Barack Obama in ye olden tongue, the ancient language of birds before the Fall of Man, is often loosely translated as "Master of the Undead" but the technically correct translation is "Community Organizer of Dead Names."

It is expected that the height of Obama's necromantic powers will peak during All Hallows Eve, when many will wear masks featuring either his likeness or the outward facade of his dreaded lich nemesis, McCain the Ancient, who is rumored to be over 10,000 yrs. old and unable to send e-mail or text messages due to his mummified state. [Note: in ye olden tongue, John McCain roughly translates into "Grumpy McClub-to-the-Head"]

The ceremony determining the ascension to power occurs the following week when both the living and the dead (but not the young, who are too damn lazy to vote) shall rise from their deep lethargy to cast ballots on broken shards of pottery and declare allegiances to their ineffectual potentate. It is during these dire hours that the organized communities of the dead will vote en masse, especially in battleground states, and the living must be wary lest they be devoured. 

To ward off the dead, it is advised that you carry garlic, silver, and water blessed by the Holy Father with you at all times during your perilous pilgrimage to the Booth of Voting.  Do not bother carrying any forms of ID which will only weigh you down.  They won't be necessary, although they could be useful for identifying your rotting, half-eaten carcass should you get waylaid by revenants.

If you are a knight-errant or a vassal with no castle or voting district, please contact ACORN. They will supply you with a bath, a shave, lots of mead, and van trips to many Booths of Voting.

After the Judgment of the Electors has been decreed by the screeching harpies and officious, dung throwing yahoos of Media, the Defeated One will be cast out of society and imprisoned in the dark abyss of iniquity mockingly referred to as "The Senate." Within those foul, reeking chambers, the defeated brethren will scheme new plots of treachery to be unleashed upon the world when they shall emerge again to kiss hands and shake babies.

Lord help us all.

wall street

people that work on wall street are greedy and not risk averse.  and that's a good thing. they serve an important function.

- region of higher selection pressure
- higher risk, greater rewards
- things evolve more quickly
- gives us a competitive advantage against other nation-states

Net result is that it helps to proliferate innovation and technological advances.  Companies that can revolutionize society.

Risk of dangers also.  Need to keep the risk contained - so that if the market crashes, the rest of the economy shouldn't be signficantly affected. Tech bubble, housing bubble, oil bubble, etc.

Of course, not everything that Wall Street comes up with will be good. Unscrupulous or dangerous beasties may arise and escape into society to proliferate and wreak havoc.  Regulators have to be vigilant for parasitic, viral creations.  Make sure that they do not create situations outside of Wall Street that could destabilize society.

I suppose that every so often a particularly nasty beastie will evolve that is good at fending off the regulators - perhaps by paying off Congressmen - or is good at evading detection by disguising / falsifying its behavior and insidious nature.

I consider memes to be "living" things (mind viruses), so I suppose financial instruments and their associated concepts could also be considered to be memes.  How many people it infects to create advocates and converts is something to monitor.

Now, I'm not saying that this economic mess was created purely through memes. However, I think it's possible that a downturn could have been worsened into a collapse since psychology and speculation plays a significant role.

There is also a conflict of interest in the media since they are ratings driven.  Sensationalizing disaster is important for their viability - especially within a competitive market.  The bigger the disaster, the better.

Obama has McCain on the ropes and looks to win on points, but if he wanted to, he could KO McCain right now and end it.

He just needs to make a minor policy shift on one issue, perhaps before or during the last debate, and it would all be over.

Taxes.

Obama has already said that he would have to delay some of his spending proposals and may not raise taxes given the current economic situation.  All he has to do is step out a little further and add that if it were in the best interests of the nation and the economy, he would even CUT taxes across the board (including the wealthy) and even consider CUTTING THE CAPITAL GAINS TAX if it would help stimulate the economy.

KO. Game over.

This shift does many things to help Obama.

It would show that he is not a rigid ideologue.  It would show that he is flexible and can adapt to changing circumstances.  It would decimate the two-pronged attack being launched at him right now by McCain i.e. that 1) Obama is an extreme leftist / socialist, and 2) Obama's taxes would ruin the economy. This would win over the Independents and make Obama look much stronger with respect to handling the economy. It would also be an example of "reaching across the aisle" ideologically.  Finally, Obama only has to say that he would "consider" it - not necessarily even do it.

