rate, depending on what you believe to be more accurate.) So I think we can safely say that television is the most damaging influence on any planet in the galaxy; maybe the known universe.

Is this an unreasonable request to ask TV to lead our language out of hyperboleflation? We ask our athletes to be role-models for children. We ask our politicians to be role-models for our citizens. Why would we not ask one of the more prolific disseminators of information in our time to be a role-model for our language? I mean, it’s never going to live up to that request, but at least we asked. Once we’ve asked, then we can more justifiably saddle it with blame.

Coming together in a crisis is one of the oft-quoted upsides of Americana. However, it has a downside unto itself. It is hard to cull action out of Americans unless something has reached a crisis stage. That whole idea of preserving things for future generations is nice PR, but we are reluctant to actually do something unless it helps ourselves. More than just a macro example of hyperboleflation, it is the continuing extension of the management ethic to want to effect measurable change in the here and now. So, despite the fact that this is not a crisis, I am calling on all Americans to respond to this crisis.

My fellow Americans, hyperbole is killing our children.

Setting: Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama are sitting at The Dubliner, a fine pub and restaurant on Capitol Hill, waiting to order dinner. A handsome, young lass arrives at the table with menus in hand.

Waitress: Good evening gentlemen. How are we all doing this evening?

Obama: [pause] Thank you for asking that. And thanks, obviously, to The Dubliner for hosting this dinner. That is a question that has been asked quite a few times in this campaign. And it’s an important one. I think—in general—we are in a deep crisis. I think over the past eight years, we’ve been told by the Bush administration that everyone is fine, and most of the time Sen McCain has agreed with that. I don’t. That’s a fundamental difference right there.

McCain: Thank you, miss, for your question. I think you get to the heart of what this table is worried about this evening. I think this table is upset, and a little bit hungry. And that makes sense. This table has spent over $700 on food this week and we are still eating. Sen Obama, in fact, has been throwing food away. Look at our records. He has half a meatball sub sandwich from the deli on Penn and 3rd that’s been in his fridge for a week. One. Week. And he never ate it. I would make sure I didn’t order too much food.

Waitress: Ok… And can I start either of you off with a drink?

McCain: You know, that’s a tough question, and there are a lot of very tasty drinks at this bar. Sen. Obama likes Yuengling, which is a fine lager made by the wonderful people in Pottsville, Pennsylvania. But one of the most important criteria is not only to find a drink that is tasty though, but also one that you are pretty sure you can spell. Again, what about a nice iced tea? Iced tea is easy to spell. I bet you’ve had iced tea before with many meals.

But it’s also going to have to be a drink that people at this table wouldn’t mind drinking this close to bed time. There’s a lot of caffeine in iced tea, and I could see that keeping The American People up for some time. I don’t think that’s what this table wants. This table can get very sleepy after dinner, and Washington wants to keep you and me awake. We can’t stand for that any longer.

Waitress: Sen. Obama? Do you know what you want to drink?

Obama: Well, Yuengling is a very tasty beer. And I’m happy to enjoy it when I can. But there are plenty of other drinks. The main issue with ordering a drink is not just about quenching thirst, it’s also about finding one that goes with the food that we’ll be ordering. That would be good if I got one of the fine sandwiches, or other meals, served here. It’s also very tasty with the Ruben or with the Monte Cristo. I think one of the fundamental questions that The American Waitress might have is, “Is this guy going to be a good tipper?” Now, I have a plan to not only tip based on the drinks, and the meal, but also the tax. I think you’re going to find that Sen. McCain will give you a tip, yes. But will you have enough money to take a cab home, or will you have to take the Metro? I think that’s something we need to think about when ordering drinks.

Waitress: Ok… I’m just going to bring some waters. Do you guys want to start off with some appetizers?

McCain: Friends, I think that is an excellent question, because you’ve gone right to the heart of what we’re here for. We are going to be ordering food. This is going to be food that should be hot, or cold, but definitely tasty. I think we can look back at my record in the Senate and see that I have ordered many tasty dishes. And especially when bringing together these decisions, the ones, for appetizers, you’ll see that I have reached across the table to make sure that we could try to appease this hunger that hits us two to three times a day. I have sat down with Sen. Feingold and sat down with Sen. Lieberman and we have agreed on ordering the Baked Brie Wheel, or we have agreed on the Warm Spinach and Artichoke Dip, and these are the kind of foods that have helped people to not be hungry. Look at our records. Sen. Obama has left that meatball sub sandwich in his fridge for a week. That’s a meatball sub that we could all be eating right now.

Waitress: Sen. Obama, do you want an appetizer?

Obama: Well, you are right. And that question is an important one. I am confident that before the band starts, there will be appetizers on the table. Aaaaaand it will be food, food that The American People enjoy eating. We could order the Spinach and Artichoke dip, and that would be pretty tasty. I think that Potato Skins have also proven to be not only delicious, but also covered in cheese. Now, if you imagine that you haven’t eaten dinner yet, and you would like some food before the main course, imagine two people who haven’t eaten. That’s why we have to order some appetizers.

Let me just say a few things about the meatball sub sandwich in my fridge. What Sen. McCain isn’t telling you is that he and the Bush administration have been allowing the Senate to eat anywhere they want to for lunch. And I need to correct some of Sen. McCain’s understanding of history here. I have never eaten at the deli on Penn and 3^rd. Six months ago, I wrote a letter to Pizza Boli that suggested they deliver pizza to the senate. More than a year ago, I suggested we all eat in the cafeteria. But Sen. McCain has been bragging about how many different delis he eats at in a week. Members of his staff are some of the people who used to work the register at the deli on Penn and 3^rd. And Sen. McCain thinks that if we all ordered sandwiches from wherever we want, eventually there will be some leftovers in the Russell building. It’s this kind of excess that has made us hungry now.

Waitress: [a little exasperated] Ok, so, if you had to pick between the Baked Brie Wheel, the Spinach and Artichoke Dip, which has corn chips and bread, or the Potato Skins, how would you rank them in order of preference? And could you try to keep this answer short? I have a lot of other tables here.

McCain: Thank you very much for asking that mind-blowing question. I think that all of those appetizers sound very good, and I think there is enough room on the table for all of them. I like cheese, and bacon.

Friends, one time, I was out to dinner with President Ronald Reagan, Tip O’Neil, Ted Kennedy, Henry Kissinger, Pope John Paul II, and Satan, the Dark Prince. We were able to order the appetizers that people like to eat. That is something I’ve done. Go ahead and look at the bill.

We can get the Baked Brie Wheel, which would fill us up. It’s something that could be eaten. There is a lot of that $700 this week that went to ordering desserts, which can be very fatty. I think everyone wants to have something to eat, and food can be very expensive. I think we can order all the appetizers, and that will keep your kitchen staff employed and will get you a good tip.

