Stump Lane
in the dirt since history began

DAVID BROOKS DOESN’T make sense to me:

What we need in this situation is authority. Not heavy-handed government regulation, but the steady and powerful hand of some public institutions that can guard against the corrupting influences of sloppy money and then prevent destructive contagions when the credit dries up.

[New York Times: Revolt of the Nihilists]

For what is the “steady and powerful hand of public institutions” if not “heavy-handed government regulation”?

But that’s not what I intended to address. This is what I would like to address:

[Emphasis added.] There’s no time to find a brand-new package, so the Congressional plan should go up for another vote on Thursday, this time with additions that would change its political prospects. Leaders need to add provisions that would shore up housing prices and directly help mortgage holders.

Housing is overpriced. If one chooses to live in a populated area where there are, you know, jobs and such, I dare guess that one paid more for their dwelling than it is truly worth, in terms of the labor and materials required to construct it. Even accounting for economic forces that Your Montag is in no way qualified to discuss, like supply and demand, (housing will presumably cost more due to higher demand in populated areas where there are, you know, jobs and such,) it still had to have been pure folly to believe what our realtors and lenders told us: that housing values always and would always rise. Forever!

In addition to people falling for that folly, mortgages are a rip off. Over a thirty year term, depending on interest rates, and whether you can afford to pay down your principle early, chances are you will pay more than the purchase price of your home in interest! ($100,000 mortgage, 6.5% interest, 30 years: $632 monthly principle + interest: $227,520 total p + i payments.) Totally fucking fucked if you ask me. I don’t own my house it PWNS me.

Besides the general problem of mortgages being a rip off, we also had lenders colluding with realtors to inflate housing prices. Realtors set the price of a home based on what some other poor schmuck got taken for when he bought the house up the street. Then the bank appraises the property for the same amount, because if they appraise it any lower, they risk blowing the deal. Through this clever arrangement, a good salesperson, the realtor, can push market prices wherever they need to go: Always up!

Seems to me that this self-perpetuating process of inflating prices, along with the practice among lenders and investors of buying and selling mortgages, might (inevitably, even) lead to a so-called “housing bubble” or maybe a so-called “sub prime mortgage crisis.” Just saying.

So when Brooks says we need to “shore up housing prices,” he advocates preserving the very condition that is at the root of this crisis, from this layman’s point of view. Ergo, where Brooks says we need to “shore up housing prices,” I would say we need to allow a correction for artificially inflated housing prices. And where Brooks says we should “directly help mortgage holders,” I would say we need to directly help mortgage payers, by which I mean ‘borrowers’.

Here’s what I propose:

Hey, The Government, do nothing. Because, as the illustrious IOZ might say doing nothing is doing something.

Hey, Lenders, you bet poorly, you lost. Now cut your losses. You aren’t going to be able to sell those foreclosures in this market, so keep the homeowners in the homes. Look at what the borrower has paid thus far in interest, and give back a goodly portion of it in equity. (Call this the portion of the value that you made up in your head when you thought you could push housing prices upward indefinitely.) Then, lower the interest rate so that they can afford to make payments. (Call this is the part where you admit it’s ridiculous to charge someone $127,520 interest on a $100,000 loan.)

Not that I think this can happen of course. In actuality, I believe the capitalists will not give up any of “their” capital. Dollars or property. They may be losing on the dollars side just now, with the bubble collapsing, but that’s all in a day’s work, really. They should have realized that was a fantasy from the start. Of course that won’t stop them from trying to get whatever they can from the pending bailout. They will continue to accumulate and hold on to as much capital as possible, and it will get uglier. They will keep it for leverage. For whatever it is that is coming. And what is coming is going to be bigger than this little crisis we have today, I can feel it.

The empire is in decline.

Could John McCain be the candidate to bring the flight suit back into fashion, after George Bush ruined it for everyone?