Negatives - very few. This shift is unlikely to cause major defections from the Dems when they are this close to victory.  McCain might try to portray this as a flip-flop, but it won't matter. Obama could easily counter by saying that his position on taxes isn't based on blind ideology, but rather on pragamatism.  He could say that for Republicans, taxation is too much a religion, while for Democrats, taxation is simply a tool used in good governance.  There are times when it is best to raise taxes, and there are times when it is best to lower them, etc. etc. If they attack him by asking how he could fund any of his programs while lowering taxes, Obama could easily counter by saying that the most important task right now is to fix the economy. Everything else must wait.  Once the economy has recovered, then we'll go from there on how to implement new programs.

With this shift in strategy, there just wouldn't be any significant avenue of attack left for McCain. They might try stories about ACORN or whatnot, but I doubt they'd do enough damage.

Also, the fact that Iraq has stabilized helps Obama since Independents are less fearful about handing off the war to someone inexperienced.  Petraeus taking over operations in Afghanistan also helps Obama by similar reasoning.

Anyhoo, Obama probably doesn't need to do this to win, but if he did, his victory would be a fait accompli.

also, i don't see why gov't can't work with banks at the local and regional levels to assist them in setting up business loans. gov't is fixated on unwieldy and inefficient top-down approaches. congress prolly gave our money to the wrong people at the wrong level ...

if banks won't lend out money, you go around them - to force competition and make them lend out money or die off. i assume that banks make money by lending money. if they are not lending money, then they must have some alternative revenue source and are not functioning as banks, or they are anticipating more bailout money or ... again, the important principle to remember is that these banks are not altruistic, but selfish, agents that ran amok and broke the established ESS. they cannot be trusted.

currently, the gov't is seeking to re-establish the previous equilibrium state; however, if the megabanks were one of the primary causes of disruption, then you are merely feeding the beast / cancer that created the mess. their existence may be counterproductive, and you may have to apply selection pressure through promotion of sound competitors and alternatives. the threat of extinction may be necessary to rein in their "selfish" behavior.

these are just broad principles based on the casual observation of an outsider. to sum up - 1) do not trust the megabanks, 2) assist their competitors, 3) do not fall into the trap of trying to re-establish "normalcy."  you will just recreate the same conditions prior to the crisis - which were unstable and led to the crisis - thereby perpetuating the crisis, not resolving it.

is this partly a technical issue where contracts were written out pegged to a benchmark that seemed reasonable at that time, but now has gone haywire?  since so many things seemed to be pegged to Libor before banking became a minefield, is there a way to artificially lower and set Libor to a "reasonable" rate until the dysfunctional banks are washed out of the system? since the rates are based on reported estimates (and there may have been underreporting before), why can't the estimates be "adjusted" (or have phony transactions where bank A lends to bank B and bank B lends back to bank A at some rate agreed upon through global gov't consensus)?

this would be a phony number, of course, but it seems to me that containment is needed to prevent the cancer from spreading outside of banking while the industry is undergoing chemo. the real Libor number could be reported separately under a different acronym - perhaps W.T.F., and that number could be used where it makes sense to use it (i dunno what Eurodollar futures contracts are all about, but i assume they'd be pegged to W.T.F. instead of the "adjusted" Libor).

there seems to be a lot of hysteria about subjects that are unfamiliar to most of the population, so it is probably the perfect opportunity for unscrupulous behavior and manipulation. not sure which are the most reliable, objective numbers that could be used for assessment of impact.

blah blah blah about stuff i don't know anything about lol. interesting tho.

if i were a bank, why would i lend out money and expose myself to risk when i know that gov't is gonna bail me out? and if i think that congress might pass another bailout bill, why shouldn't i wait a little longer to see if there's another one on the way with even better terms?

not an economist, but wouldn't knowing that congress will bailout my bad loans make the credit crisis worse?

doesn't congress leaving the door open to further bailouts make the crisis linger?

wouldn't the proper way to get the banks lending again be to help businesses find alternative sources of credit and financing that compete with banks?

dunno ...

The Senate has just passed the bailout bill.  Let's listen in to their comments ...

Reid: No, you're awesome!

McConnell: No, you're awesome!

Dodd: No, you da man!

Gregg: No, you da man!

Reid: High five, baby!

McConnell: This is how Congress is supposed to work - destroy the economy and then throw a band-aid on it, so that we can destroy it again.