Waitress: Guys, seriously, I’ve been standing here for ten minutes, and I don’t even know if you’re here to eat or just talk about food. Sen. Obama, can you at least tell me what appetizer you might like the most?

Obama: Well, I think when you go out to dinner, you have to decide what you want to eat. I think I’ve made pretty clear that the Spinach and Artichoke dip is very delicious here. It’s got some cheese in it, and—this is one issue where I agree with Sen. McCain—I like cheese. But when Sen. McCain is ordering all these foods, he is forgetting how much exercise we’ll need when we eat all this. He wants to order a bunch of food, eat it all, and leave you a crappy tip. My plan is to order two appetizers, a sensible meal, maybe share a dessert, and leave you a good tip. Then, I’m going to walk back up Massachusetts Ave to the Metro stop over in Chinatown to get some exercise and digest, and leave you with a good enough tip to not only take a cab back to your apartment, but also get a membership at a gym.

Waitress: Look, forget it. You’re not getting appetizers. This question is coming from the kitchen: Are you getting a main course? And if so, can you at least tell us the meals that you would definitely not eat?

Obama: I’m sure you’re going to remember 9/11, and what you ate that day. I think there were a lot of people who probably made meals for other people and that made fewer people hungry. And President Bush definitely understood that food was a priority then, but then he pulled out a bunch of take out menus from the drawer in the kitchen aaaaaaaaand told everyone to order something. Now, that’s not what people in this restaurant want. That’s not going to keep your kitchen staff working, and that’s not going to get you a good tip, and that’s not going to get you a gym membership.

Let’s take the Spinach and Artichoke dip. Now, everyone at this table needs to eat, and what we have to realize is that we can’t eat everything. I want to order something that is hot, and tasty, and delicious. Sen. McCain wants to get something with cheese, but he wants to give dairy farms in France and Holland huge tariff breaks. I want to plant a spinach field in between here and the bar next door, and I want that field to also have artichokes. And I want to have a dairy farm right here on Massachusetts and North Capital. Then we can order Spinach and Artichoke dip with the understanding that those ingredients will be ingredients you can trust.

Waitress: Are you for real? Seriously, look at the menu. Just tell me the things you are sure you don’t like. Please, my other tables are being given away.

McCain: First of all, let’s have a moment of silence for how unbelievable that question was. And during it, let’s talk about that tip that Sen. Obama wants you to get. He wants you to total up the whole bill and then he’s going to take out his calculator and figure out what 17% of the total bill is and then give you that. Look at our records. Sen. Obama still hasn’t ordered a drink yet. He generally eats meatball subs from the deli. He only wants one appetizer. You are looking at a total bill of $30, tops. Under my plan, no matter what we get, I am going to give you a tip of $20 that you can go and use however you want.

And let’s talk about sharing dessert. I went to dinner once with Ronald Reagan, Sen Lieberman, a senate paige, and that guy with the dreadlocks who plays saxophone down by Farragut Square. We all ordered one bowl of bread pudding. Look at our records. I have reached across the table and handed out spoons. Sen. Obama’s plan calls for us to order one dessert that he wants, and then leave you a 17% tip, and he’ll steal the silverware.

Obama: Can I just respond to the silver—?

Waitress: Hey, unless you are about to order something—

McCain: If he gets to respond, then I want—

Waitress: Look, shut up. You’re both going to get a chance to respond to this because if you don’t, I’m going to kick you out. I don’t care who you are. I am going back in the kitchen and bringing out dessert because the kitchen is almost closed. Just… at random—anything, seriously—pick one thing off the dessert menu and just say it. I don’t even care if you want it anymore. Just say one thing off the dessert menu. Actually, you don’t even have to say anything. Just use your fork to point to something.

Obama: Understanding that dessert is on the horizon and that we may have to make a choice about what dessert to get is one of the fundamental challenges of this meal. I think we won’t know what’s on the dessert menu until we look at it. But here’s what I do know. There are a lot of desserts that I might not have been able to eat at the conclusion of this meal. But a lot of the other patrons here at The Dubliner skipped dessert. Because of them, I can eat some of the best desserts in the entire solar system. I’m sure the same will be true for you when you get off your shift. The question you have to ask yourself is: will any of those desserts be available? I want to make sure you can eat those desserts on clean plates with a nice glass of milk or maybe a cup of coffee. That’s why I came to dinner tonight.

Waitress: Sen. McCain, seriously, this is it. You either tell me what you want to eat, or I am putting in two orders of Sherry Trifle and putting the check down.

McCain: Well, thank you for that life-changing question that strikes directly at the issues facing this table. And I can see why you have so much haste and curtness because this table needs to order dessert. And I want to let you know that I have eaten dessert with Sen. Chuck Shumer. We ordered pudding.

So I don’t know what’s going to come out of that kitchen. But I have spent my whole life understanding that dessert should be delicious, and eaten. My father ate dessert and so did my grandfather. I want you, as our waitress to look at my record and see that I like dessert. And I want to let you know that when we are eating dessert, or choosing dessert, the fork in my hand will be pointed towards opportunity, and towards America.

Waitress: Get out.

“A Washington Post-ABC News Poll that was released last night showed that voters were divided over the bailout package but held House Republicans more responsible for its failure by 2 to 1.”

- From The Washington Post, October 1, 2008

“33% of people believe we are currently in a depression.”

- From The Goddamn USA Today, September 29, 2008

This really chaps my ass.

I am so unbelievably sick of news outlets using polls as news. I am actually sick of polls altogether. Can we get a poll of how many people are incensed by polls? I can’t be alone here.

In regards to the first quote from The Post, I don’t know who I hate more: the people who answered this question or the people who wrote it. I want to know how many people answered the question with a string of expletives directed at the ill-advised belief that the man-on-the-street is newsworthy and informed. I want to know why I am never polled so that I can answer questions as such. I want to know why there is a question as to which party is to be held “more responsible for [the bill’s] failure” when we actually know quite specifically the names and the affiliation of the 228 people who are *at fault*. And what heinous crime have they committed? Their jobs.

(Before we move on, and speaking of doing their jobs, did anyone notice the one “Not Voting” vote? It was this guy, Rep. Gerald Weller [R-IL], who, we are told, had some other stuff going on with his family. Obviously the guy is pretty busy since he didn’t even have time to shave before he took the headshot picture for his website. This look works well for him though, as his congressional career pretty much fits the mold of the archetypically-shifty politician in an action movie. Rep. Weller is not running again, a situation which usually sees lawmakers come down with a case of senioritis. But family is always a priority, and I hope that Rep. Weller’s family is safe and sound. That said, when a vote of this magnitude comes around, there are only a few acceptable excuses for missing it that involve family. One of them is, “Grendel was eating my family.”)