SO JOHN McCAIN had a hissy fit and firebombed the Wall Street bailout negotiations at the White House, all in hopes of weaseling out of the tonight’s scheduled presidential debate. That’s not Maverick at all!

But wait! Your Montag opposes the $700 billion $1.3 trillion Wall Street bailout. I’d even go as far as to liken it to giving one’s gambling addicted uncle a hundred bucks to “help” him out of a $100,000 hole, as if the hundred grand he borrowed from a loan shark to cover his debts was ever “his” to lose in the first place.

Destroyed wealth, in the parlance of our times, was never “wealth,” has not been “destroyed,” and was hardly more than nothing to begin with. Considering all the money that’s riding on “it,” “it” is now less than nothing.

So, when the debate in the halls of power seemed to be going like this…

“We must give billions of dollars to Wall Street no questions asked!”

“That is absurd, my good friend, to the contrary, we must give billions of dollars to Wall Street no strings attached!”

…maybe firebombing the negotiations was Maverick after all.

Perhaps we’ll be able to tell from what the McCain’s political opponents had to say about it:

“This is the presidential campaign of John McCain undermining what Hank Paulson tells us is essential for the country,” [whined] Barney Frank, the Massachusetts congressman who had been leading negotiations for the Democrats. “This is McCain at the last minute getting House Republicans to undermine the Paulson approach.”

Obama also [whined.] “When you start injecting presidential politics into delicate negotiations you actually start creating more problems,” he said.

[The Guardian: John McCain 'undermining' bail-out to lift campaign]

Yeah, upon further reflection, it was Maverick as hell!

But wait! We can’t go by what meanie political opponents say about the Maverick. It’s all a crock. McCain didn’t firebomb the negotiations at all. (Donald Douglas of American Power quotes Jennifer Rubin citing a statement from the McCain campaign:

At today’s cabinet meeting, John McCain did not attack any proposal or endorse any plan. John McCain simply urged that for any proposal to enjoy the confidence of the American people, stressing that all sides would have to cooperate and build a bipartisan consensus for a solution that protects taxpayers.

[American Power]

The official position of the McCain campaign is that John McCain offered no proposal, endorsed no proposal, offering instead [NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE] for input. Not Maverick.

There’s no there there, folks. Like the house of cards we lovingly call Wall Street, there is no Truth in these Rorschachian presidential politics.

Since there is no truth, or substance, or Maverickness in this post so far, Your Montag will now make it up to you with humorous dialog from some mid-nineties hipster independent film, that maybe only I remember. Is it the one where Eric Stoltz downs a fifth of vodka (all at once!) and claims his first memory to be of the birth canal? Maybe. But this post isn’t about no birth canal. Here we have the Quentin Tarrantino cameo Top Gun monologue. Though it may not be Maverick, it is fairly punk rock, (the character’s name is Sid, even!)

[Note: Now with less reading! See update below for video.]