Gregg: And all at taxpayer expense! Ain't life grand!

Dodd: Yeah, that's right. This is Congress at its finest. Good job guys.  I'm really proud of you.  Anything else we can take credit for?

McConnell: Let's give ourselves a hearty round of applause!

Reid: I can't believe we actually behaved like we were all mature and responsible.

Gregg: Hey, did anyone see this crisis happening?

Dodd: Yeah, but good thing we let it fester and waited till the last moment, so we could all be heroes in saving the economy!

Reid: Brilliant!

Dodd: You're awesome!

McConnell: No, you're awesome!

Gregg: Guys, guys.  Put aside your disagreements and bickering.  Let's face it.  WE'RE ALL AWESOME!

Reid: Damn straight!

(edit: for a more conservative, and less entertaining option, just do the limited gov't thing - see way below)

Palin has a perfect opportunity to blast Obama by attacking him via the media attacks against her.

Here's how.

She shouldn't complain about unfair media coverage.  She should say something like ...

The media SHOULD ask questions and look into people's backgrounds.  The danger is in UNEQUAL media scrutiny.  When one side is treated differently than the other.  When one candidate is handpicked by the media over the other in the primaries or in the general election.

There are many questions about Obama that have NEVER been asked or that he's been given a free pass on.

1) Obama has admitted to cocaine use.  Why was this hidden under the rug and never even asked as a question by the media?  The public should at least be informed and allowed to decide for themselves.

2) Obama tried to excuse his ties to the terrorist Ayers by saying he was 8 yrs. old during the bombings.  What kind of an excuse is that?  Was he 8 yrs. old when he sought Ayers' political assistance and continued to meet with him?

3) Obama's economic advisors have direct responsibility for the collapse of Fannie and Freddie, even giving themselves big bonuses through fraud.  Obama is the number two recipient of money from them.  Where are the media questions and scrutiny?  Why hasn't he been asked these questions?

4) Obama has exercised bad judgment in selecting his closest political, economic, and spiritual advisors.  His selection of Vice President wasn't that bad (ha ha ha).  But his choices call into question his judgment when selecting a Cabinet.  Whom does he rely upon for advice?

5) How much foreign policy or executive experience does Obama have?  He's had a year to polish his words and his theoretical knowledge, but how much real experience does he have?

6) Obama was asked eight questions at a press conference and then he ran away.  And that was it.  Why does the media think that level of scrutiny is good enough for him, but not for everyone else?

7) In the last debate, Obama was asked which policies he would cut.  He had no answer.  John McCain did.  Ask Obama again.  Sen. Biden, which policies would he cut first?

8) Obama keeps saying that he'll tax only the rich and give 95% a break.  Yeah, gimmie a break.  Doesn't he understand that the taxes will be passed on to you, the consumer, through higher prices?  Isn't the price of gas high enough, or do we need to have the gov't add another tax to it?  Does it matter if you get taxed directly or indirectly?

9) Obama wants to create more big gov't programs.  The more, the merrier.  Just why is it that we keep having to BAILOUT OR FIX these big gov't created programs or institutions?  Fannie and Freddie.  Social Security.  Medicare and Medicaid.  Welfare.  Well, you can add Obama's socialized healthcare to that list.

10) Obama keeps saying that he wanted to send more troops to Afghanistan from Iraq while the war in Iraq was still going badly.  Doesn't he realize that the war in Iraq would have lasted longer and we would have suffered more casualties, and yes, even possibly lost the war in Iraq, if we had done that?  It's just common sense.  You don't worry about burning the roast when the kitchen is on fire.

meh. losing interest, but something along those lines.

could also go into a general riff / theme about how gov't creates problems, underperforms, don't get your money's worth, public schools, blah blah blah.

"DO YOU TRUST BIG GOV'T?"
palin should gesture towards biden.
"then he's your man. vote for him. vote for obama."
"or do you trust small gov't?  a limited gov't that solves problems without creating them.  a gov't that doesn't create messes that you have to keep bailing out.  there are a lot of ideas in washington that may sound good at first - but are terrible when you actually implement them."

"this election is about change.  but it's not the kind of change that the media would like you to believe.  the change - the choice -  is between big gov't bailouts vs. small gov't.  a gov't that's too big for its own good or a gov't that's in touch with main street - that trusts in the common sense of the average american."