Besides the brash disregard of any respect for our system of government by using the idea of blame in this question, how can you fault the minority party that had their current presidential candidate, and their seated president, publicly back the bill? A straight party-line “yea” vote by the Dems would have passed the bill. Not that this is an excuse to hold the Democrats “more responsible for its failure” either (just typing that is making me sick). The 140 Dems who voted “yea” may have voted for a government-intervening, bureaucracy-creating bill that their party is supposedly known for, but they sided with an extremely unpopular president on an historically unparalleled spending bill. The ones who voted against it voted against this administration, which is usually what their party conscience wants them to do.

If you want to blame people, pick any twelve congressmen out who voted against the bill, regardless of party, and blame them. That is what influence-wielding yea voters on the floor of Congress are doing right now in an attempt to make sure the Senate version (which now includes some very important provisions for lifting import taxes on wooden arrow materials) passes the House on Friday.

In truth, Monday's vote was probably one of the most bi-partisan votes this government has ever seen that did not involve military action. There is constant lip-service given to bi-partisan support, and crossing the aisle, and listening to your constituents, and thoughtful lawmaking, and reigning in government spending. But now that the House is backing all that like gangbusters, it is apparently feeding a spiraling crisis. I would bet that this vote represented a lot of cases where Mr Smith went to Washington, gave an impassioned speech that he believed in, and voted in earnest with his conscience. Now all those Mr Smiths, Democrat and Republican, are being vilified by a mightily unbiased and extremely powerful press for doing exactly what they were sent to DC to do.

Doesn’t Mr Smith realize that now is the time to follow, not lead?

As for the second poll, let me make one thing perfectly clear: I do not make The McPaper a regular feature in my news diet. I happened to go into the far stall in the men’s room on Monday, and the “Money ‘n’ Numbers ‘n’ Stuff” section was hanging over the handicapped access bar. This line was a pull-quote in big, bold letters below the fold. That’s how I found it. Don’t get me wrong; I will read articles from The USA Today that I may come across through the natural wave of research, net-surfing or otherwise (“otherwise” in this case being the can at work). As the title character proclaims in the movie Henry Fool, “I refuse to discriminate between modes of knowing”. But if ranked in order of personal preference, The USA Today is well down the list of places to originate said research. It is somewhere in the neighborhood of national polls.

This second quote is an excellent example of why parents fear peer pressure. In short, your peers are idiots. Individually, we the people can be bright and enriching in our own way, but as a group we humans are a thick herd. The question behind this quote feeds into the need to define history as it happens by asking America what it collectively thinks all the time (one of the most annoying developments of the hypermedia age). It seems that The USA Today has forgotten that there are a whole host of people who study macroeconomic data whose opinions are much more qualified to be adorned with a pull quote. Why do we under-fund public education and then ask America what it thinks about economics? America thought that President Bush’s first term in office was reason enough for him to have a second. Haven’t we had enough of America’s thought process for a while?

This past Monday, shortly after representatives in our Legislature rejected the Save the Puppies and Bake Apple Pie Bill (HR 3997), The New York Times Editorial Page had quite a lot to say about the vote. They described the source of their ire, in no mean terms, as those good-for-nothing ne’er-do-wells (uh—but just the Republican ones) that voted against the bill. They blamed House Republicans for voting “less in analysis or principle than in political posturing and ideological rigidity”. This seems like an odd stance considering the 95 House Democrats that voted against the bill as well. Why were they not blamed for reckless political endangerment or some such lunatic insult?

A party-line vote is political posturing, and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is ideological rigidity (God bless him), but a collection of 228 nay votes is neither of these. It is simply a bill that should not be a law because, for many valid and capricious reasons alike, the people’s representatives rejected it. Sorry, that’s our system. If we are going to hope that our government saves us, we damn well better believe in the process it follows.

The New York Times wants us to find and hate at least twelve—and at most 228—Congressmen (preferably Republicans) who are just a touch nervous about using tax dollars to back a government-run penny-stock portfolio. The opinion of The Colorful Lady here seems to spring more from passion than reason. This financial problem has a great deal to do with a dangerous mixture of abundant credit and haste, and now many of our leaders want to calm the problem with the same ingredients, but this time with a government chef (and not just a government sous-chef like before). I think I’d be nervous about that, too. (Oh wait—I actually am nervous about it.) Despite Bush becoming the biggest government spending Republican by a mile, there are still some GOP-ers that feel the party should be about financial responsibility. There is also a solid contingent of Blue Dog Democrats, about twenty in the last vote (joined by many sympathizers), that believe throwing good money after bad as fast as governmentally possible might not be the best solution either.

Oh yeah, there’s also a few hundred of the country’s respected economists who also think we might not want to react to panic with government-sponsored panic. Maybe they’re ivory-tower brainiacs, but the New York Times isn’t exactly the voice of the common man either.

I guess the line between ideological rigidity and cautious contemplation is pretty blurry.

Steven Pearlstein of The Washington Post thinks that Americans, by and large, don’t really understand the situation. I tend to agree. He also blames the ignorant masses for… everything, seeing their lack of understanding on level with political wrangling and corporate indignance as the crux of the financial crisis. That may be going a bit too far.

“The basic problem here is that too many people don't understand the seriousness of the situation.

Americans fail to understand that they are facing the real prospect of a decade of little or no economic growth because of the bursting of a credit bubble that they helped create and that now threatens to bring down the global financial system.

Politicians worry less about preventing a financial meltdown than about ideology, partisan posturing and teaching people a lesson. Financiers have yet to own up publicly to their own greed, arrogance and incompetence. And leaders of foreign governments still think that this is an American problem and that they have no need to mount similar rescue efforts in their own countries.”

Well, that was some widely-encompassing revilement that somehow omitted the fear-mongering press, wasn’t it?

Do you think the average, middle-American voter who is in his 40s and has a regular job that he's held for 10 years and will likely hold for another 10 gives a damn about credit swaps and foreign currency devaluation and inter-bank borrowing? He's got his own house that he can handle the payments on, his own car that is well within his means, he's not retiring for 20 years, he contributes to his 401(k), files his taxes every year, and he saves some money in a credit union. This is the great and stable middle-class that we need as the backbone of our economy and hold aloft as the necessary base in our finance system full of acids. Every day for the past 20 years, Fox news has been telling this guy that the sky is falling, and every morning he lives to commute another day. Now Mr Pearlstein is wondering why these cave-dwellers have no idea how important all this is.