Sid: You want subversion on a massive level. You know what one of the greatest fucking scripts ever written in the history of Hollywood is? Top Gun.
Duane: Oh, come on.
Sid: Top Gun is fucking great. What is Top Gun? You think it’s a story about a bunch of fighter pilots.
Duane: It’s about a bunch of guys waving their dicks around.
Sid: It is a story about a man’s struggle with his own homosexuality. It is! That is what Top Gun is about, man. You’ve got Maverick, all right? He’s on the edge, man. He’s right on the fucking line, all right? And you’ve got Iceman, and all his crew. They’re gay, they represent the gay man, all right? And they’re saying, go, go the gay way, go the gay way. He could go both ways.
Duane: What about Kelly McGillis?
Sid: Kelly McGillis, she’s heterosexuality. She’s saying: no, no, no, no, no, no, go the normal way, play by the rules, go the normal way. They’re saying no, go the gay way, be the gay way, go for the gay way, all right? That is what’s going on throughout that whole movie… He goes to her house, all right? It looks like they’re going to have sex, you know, they’re just kind of sitting back, he’s takin’ a shower and everything. They don’t have sex. He gets on the motorcycle, drives away. She’s like, “What the fuck, what the fuck is going on here?” Next scene, next scene you see her, she’s in the elevator, she is dressed like a guy. She’s got the cap on, she’s got the aviator glasses, she’s wearing the same jacket that the Iceman wears. She is, okay, this is how I gotta get this guy, this guy’s going towards the gay way, I gotta bring him back, I gotta bring him back from the gay way, so I’ll do that through subterfuge, I’m gonna dress like a man. All right? That is how she approaches it. Okay, now let me just ask you – I’m gonna digress for two seconds here. I met this girl Amy here, she’s like floating around here and everything. Now, she just got divorced, right? All right, but the REAL ending of the movie is when they fight the MIGs at the end, all right? Because he has passed over into the gay way. They are this gay fighting fucking force, all right? And they’re beating the Russians, the gays are beating the Russians. And it’s over, and they fucking land, and Iceman’s been trying to get Maverick the entire time, and finally, he’s got him, all right? And what is the last fucking line that they have together? They’re all hugging and kissing and happy with each other, and Ice comes up to Maverick, and he says, “Man, you can ride my tail, anytime!” And what does Maverick say? “You can ride mine!” Swordfight! Swordfight! Fuckin’ A, man!

[IMDb: Sleep with Me (1994) - Memorable quotes]

UPDATE:

$700 billion? You’re not serious, right?

Sincerely,
Your Constituent Montag

[H/T: A Tiny Revolution]

Originally posted 9-4-08. Updated, & bumped to the top of the page 9-22-08. I don’t know about you, but I’m excited to see what political candidates will say to the middle class as they prepare to mess them over to the tune of $700 billion. Seven. Hundred. Billion. Dollars.

TO THE EXTENT that we are stuck with The State, as it is, and to which Your Montag feels obligated to contribute something to The Conversation, despite an ever increasing sense of alienation from this farce we call The Political Process, here is something to consider this election season.

Candidates like to talk about the middle class, whatever the fuck that is. And when the candidates “speak to” the middle class, I expect they are “speaking to” folks like me, who aren’t exactly being ground under the tires of this wondrous machine, but nor are we at the wheel. And contrary to how things may seem when you patriotically cast your ballot this November, nor are we allowed to navigate. We’re on this careening ride now because we didn’t have the sense, strength, or spine to have taken the keys away from the drunkards driving this bad boy. (Blackwater and the Prison State are riding shotgun and they will fuck shit up anyone tries to grab the wheel.) Sure we could get out, but it means bailing out at highway speed and joining the poor schmucks already down under the tires in a bloody smear.

I feel I should clarify — because the middle class is vast: including the ‘nearly-but-not-quite-destitute,’ all the way up to the ‘considerably-affluent-but-unable-to-parlay-financial-security-into-political-power’ — Your Montag is doing okay, but if it weren’t for Ms. Montag’s salary, or the income from my second job, our family would find itself among the nearly destitute in the ranks of the lower-middle class, possibly homeless, and headed for debtor’s prison, the workhouse, part time Wal-Mart associatehood, whatever they’re calling it these days. Let’s call the tenuous position us Montags hold by it’s political buzzphrase: working middle class.

Well shit, turns out Montag’s in the catbird seat! The politicians loooooove them some working middle class stiffs. We’re what it’s all about, huh? Of course, by “all” I mean the extravagant marketing campaign to get out the vote in numbers enough to make this nominal “democracy” appear legitimate.

When we participate in, and validate this political process, we also endorse global capitalist democratic empire and violent, exploitive foreign policy. So, talking about middle class tax cuts, or the income gap, or lowering gasoline prices, is essentially demanding a bigger share of imperial plunder.

YOU: Montag, you insufferable prick. When you said you were going to “contribute something to The Conversation,” I thought you meant you were going to quit bitching for five minutes, and I don’t know… contribute something to The Conversation?

