50 Comments

1. Dresden October 16th, 2008 at 11:57 am

   Any idea on who ELSE I should vote for?

   I’m not that educated on local goverment, state government, etc.

   I guess I’m pretty typical – the lazy American who takes his rights for granted.

2. MoyJoy October 16th, 2008 at 12:59 pm

   “You know there’s gotta be a group of old men at some sports bar in Georgia laughing every time Obama mixed up his words and getting excited every time McCain delivered a blow.”

   I was thinking about that last night and tried to put myself in their mindset but every time McCain picked up that damn Sharpie and started his scribbling or doing that stupid grin bearing his fossil teeth I snapped back to mocking mode.

3. Joseph October 16th, 2008 at 3:16 pm

   On the local level, unfortunately, most of the contests were decided at the primary level last month. In my distict, I went to the poll and they told me that there was no Democratic primary, so basically it is an uncontested election. The big local race is for City Council and they don’t come up for election until next year.

4. mopar October 16th, 2008 at 4:19 pm

   Beautiful writing, Diego.

5. ricmac01 October 16th, 2008 at 4:56 pm

   And every time he put that Sharpie down his thumb popped up, reminding me of my youthful hitch-hiking days.

   But aren’t current actions being contemplated by our NYC Council regarding term limits extension an indication that we, as voters, have very limited say?

6. Jeremy Sapienza October 16th, 2008 at 7:43 pm

   The quotes in this article are embarrassing, especially the one about going from the “terribly horrendous” Bush to having a black candidate. That tells me what that person’s priorities are — a general warm fuzzy feeling at being so magnanimous as to vote for a darkie — see, look what I did for you people! — as opposed to anything concrete or important, like WHAT OBAMA’S POLICIES WILL BE.

   I think it’s bonkers to say this election means more than those of the past. That’s just an ignorant child talking, who isn’t old enough to remember, oh, all the other elections. NONE of the elections matter, we were always voting for one branch of the ruling party or the other. But this time, it’s really hard to have a preference — McCain and Obama are both totally awful. Obama will just give us the PR boost I think we as Americans need, and for that, he overtakes McCain. Go Obama! I guess.

7. miked October 16th, 2008 at 8:22 pm

   Come on now Jeremy. at least give us an example of why Obama, or McCain for that matter, is no good.

8. MadameFunk October 16th, 2008 at 8:26 pm

   Jeremy, I beg to differ. With two possible slots opening up in the supreme court–and those slots hand-picked by the president, roe v wade hangs on by a thread. So we’re not voting for “one branch”–we’re potentially voting for two. The republicans have been chipping away bit by bit at women’s rights, making this a make or break presidency. This election is the fork in the road where women’s rights can either be shattered or supported.

9. Jeremy Sapienza October 16th, 2008 at 8:29 pm

   They’re both awful on economics and foreign policy. Obama is not antiwar or even for a more humble foreign policy — he is just very marginally less aggressive than McCain. But here’s some more:

   http://bushwickbk.com/archives/590#comment-7124

10. Jeremy Sapienza October 16th, 2008 at 8:37 pm

    The Roe v. Wade “hanging by a thread” thing is a crazy feminist buzzphrase. I have heard that exact wording so many times, including from my mother, that I think some Steinem-like militant is brainwashing you all. That said, there are far more states now than before where abortion is legal, so even if the Feds simply withdraw their blanket legalization, a woman now has far more options than twisted hangers in dark alleys from which to choose. So, for me at least, we’re back to what matters — whether the president will order foreigners in some country or other to be massacred for their own good, or whether the high wages of a few hick steelworkers or corn farmers are more important than the hundreds of millions of us who have to pay for outrageously expensive steel or ethanol. Both candidates are awful on all the fronts that matter to me. I do not apologize for not making the federalized right to abort one’s baby the pillar of my political preferences.

11. miked October 16th, 2008 at 9:04 pm

    Your main argument is that he is “evil” – albeit 10% less than McCain. Viewing the world through this filter where things are either pure or they are evil is no more helpful than the Bush philosophy that you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists.

    It’d be great if he was everything we might want him to be, but he’s not. He’s not the perfect idealist that people projected him as (and that he let people project him as), but you can’t deny that he’s smart, pragmatic, and believes in fixing many of the problems currently facing this country.

    It’s quite clear from some of the videos floating around the internet that the views of the people in this country vary wildly. To accomplish anything a president has to hedge positions a bit here, and compromise things there. There’s only so much political capital a president can spend in order to get what he wants. That’s how it is – accept it.

