I almost couldn't believe it when I opened up my e-mail and saw the WSJ alert on Karl Rove's resignation. I thought he would stay until the bloody end. But perhaps he realizes that he has already inflicted the maximum amount of carnage possible on this country. After all, a sinking ship can't really attack those around them. Or perhaps, more simply, Rove is trying to protect whatever is left of his legacy as a brilliant political strategist. The 2006 mid-term elections did not leave much. But it is unlikely he would have survived the remaining one year plus unscathed. If I was Bush though, I would be a little hurt by Rove's resignation. The Captain is supposed to stay with his ship, even when it is sinking. Apparently, Karl Rove was one of the few who missed Leo and Kate's 'Titanic'. I wonder how long it will be before Cheney and Condi take the last life raft. So it appears that without his most vociferous pit bull, Bush is being backed even further into a corner.
Somehow the current state of Bush's administration reminds me a bit of Richard the III, abandoned by his men on the battle field, alone and without a horse. I wonder when Bush will be willing to trade his "kingdom for a horse". Both men cut rather pathetic figures, but strangely Richard the III, who allegedly murdered his nephews and tried to marry his niece, is more sympathetic to me. I guess that goes to show what I think of GWB.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Friday, August 10, 2007
Return of the Gilded Age?
Reading the paper these days makes me feel fatigued. I am tired of reading about the misery in Africa - Darfur, the Congo, Sierra Leone - where nothing ever seems to change, of New Orleans where Bush probably still thinks that Brownie did a "heckuva job", and Edward's two Americas - honestly, since when did Fortress care about high school educated textile factory workers? Perhaps my renewed cynicism is unjustified. But I am inclined to think not.
The newspapers are full of articles discussing the growing inequality between the rich and the poor. They allege that today's concentration of wealth rivals that of the Gilded Age - the age of monopolies, Standard Oil, and the Vanderbilts (who were famous for their balls, especially the one where they dressed as "the poor"). They quote statistics where CEO pay is over 1000x that of the average employee. And if that isn't disturbing, one only has to look at the earnings of hedge fund and private equity managers. My parents used to say, if it's too good to be true, it is. And I believe them!
These private investors claim to be creating value, and no doubt they are indeed creating value for themselves, but what about the business they shut down, the communities they hurt, the people they fire? I have no doubt that Cerberus will manage to make a fist full of money on Chrysler but it will be on the backs of Chrysler's employees and the community.
People, including some of my friends, argue that the best way to give back to the community is not to volunteer through organized programs, but to amass enough wealth such that you are able to distribute it at your discretion. So perhaps that is what guys like Schwartz and Ross plan to do, but will that make up for the costs associated with accumulating that wealth? Also I can't help but wonder who is a better redistributer of wealth - the individual or the government. I recognize government is not a particularly inefficient vehicle, but I am inclined to think it is best for the average American. Individuals tend to give their money to pet causes that certainly to benefit some people, but perhaps not as many as they could.
But why even bother trying to determine if there is a better way. The people who have the money control the politicians who control the law. And the hypocrisy is unbelievable. Chuck Schumer, who is all about protecting the poor and the middle class, does not think it is reasonable to tax private equity/hedge fund carry as income. One can't help but wonder if that has anything at all to do with the fact that hedge fund managers are among his biggest supporters.
I am not really sure what it is that I am talking about anymore... so I am going to stop.
The newspapers are full of articles discussing the growing inequality between the rich and the poor. They allege that today's concentration of wealth rivals that of the Gilded Age - the age of monopolies, Standard Oil, and the Vanderbilts (who were famous for their balls, especially the one where they dressed as "the poor"). They quote statistics where CEO pay is over 1000x that of the average employee. And if that isn't disturbing, one only has to look at the earnings of hedge fund and private equity managers. My parents used to say, if it's too good to be true, it is. And I believe them!
These private investors claim to be creating value, and no doubt they are indeed creating value for themselves, but what about the business they shut down, the communities they hurt, the people they fire? I have no doubt that Cerberus will manage to make a fist full of money on Chrysler but it will be on the backs of Chrysler's employees and the community.
People, including some of my friends, argue that the best way to give back to the community is not to volunteer through organized programs, but to amass enough wealth such that you are able to distribute it at your discretion. So perhaps that is what guys like Schwartz and Ross plan to do, but will that make up for the costs associated with accumulating that wealth? Also I can't help but wonder who is a better redistributer of wealth - the individual or the government. I recognize government is not a particularly inefficient vehicle, but I am inclined to think it is best for the average American. Individuals tend to give their money to pet causes that certainly to benefit some people, but perhaps not as many as they could.
But why even bother trying to determine if there is a better way. The people who have the money control the politicians who control the law. And the hypocrisy is unbelievable. Chuck Schumer, who is all about protecting the poor and the middle class, does not think it is reasonable to tax private equity/hedge fund carry as income. One can't help but wonder if that has anything at all to do with the fact that hedge fund managers are among his biggest supporters.
I am not really sure what it is that I am talking about anymore... so I am going to stop.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Bourne Again
Yesterday, I went to see the latest installment of the Bourne series - The Bourne Ultimatum. I confess I was a bit disappointed, especially after all the hype it received from the reviewers. Especially Magnolia Dargis or whatever her name is... but then I tend to discount her opinion a bit. She likes everything. But I suppose on reflection that it was Number 3 in the series, it wasn't half bad. In comparison to Pirates of the Caribbean 3, it was gem. Matt Damon really does play Bourne well.
The previews they showed before the movie were quite disturbing. One was about an FBI investigation of a terrorist bombing in Saudi Arabia. I am quite sure this movie won't be screening in Mecca, Medina, or Riyadh. If by some freak chance it does, I have a feeling it will do nothing to improve US-Middle East relations. Following up that was a preview for the movie 'Rendition'... yeah, a real upper. I wonder if we as a country are ready for movies where are country condones and encourages the torture of men who are very likely innocent. I remember wondering the same thing when 'United 93' or whatever that movie was came out. Then came the preview for the movie 'Beowolf'. Wow. I don't remember British Literature being like that... certainly there was no Angelina Jolie. If that movie makes any money, it will likely be on the backs of high school kids who are failing English.
The previews they showed before the movie were quite disturbing. One was about an FBI investigation of a terrorist bombing in Saudi Arabia. I am quite sure this movie won't be screening in Mecca, Medina, or Riyadh. If by some freak chance it does, I have a feeling it will do nothing to improve US-Middle East relations. Following up that was a preview for the movie 'Rendition'... yeah, a real upper. I wonder if we as a country are ready for movies where are country condones and encourages the torture of men who are very likely innocent. I remember wondering the same thing when 'United 93' or whatever that movie was came out. Then came the preview for the movie 'Beowolf'. Wow. I don't remember British Literature being like that... certainly there was no Angelina Jolie. If that movie makes any money, it will likely be on the backs of high school kids who are failing English.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