ME: Here’s it comes now:

Perhaps the question shouldn’t be: How can we get “our fair share” out of the system? But rather: How might we get out of having to work 80 fucking hours a week with blood on our hands in inescapable system-perpetuating indentured servitude? And does it necessarily involve “voting for” one or another party-sanctioned, insanely militaristic imperial manager?

UPDATE: Laughing uneasily now about the feds buying up mortgages like crazy. They buy my house with my tax money, I still make payments to them for the privilege, and continue to pay interest? Maybe I was off base with the “indentured servitude” reference. Perhaps a reference to outright serfdom would be more appropriate.

THE PRESIDENT’S job approval ratings have been hovering around 33% for a while now. Let’s crunch that:

The polls usually cover “adults,” (though sometimes “registered voters.”) Using 2004 Numbers (pdf) there are about 196 million adult US citizens. This is your “electorate.”

33% of 196 million is 64.7 million. 64.7 million adult US citizens approve of the job the president is doing.

Bush got 62.0 million votes in the 2004 presidential election.

“33%?! That’s only 64.7 million people. This guy clearly does not have a mandate from The People!”

“A mandate from The People it isn’t. Nor does it matter. Apples to oranges, that’s still more support than he needed in the last election.”

ONE OF YOUR MONTAG’S most prolific email pen-pals, the Republican National Committee, today in the person of McCain Campaign Manager Rick Davis writes:

Voting early, or with an absentee ballot, is the best way to avoid the long line on Election Day and get your vote counted.

“And get your vote counted!”

All the better to vote early, one supposes, so their supporters don’t get hemmed-up in whatever election day vote suppression scheme might be going on.

This democracy we worship is an electoral system that can and will be gamed. So yeah, my ballot and I will be absent on election day.

I DON’T WANT Sarah Palin anywhere near the levers of imperial power, but then again, I wouldn’t want anybody at those levers if we could help it.

Do we really want to disqualify people who don’t know the Bush Doctrine from running for office?

Palin apparently stumbled when quizzed about the Bush Doctrine, however, while still insane from an anti-imperialist perspective, (ie: a perspective from which one might support, say, a war against Russia only if their troops presumably “hell-bent on destroying our nation,” were streaming across the Bering Strait to invade the Homeland,) Palin’s phrasing actually seems less insane than the actual Bush Doctrine.

Palin:

“If there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.”

[SFGate: Palin would support war with Russia]

Less insane than justifying an invasion, after the fact, with, ‘well he wanted weapons of mass destruction.’ That’s a Thought Crime! I mean, this Bush Doctrine is some real Minority Report shit.

Of course, there seems to be an ample amount of crazy going around in the violently defending the United States’ imperial interests is “God’s work” department.

Deep Burn

Rhapsody in Pain

PS: Down the page a piece is a post that went up just before that ugly technical difficulty shut us down. A post I demand request not be ignored. The Middle Class of Whatever. Whatever.

…we seem to back. There has been some problem, I can only assume, with the server that “hosts” The Stump. “Some problem,” which was only the latest in a string of problems over the last year or so. I “can only assume,” because tech support has not communicated with me in the slightest. But miraculously, the site seems to be up and working now. Who knows if it’s a fluke or if the problem is fixed, because TECH SUPPORT HAS NOT COMMUNICATED WITH ME IN THE SLIGHTEST. Let’s just say I wouldn’t feel right participating in my hosting company’s referral program.

A Tiny Revolution: Welcome To The Terrordome

[Emphasis added.] Whether McCain wins or not, Sarah Palin is a harbinger of the future. The fact there was no one able to prevent McCain from choosing such an obviously inadequate imperial manager, and choosing her in such a bizarre, panicked way, indicates that—as during the decline of Rome, or the last years of Saddam’s regime—everyone sane has already been eliminated from the power structure. And thus we’re left with nothing but the whim of whoever’s clambered to the top of the Crazy Pole.

Meanwhile, in St. Paul, police are arresting journalists and legal observers in town to cover convention protests.