Actually, Mr Pearlstein, I’m willing to bet that there is a pretty strong plurality of people who have a decent idea about what is going on and still don’t care to inject their tax dollars into the problem. If the rich get poorer and the poor cant find work, Mr Middle-America’s net income is probably still going to be about 70% of his paycheck (if he’s lucky). In very real terms, he sees $700 Billion as a lot of money, and he doesn’t understand why it should be invested in dangerously devalued assets. The problem may be much more complex than that, but if it is, then the solution is recklessly simple.

Mr Middle-America thinks that the people who got us into this mess are ignorant as well, Mr Pearlstein, and he doesn’t understand why he is being asked to hand over more money to a government that has proven to be too venturesome so they can invest in securities that have proven to be too risky.

This is a goliath of a correction going on right now, and there are people suffering who were not part of the problem. It may be extremely harsh and prolonged, and we may have not hit the bottom yet, but it is a return in kind from the massive and unstable bubble we were fostering. We relished in the excess of an overvalued market (a few of them, actually), and now we are returning to earth with all the implied and actual consequences. As harsh as that is, and as scary as those prospects are, the underlying belief is one of the few things you can be assured of right now. Coming out of this with government help is likely, and in many ways is an imperfect solution that a majority of the House will resign itself to eventually after enough riders have been attached (effectively spending much more money and making everything worse), but rushing the issue is the worst solution of all. We were smart enough not to rush the issue when the amendment was three pages long and basically amounted to a shopping spree for Secretary Paulson. Haste under different terms is not the safe alternative.

The problem is, moving this “solution” forward at any time with any speed will not solve anything. We are hoping that if we cast blame correctly, and jigger the system just a little bit more, we will at least push further collapse far enough out to get our money back. Then some other people will actually have to deal with the problem.

Debt? We don't have a debt problem. We can quit any time we want to.

Maybe some of us will make it out in the black, but some of us invariably won’t. We have been hitting the snooze alarm on fiscal responsibility for years; in fact, decades. Putting off a chance to allow natural regulation does exactly that: it puts it off. Natural regulation of a system will sneak in no matter how often we the idiots try to box it out (See Germany 1923, USA 1970s, Argentina… ever). I hate to sound like a fatalist, but eventually we will have to pay for our excess. This is no longer just about overpriced houses, or foreclosures, or overpriced exotic securities, or under-priced risk, or unnaturally low inflation, or the Fed, or the SEC, or about any one particular sector or asset class. It is about all those things. This is not a sector collapse. This is market fallout.

Here’s the good news: the United States, better than any country, could weather the storm. It’s got a 220-year-old system of representative government, and a currency that has, more or less, been one of the globe's favorite sons for the past 50 years. But right now we are taking that security for granted. On Friday our government will likely agree to inject $700 Billion into a collapsing market when we have a budget deficit of $400+ Billion in 2008 and a national debt of $10 Trillion. This plan is so dangerous you would think it would be partnered with an immediate and thorough plan for massive spending cuts.

It isn’t.

That is not a rescue plan. That is a belief that the people can trick the system into not fixing itself. That is a belief that the dollar is not only strong, it is invulnerable.

It isn’t.

You know how your dad promised to make sloppy joes at some point really soon, so all week you kept thinking about how awesome Sloppy Joe Day was going to be? Well, let’s say your mom found out that the meat he was going to use to make the sloppy joes was contaminated with mad cow. She tells your dad, but your dad decides that he already promised the sloppy joes, and he doesn’t want you to have a tantrum or go hungry, so he’ll just add a side of ham to your portion and hope that you don’t get sick. If there’s a problem later, he’s pretty sure some doctor can help you out... probably.

Setting : Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson are sitting at the Red Canoe Café in Baltimore, MD. Both are enjoying a cup of Zeke’s Red Canoe Blend and muffins. Jefferson is eating one of their very tasty coffee cake muffins, and Hamilton has one of their awesome raspberry muffins with the powdered sugar dusting that is so good it would make you scream like a girl. The two of them are reading a stack of newspapers and magazines sitting in front of them. Most of the periodicals are news weeklies and daily papers, except for one issue of Popular Mechanics that pretty much gave them both a heart attack. James Madison is also hanging around like the little hype man for Jefferson. Others show up occasionally as I see fit.

Jefferson : [reading the Wall Street Journal while shaking his head and making disdainful, accusatory noises under his breath.] “mmh… mm-hmm… well…. oh, my.” [sighs audibly]

Hamilton: [rolls his eyes, slams down his copy of The New York Post, and then slaps the table as if he’s fed up] “Alright! What? I know those are directed at me, ok? Just say whatever it is that you’re thinking.”

Jefferson : [looking over his newspaper] “It seems that your little Federal Bank should have seen this mess coming, or stopped it before it got so bad.”

Hamilton : “Are you stoned again? Look, first of all, you don’t know anything about banking or economics, so don’t act so smart. Second, THIS [pointing to the article] is not MY bank. My bank was crushed by that guy [points to James Madison].”

Madison : “This is the natural progression of your bank. It’s got your dirty, little, monarchical fingerprints all over it.”

Andrew Jackson: [enters suddenly, followed by a sheep and two guys he met on the 19 bus] “IT’S A WAREHOUSE OF THIEVES! IT’S FILLED WITH THE FAVORED, FRIENDLY, AND CORRUPT! ”

[Ulysses Grant is standing outside, having a cigar, and wondering why this is a problem.]

Hamilton : “My ‘monarchical fingerprints’? Are you kidding me? This bank has seven rulers who are all called “Governors”, it’s got 12 different regions, pays all its own debts, and has a chairman who is constantly on public forum. Believe me, this is all you, pal. It’s got your ‘distill-the-genius-of-the-idiot-farmers’ crap coming out of it like a faucet.”

Jefferson : “If it were truly influenced by the people. They would have had representatives urge an increase in the interest rates between lending institutions some time ago; they would have slowed this down. Nothing involving a national infrastructure, economic or otherwise, should have happened this fast, even if it is growth; this crisis is the result. If the people could have had a say earlier, they would not have stood for this incessant greed by these financial industries.

Hamilton : “They didn’t stand at all! They ran along with some incessant greed of their own. The People are just as much to blame as the government, but at the end of the day, The People turn to The Government and say, “how are you going to get us out of this mess?” The People want freedom in their markets, but the minute that their Mob Market becomes more than they can handle, they can’t give up their freedom fast enough.”

Jefferson : “’The People’ who are to blame are more oligarchy than ochlocracy. It is the financial royalty that we have appointed de facto.”

Hamilton : “And what are they appointed to do? Keep money flowing and growth growing, and allowing consumption run its course. This is precisely what they did because that is the only way to let your precious public contribute to the economy. Why does everything have to be so participatory anyway? Do you honestly think some kind of representative bank would have reversed this trend? The people don’t even understand what this bank does.”

Jefferson : “That’s one of its greatest failings.”

Hamilton : “Believe me, pal. It’s a good thing.”

Jefferson : “I’m not a fool, you know. I don’t think that the public at large should have a direct say in economic policy, but to have not only power and money but also power over money in the hands of so few is just as dangerous. There is a reason to distill rule through the people—[Hamilton readies a canned retort, but Jefferson cuts him off.] This is not to say you hand it to them. That would not only be unproductive but impossible. You seem to think these people act as a unit, like some kind of anti-government; as if the will of the governed and the will governor are opponents in a duel.”

Hamilton : “Oh yeah, really funny.”

Jefferson : “You are mistaking the humility of the public with unity. This Federal Bank of yours is supposed to be the fence on the sprawling ranch; to allow the nation’s people to roam, and graze, and exercise their separate freedoms in a contained manner. If all the animals want to get out, you don’t just open the gates and assume that wherever they are is your new land.”

Hamilton: “wha… uh… wait—are the animals… money? Or…”

Madison : [to Jefferson] “I told you I was the better writer.”

Jackson : [who is visibly intoxicated] “DAMN THE GATES! PROPRIETY IS JUST ANOTHER INSTRUMENT OF RULE FOR THE PLUTOCRATS! [Throws a glass of whiskey at a bookshelf.]

Jefferson : “The animals are commercial banks, and the opening of the gates is the Federal Funds rate staying low. See it now?”

Hamilton : “Uh… kind of….”

Madison : “See? You’re more of an editor. But don’t get me wrong—you’re really good at it.”

Hamilton : “Regardless, I really want you to stop calling it my bank. If it’s anyone’s bank, it’s his. [Points to Woodrow Wilson, who is sitting in a corner, drinking a skim latte, and reading a Robert Kaplan book.]

Wilson : “Excus—what? My bank? Oh no no no. That was political.”

Teddy Roosevelt: [Enters at right carrying half an elk.] “Of course. It was all political with you. Your integrity is just like your physique: subject to the winds.”

Wilson : “Well, it’s a damn good thing that bank came along eventually. When we are ignoring Wall Street for the sake of our place as the world’s hegemony spigot, someone eventually has to pay the piper. ”

Teddy Roosevelt: “Oh good god! Have you not read your own biography? The pot shouldn’t go calling the kettle black when the kettle could kick the pot’s ass.” [Advances towards Wilson, who then assumes that “Donald-Duck-fisticuffs” stance.]

Jefferson : “Gentlemen” [stepping between them] “we’ve all had a bit too much caffeine, and we are straying from the point. To wit: why do we have this bank of the federal government if it lets the economy fall into turmoil?”

Hamilton : “You keep talking about this like the central bank is doing nothing. It is working day and night right now; brokering deals, increasing liquidity in the market, insuring the mutual funds—”

Jefferson : “No. I am speaking of its role of allowing this to happen in the first place. What was the point of this bank originally? To centralize responsibility? To ensure that we had a currency that meant something? My stars, we can’t even pay money we owe to ourselves. How are we taking on the debt of private companies?”

Jackson : “UNITY SHOULD BE IN SERVICE TO LIBERTY, NOT A EUPHEMISM FOR CENTRAL CONTROL!” [He kicks Wilson in the shin for no good reason.]

Hamilton : “How can we not? Until we find a perfect system, parts of it will eventually fail. And there was plenty of failing to go around. Why have we not parsed some of the blame out to this SEC?” [Shoots a piercing glare at Franklin D. Roosevelt, who is sitting by the roaring fireplace and throwing money into it.]

FDR: [Shrugs insouciantly] “Do you have any idea how much I get blamed for? I don’t even care anymore.”

Teddy Roosevelt: “We could spend all day blaming all manners of laws and agencies. But this is not a time for words,” [cocks a shotgun] “this is a time for action!”

[Milton Friedman comes downstairs after finishing up his yoga class in the studio upstairs.]

Friedman: “I think government action will likely exacerbate the problem. That said, we don’t have much of a choice now.”

FDR: “Well we do have a choice. Unfortunately, those choices are: the government acts as an enabler for the economy or we enjoy the catastrophic fallout of domestic commerce.”

[Jefferson glances over at Hamilton and then looks back to Friedman who is re-rolling his yoga mat.]

Jefferson : “So?”

Friedman: “So… what?”

Hamilton : “So who do you agree with?”

Friedman: “That guy.” [Points to Jackson]

There has been a great deal of concern in recent days over quite a few stories of national interest:

What are those debates going to be like between Palin and Biden?

Is the bailout of Fannie and Freddie socialism for the rich? (or for the stupid?)

A few harsh-looking hurricanes have spared the gulf (ours) and OPEC (in the other gulf) has stated they have no plans to cut any oil production. What is this doing to the commodities sector?

Pakistan has elected a man on the brink of insanity to guide them. Will he pad the walls of the presidential palace?

How ‘bout this particle colliding thing?

Kim Jong Il is missing, or ill, or dead, or hiding, or on vacation. Is this all just to get attention?

It's so easy with all these troubles on our mind to forget the really important things. It seems like one issue that was far too easily lost in the shuffle this week was the beginning of the NFL season. I know I probably didn't pay as much attention to it as I should have. But you know what? It happened, and there’s no excuse if you didn’t get all your shopping done.

Something that has been deeply troubling to the nation as a whole is how badly the Browns lost last Sunday. I’m sure we’re all wondering what led to their colossal defensive letdown and what fostered their disturbingly anemic offense. I would bet that a huge chunk of it was Braylon Edwards not getting the ball enough…. What’s that, you say? He was thrown to 400 times? Oh. Uh, forget it then.

The Cowboys stamped a measured victory on Sunday. By the second half, the game was so easy for them that it was obvious they were having a little too much fun. You can have a resounding victory, and you can be a better team, but when you are sending your tight end on a fly pattern while you’re up by two scores, you’re just rubbing it in.

The problem with a game like Sunday’s where the Cowboys were up 21-7 by the time halftime rolls around is that, as a fan, you are sitting there watching the TV thinking, “OK, all the Brownies have to do here is shut down the pass, contain the run, and score a few times, and they’re back in this game.” Basically, you become insane. You want them to suddenly become the 2005 team that was ranked 4^th in pass defense; so you close your eyes, and you pray really hard. Finally, after hearing your prayers, God smiles a benevolent smile down from the heavens and says, “keep drinking, asshole.”

The game was out of reach very early. Does that mean you lose hope? No. It just means you begin to justify a completely irrational future. This is quite easy because you have probably had a lot of practice. Being a Browns fan is kind of like becoming a priest: you are giving up a lot of immediate pleasure and hoping for a grand future that seems less and less likely the more you read the news.

It’s not as if the Cowpokes looked all that invulnerable. The Browns did a decent job of beating up on skill positions: Romo had his chin split open, Barber left early with bruised ribs, and TO had a pretty pedestrian day for a pro-bowl receiver. So how did the Browns still lose? Well, first of all, they’re damn good at it. Secondly, it seemed as though most of their offense consisted of the “go long and I’ll hit you” play that you generally draw up in Timmy’s back yard. It looks like the plan originally was to toss Edwards the long ball to stretch out the defense, get a few scores, and then keep a possession game going with Lewis. Their long view was likely: we will try to outlast them in a shootout, or hold the ball long enough to keep them from scoring.

Neither one worked. This is because of what is called “a critical path issue” in the MBA world. The tosses to Edwards weren’t working, so the “stretch the defense” plan pretty much hits the crapper at this point. The possession game didn’t work because it was based on the assumption that Dallas would get sick of having the ball and just hand it back to them. That is the only reason that would explain why on a 4^th and 2, on the Dallas 46, in your home stadium, with the score at zeroes in the first quarter, you decide to punt the ball.

You know what? Screw you, Cleveland. You gave up the game right there.

(Every week during the season I disown the team. And like some kind of codependent, I keep going back.)

Why else did they lose? Dallas was just the better team. From what I saw, they are The Complete Team this year; even better than they were last year. When both the run and the pass are working regardless of the players, and you are playing a secondary that could get burned by the Canadian synchronized swimming team, you’re going to put some points on the board.

So up this week is Pittsburgh. In a locker room interview, Jamal Lewis mentioned that Pittsburgh suffers no fools, and said about 50 times that you have to play physical. Obviously, he wants the ball. He certainly wants the ball more than 13 times a game if he is averaging over 4 yards a carry as he did in both cases last week.

In their last meeting with the Steelers, in November of 2007, The Browns went with their tried and true “break, don’t bend” game philosophy. After being up 21-9 in the first half, they went in to the locker room, put on their jammies, tucked each other in, and shit the bed.

In the third quarter, with the Browns winning handily, Jamal Lewis, a runningback who runs so compactly that looks like the son of Barney Rubble and a soup can, ran the ball five times in as many series. Anderson had more incomplete passes (6) during this time period.

It is worthy to note that The Steelers ran the ball 30 times not counting the five rushes from Roethlisberger, and they were behind for most of the game.

Eventually, Pittsburg pressured Anderson enough that the game in the air was not working as well as it did in the first half. Since Cleveland was only running the ball once a series, they didn’t really have to respect the run. So as tacitly as he can explain it to his team through the media, Lewis is telling them he needs the ball 20-25 times in this game if they expect to have a chance.

I am telling the team the same thing. Give Lewis the ball. If Lewis gets the ball 20 times or more in this game they have a chance. If they go with the Jeff Agoos Long Ball strategy, they will lose. They have scored a lot of points in shootouts with the Steelers since they came back to the league in 1999, but they have lost every one of those shootouts.

Run, Chud. Run.

Of course, If Lewis is out, they're screwed. (Aren't I the worst fan ever?)

-------------------

On a side note, New England will be fine. Having Brady injured is not an issue. Everyone talks about Brady, and no one talks about the fact that all the starters on the O-line that got there in 2005 or earlier. The O-line’s cohesion is the crux of that team. I would worry about Scott Pioli or Belichick getting injured before I worried about Brady. The O-line is why Brady threw 50 touchdowns last year, the O-line is why he never gets his uniform dirty, and the O-line is why Matt Cassel is going to be this week’s Joe Flacco (with a way better education).

Maybe if the Pats were to win without Brady, their fans would start remembering that whole “team” thing that was such a big story back in the day. I loved it when the pats were announced at the Super Bowl in 2001 as a team. I rooted them on right there. Hell, I was already rooting for them in the conference championship when they played the Steelers in the gleaming new Heinz Field. Bledsoe had the only passing touchdown of that game, and he came in when Brady got knocked off the field on to his chest in almost the exact same way that Bledsoe suffered his injury against the Jets that season. I mean, it was like out of a movie. Believe you me, when someone pastes the Steelers on their own turf in a conference championship with the feel-good, turn-around story of the postseason, I remember that game with zeal.

So watch for the Pats to “shock” the Jets this week with a tight win.

That said, I was 6-10 and in last place in my Pick’em pool last week.

As noted by one billion Facebook updates this week, and as confirmed by his eye-moistening acceptance speech, Joe Biden is the official running mate of Barack “The Widening Gyre of Hope” Obama. The media at large is plenty tickled. Mr Biden has a political resume as long as a bad sermon, and yet he hasn’t been overplayed (all of which is the exact opposite of Mr Obama). Unfortunately for the media, he seems like a pretty decent guy, which doesn’t make much news. But there are still tidbits to check on. Most recently, Mr Biden has run his own unsuccessful campaign for the presidency. He dropped out during the Iowa caucuses this year after garnering fewer votes than the governor of New Mexico (a man who proves that politicians are generally as loyal as a flu strain), and just narrowly beating “Uncommitted”. But now he’s going to be henpecked and picked apart by the 30,000 rpm news cycle. So if you’ve missed all his goofy gaffes about Mr Obama’s hygiene, prepare to get schooled up.

One fun fact that keeps getting thrown around is that he is “one of the poorest members of the senate” (along with Senator Twist, Senator Canty, and Senator Finn). Some sources have noted (ha-ha) that his net worth is estimated at around $150k, others have it “between $59,000 and $366,000” (aforelinked LA Times article). This is certainly pauper-esque in terms of the senate. But considering he’s been making a six-figure salary since 1991, it really just makes me think that a bit too much of his portfolio loaded with trips to Dover Downs.

In the speech that Mr Obama delivered to introduce his executive partner a few days ago, he mentioned the now popular image of Joe Biden riding home to Wilmington every night on a “lonely Amtrak train”. This is another tid-bit that really has some legs. The next day I got dispatch from my friend Tune noting that Mr Biden was soon dubbed “The Amtrak Candidate”, which is a brand being picked up by blogs on other major news outlets. Furthermore, Biden himself mentioned Amtrak in his acceptance speech last night. Not only a plug for his pals on the train, but also for his son who sits on the Amtrak Board of Directors.

Let’s look beyond the fact that the ride between Wilmington and DC is rarely "lonely". It’s on the Northeast Corridor, which serves about two thirds of Amtrak’s total ridership. Right now, I am just glad that Amtrak is getting press in a quasi-loving light. Generally, Amtrak only gets press when they are trying to figure out how much money the Bush Administration does not want to give them despite continual increases in ridership. This is not a new problem at all.

So now we may actually have someone who makes our massively underfunded passenger rail service a priority. Personally, I’m all for it. I’m a big fan of public transportation in general, and rail transport specifically. When I was living in Brooklyn, NY and Mrs Squatty and I went-a-courtin’, I spent a great deal of time on Amtrak between New York and Baltimore. Also, it was just as easy to pop up to the 518 to visit the folks. All in all, I traveled more than 18,000 miles on the Northeast Corridor from the fall of 2004 to the spring of 2008. I am a fan, and despite at times paying $80 to sit on the floor, or $100 to be an hour and a half late, I have plenty of interest in bumping up the subsidy for Amtrak.

(And this is the part where everyone hates me.)

I know, I know. We’re all still fuming that Amtrak just got a ton of money in a veto-proof bill a few months ago. So it looks like, with a continued Democratic legislature, and maybe even a Democratic executive, our trains will be back on track. Well, it’s important to understand a few things about that. 

For one, when a bill is passed by The House, it is not as if Alex Kummant walks over to some cashier in the Treasury and gets a check cut for $14 Billion. There will be a good deal of that money that will not go to Amtrak at all. It is a passenger rail bill, so it is setting aside money for all passenger rail systems (subways, light rails, commuter rails, etc). In fact, 10% of the money is going to Washington DC’s Metro system alone.

Beyond this, it is an authorization for funds. Amtrak is not guaranteed anything. If it is authorized to receive $1.8 Billion one year but there is only $520M in the budget because we are paying for Poland to be in Afghanistan, or writing checks to farmers to not do anything, then $520M is all they get. They are still down on the priority list.

And one other thing I don’t want to get into here is whether the airlines or the highways get more subsidies than Amtrak per passenger mile, or per household, or anything. National transportation is all federally funded and it should be, because to some degree it should all be federally regulated. Moving people around the country between 60 and 400 mph is not something where we should just let the market do its thing. The point is that the current investment in Amtrak is actually making it worse every year. It's kind of like blowing out a tire on your F-150 on the highway and seeing how long you can make it on the rims. It needs funds just to come up to status quo.

In terms of our national passenger rail debacle, the government is lying in a bed it made itself. Amtrak was created in 1971 by our own federal government because it was a losing business model for private railroads who just wanted to pull freight. It inherited rolling stock and infrastructure that was between a few decades and a century old. Some of this infrastructure is still being fixed; some of it is just getting older and more dangerous. Every day on the way to work, my train goes through tunnels that are crumbling with age because they were built shortly after the war… The Civil War.

It is capital expenditures like these that need the most priority. Amtrak currently has a State of Good Repair backlog in the multiple billions of dollars because it has never received enough money do all the capital improvements necessary. So when you are wondering why they haven’t put in a super high speed rail (a-la the TGV) between Boston and DC, you can ask your local physics professor about sending a 200 mph train over a 90 year old bridge. It’s not like flying where you just build the plane; you have to build the sky, too.

So, what do we do? WHAT DO WE DO?!

Alright, everyone knows of Mr Bush’s old plan to… well… just stop funding Amtrak altogether, let it deregulate, and kind of see what happens in the free market. That sounds like a neat plan on paper, and maybe if Jack Welch were the president it would have happened. But you are hoping for the best parts of Friedman, and you’ll probably get the worst parts of Hobbes. Quite simply, if you start a business that needed a massive cash infusion from the beginning, never gave it that infusion, and then watch it crumble, it is hard to say that you gave it your best shot.

The airline industry is quite deregulated, and I can’t hyperlink enough sites to illustrate its turmoil. So we’ll just hope you read the news and understand that maybe deregulation isn't the panacea that you think it is.

Furthermore, the nation, and the globe, is seeing people move towards urban areas, and not always the big ones. By 2030, UN projections indicate that one third of the world’s population will reside in cities of under 500,000, and 80% of the US and Europe will be urbanized. With those kinds of numbers, we are not talking about New York and LA. We are talking about new and rejuvenated urban centers like Charlotte, Jacksonville, Yuma, AZ, Santa Fe, NM, and Albany, NY. (Dude, seriously. Albany is awesome.) If half a billion people or more live in the US and they are expecting inter-city travel, it is inconceivable to believe that we viably commute that many passengers in the air, or that many short distance flights because we scrapped our national rail service. Why set up yet another industry for failure? 

I am hoping that the Democratic Vice-Presidential hopeful gives Amtrak the shot that it needs, but not just by writing a $5 billion check. The federal government really should stay involved, but just to help with a few laws that I’ll need passed to get my plan underway.

The train should not be thought of as simply a means to move people from A to B. (Stay with me here.) The train is faster, more spacious, and has much less stigma than riding the bus. In terms of entrance and egress between major cities less than 300 miles apart, the travel time is comparable to flying. In terms of longer trips, its entire philosophy is not about pressurized efficiency where you are strapped down most of the time. You can move around, or go to the café car and meet people; you can treat it like an event in it self.

So much of Amtrak’s advertisements are about being able to get work done on the train, or decompressing on the train, or doing all these other things that don’t make Amtrak any money while someone is sitting in a seat for 2-3 hours, or maybe even a day or two. So how do you get revenue beyond selling rooms on the train and food at a loss?

The Casino Car.

Think about it. Just think about it for a minute. On the end of any long-distance train (we’ll start with the long distance trains), you tack on two Casino Cars. One car has two blackjack tables, and two craps tables, and the other one is all just video poker and slots and all that high margin crap that takes the fun out of gambling. You put the café car in between them and the rest of the train, and then you put all the cabins and coaches on the front.

Of course this has been joked about and opined and even pored over by the underground rail literati in forums past. But never before has it been so poignant. This is a way for Amtrak to receive continual revenue while the cars are actually rolling. The train is then not just a mode of transport. It becomes an interstate party bus. It brings form and function together in a high-margin business that has decades of experience in fine-tuning ways to keep trapped people happy.

Also, the costs for converting or building the Casino Cars could be fronted by a major entertainment company that is already looking to expand. Foxwoods? Trump? Harrah’s? Any one of them would be willing to give it a shot. Hell, you can even charge them for the right to brand the car. More dough right there.

Imagine your trip from DC to New Orleans, or from Chicago to New Orleans, or from New Orleans to LA (Mrs Squatty really likes New Orleans), where you get on, check into your room, go have a drink, hit the tables, carouse for a while, hit the hay, and wake up at your destination. Your vacation starts the minute you leave, and not with some wholesome crap about traveling with your loved ones and learning the true meaning of something. Oh no. It is about getting the booze and the yo-leven going as soon as you leave your port of call.

One of the worst parts about taking a trip nowadays is getting on the goddamn plane. Here's a great way to follow Bing's advice and elimiate the negative. Just imagine something awesomer.

(NB: “Imagine Something Awesomer” is going to be my slogan when I run for mayor of Baltimore.)

Or maybe it’s like the classic divorce case, where the parents are fighting over the only child because they have nothing else that proves their time together was worthwhile, or because they just want to be loved, or because they don’t want to pay child support.

Maybe it’s like the bully and the nerd, where the—oh no wait! I’ve got it. It’s like the older sister and the little brother who are sitting in the back seat of the family car on a long trip. The little brother is slowly spreading his body out so that it is just barely touching the disputed imitation leather ridge in the backseat, and the older sister is sitting there on her half of the back seat going “I’m not touching you… I’m not touching you.” But the car is an old Lada, and, despite not overtly admitting to it, she’s actually paying a middle sister to hover her finger next to the little brother’s ear while she’s saying this. So then, Mom says that she thinks the boy is being very good, and will get ice cream at the next exit. At this point, the oldest sister tells everyone in the car that she is going to NOW start paying the middle sister to tacitly threaten her brother. Then the older sister coldly nods at the middle sister who pulls out a gun. The little brother then sees the gun and pokes the eye of the mercenary sister. So the oldest sister gets another gun out, and gives it to the middle sister to use with her free hand. When the little brother tells mom that he is going to have a temper tantrum if he sees any more guns, the older sister tells everyone in the car that the little brother is getting a little hot headed, and orders fighter jets to buzz the car in an attempt to calm him down. Then the little brother leans into the guns and goes, “SEE? You ARE touching me!” and then fires a rock from a slingshot at the middle sister’s knee. Then the older sister pulls out her own guns, and she and the middle sister empty a couple of clips into the little brother’s arm. So the little brother gets on the phone with Wolf Blitzer and is like, “are you for real? What the hell did I do?” And Wolf goes, “Do you think Dad should lean back there and threaten to turn the car around?” Except that Dad, despite favoring the little brother, is REALLY sick of all the crap that goes on in the back seat. He never really understands what their problem is, and, to be honest, he’s a little saddle sore from fighting with this Arab dude who is, at this moment, standing on the hood of the car and kicking the windshield in (though, admittedly, the Arab guy is getting tired).

As of this writing (8/14/2008), there have been, I believe, fifteen cease-fires called for in the conflict over the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia (of course, the Russian version of a cease-fire is demanding that the other side be crushed without complaining). The actual one that was supposedly signed and breached by both sides nearly simultaneously is the one that some early reports were calling “the French Brokered” cease-fire. This annoys me to no end, because it is “EU brokered”. The only reason Sarkozy is handling this is because it’s his turn to be the head of the EU. Otherwise, he would probably just be on the phone.

(Do you remember when Sarkozy was first in office and he was attending that G8 summit in Heiligendamm, and for some reason or the other, the press caught a ton of pictures of him with his cell phone? Now, no matter what I do, whenever I see him in a picture talking to someone, I always imagine him saying “lemme just scoop this call up real quick,” in kind of a Uralic, neo-suave way.)

So peace is apparently on the way. Actually, that’s the funniest part. Peace has been aggressively targeted for a few months. Quite a few months ago, Russia was busy building up its peacekeeping force in Abkhazia, and being accused of threatening war. But hey, c’mon. Russia is a peace-loving nation. Why would they want anything to do with some screwy, local police action? The more peacekeepers they deploy, the more peace there will be, eh?

Besides the fact that the two “breakaway regions” both share the Russian border (and Abkhazia has a nice, little coast on the Black Sea, where I’m sure the vacation housing market is very reasonable), and besides the fact that Emperor Putin has been trying to help Russia regain its old git-up-‘n’-go since the fall of the USSR (with plenty of help from local mafias) and is likely pleased that Mr Medvedev is continuing the brand, it seems that a lot of this conflict just comes down to the old oil racket. The pipeline that spans along this region pumps out about 1% of the world’s oil output a day. The grand majority of this goes to Europe, so it doesn’t affect us directly, but protecting it keeps it out of the hands of someone who is a little too happy to assert his power with a Snidely Whiplash-esque flair.

So, we want to protect our buddies who run god-fearing democracies, and we want to protect oil, and any time a MiG flies or an AK discharges, the bat signal goes up over DC because, as we all know, Russia is the Legion of Doom. Makes sense. But do we need to help out? Well, we’ve already sent over and promised further humanitarian aid, and that’s our role with friends. Our diplomatic efforts have included threatening to throw Russia out of the G8 coffee club (that Mr Putin treated like his mom signed him up for it), and cancelling a cute military party that Russia was going to co-host with NATO.

I am certain that the news of these threats sent Russia’s borscht futures through the floor, but that might not be enough. Inquiring minds really want to know if we are going to respond with our military. I figure since we probably had a hand in the arms that were bulking up Georgia’s military, we have probably done our part on that front. So what do we do? WHAT DO WE DO?!

One thing that it appears no one is considering is that Abkhazia and South Ossetia want to get the hell out of Georgia. They have wanted complete independence since the breakup of the USSR. They have elected their own parliaments that have said this and asked to be recognized by the world community.They have had their own referendums that have said this and asked to be recognized by the world community. They might be trying to leave a “democracy”, but it seems to be something that the people there have wanted for a long time, and have felt very hopeful about since the quasi-break of Kosovo in February. We supported that, but this is different. This is a country that is trying to become sovereign when it is already part of a western-style democracy. But it has hoped and pleaded to break off using diplomatic means, aggressive means, and likely taking money from Russia to do so, so that just doesn’t compute. Why would anyone want to leave a democracy when it’s the best type of government in the world?

To be honest, that doesn’t matter. President Bush is using the old standard of Protecting Democratic Interests when talking about returning the regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to Georgian control and it is just plain embarrassing. If we really wanted to protect democracy, we would have supported the breakaway regions from the beginning, and we would have tried to negotiate agreements between Saakashvili and those regions to move towards independence separately. We would have implanted ourselves there, despite all the money and all the people that Russia has been dumping over the border for decades, and we would have made them all allies. And then—and THEN—imagine how pissed off Russia would have been if we had turned their whole border project right around on them and had three happily trading, and economically burgeoning sovereign states who were all friends of the USA.

I mean, isn’t pissing off Russia the point?

I realize, of course, that it’s not nearly that simple. But it certainly comports with our supposed beliefs as a torch bearer for freedom. Democracy by fiat seems like something that we would fight against. If we want to go in there and fight for the pipeline and push Russia back for no reason other than money and hubris, fine. But we are not going to because 1) those are all losing military scenarios, and 2) we just don’t have the power to do that right now without starting a world war. Instead, we throw words at it that we think bear the standards of our beliefs as a nation.

If we were real diplomats, we would support what we are actually supposed to believe in, and not just what we want.