    I think Obama understands this and has chosen the issues he believes are of dire importance – energy, health insurance, education among them. And through this choice he offers a vision for where he plans to take America – a vision that has taken some beatings in the past 20 months – an imperfect vision – but a vision. In contrast I would argue that McCain offers a much less clear vision.

    Just as the leaders must be pragmatic and realistic, so must the voters. It’s not like if McCain is in office we are going to get a reversal on telecom immunity and an end to the war. But at least there’s a realistic opportunity with Obama to address energy and health care and education and the war.

    I intended this to be less pro-Obama and more anti-cynicism. Oh well.

12. miked October 16th, 2008 at 9:15 pm

    sorry I was writing that post while you were posting about Roe V Wade. You’re certainly entitled to be concerned about that. I guess I would add to my flaming lib rant that at least Obama seems to honestly want to come to some (tiny) middle ground that is a little bit better for everyone – instead of only accepting the ideal and not accomplishing anything.

    Stirring up acrimony over very passionate personal issues like abortion in a time when there are several parallel crisis occurring in America and the world is counterproductive, I think. If we can at least work together to reduce the number of abortions then I believe we’ve accomplished the best we can hope for in the short term.

13. Jeremy Sapienza October 16th, 2008 at 9:24 pm

    Look, you’re not saying anything I’m not acutely aware of. I adopted and absorbed this position before I was old enough to vote, and frankly, it’s served me well. I’m never disappointed, and it saves me wasted time on election days. This doesn’t mean I can’t poke fun at and denounce any or all candidates as I please.

    Anyway, the very last thing I want is presidents accomplishing things. That’s when economies tank and people die.

14. miked October 16th, 2008 at 9:44 pm

    Sure you can do as you please, but don’t expect anyone to mistake you as being a thoughtful or insightful, at least when it comes to this stuff. And sure you’re entitled to not give a shit, but I would argue the biggest problem in politics, and the root of many problems created by politicians, is a distinct lack of thoughtfulness. Diluting the discourse may be your prerogative, but it’s no fair saving all the blame for Obama or McCain or “the system”. You’re the system too, duuude (woah…)

15. Jeremy Sapienza October 16th, 2008 at 10:16 pm

    Those who think this or that politician is going to be the one who will — this time! — finally make the right choices (as if significant change were even within the powers of the presidency) are the ones who lack insight. You people keep tossing spices on rotten meat and seem shocked to find out it still tastes bad.

    I quite like your last line, there. It reminds me of a great quote from Pericles:

    “Though you may take no interest in politics, politics, alas, takes an interest in you.”

16. miked October 16th, 2008 at 10:42 pm

    That’s a completely ridiculous argument. Going into Ira

17. miked October 16th, 2008 at 11:00 pm

    whoops, hit enter too soon…

    Going into Iraq was a choice. Giving telecoms immunity was a choice. There have been countless choices made by presidents. Some were bad, some were not bad and not good, others were good (perhaps there are fewer examples here but going to the moon was pretty good – assuming you believe it happened!).

    Denouncing the entire process because presidents have made bad choices in the past is ridiculous because we at least have SOME say in the process. For instance, if you identify strongly with the democratic platform then now would be the time to vote democratic as it may end up being a sweep of congress as well – in that case it seems highly likely that the Democrats will be able to take at least a few steps in that direction.

    This is one of the exceedingly rare times where an election does have the potential for dramatic change – and that makes it all the more important.

    And sure you could argue that your vote doesn’t matter, but the whole idea is less about your specific vote than it is about deciding what’s important to you and educating yourself. Rejecting this idea out of cynicism does nothing but harm, bit by bit.

18. Jeremy Sapienza October 16th, 2008 at 11:39 pm

    I don’t think that presidents, or anyone, should make such far-reaching choices, and disagree that any good ones are ever made, short of mitigating previous damage.

    Please do not tell me that I should “educate” myself about this or that platform, when they are all fundamentally awful. I don’t care what Obama or McCain’s policy on adult literacy or potable water in Africa is, it doesn’t change the fact that I care for neither politician, their respective parties, or the system in which they operate. The only “harm” I find is in getting excited that one’s vote does matter — it seems like the reality would be a bring-down.

    I reject and ridicule politics not out of cynicism but out of an understanding that it is but a small, violent part of human interaction overall. That is actually quite heartening, as the bulk of human interaction is not political, but voluntary and mutually beneficial.

    …

    (The moon? Seriously?)

19. miked October 17th, 2008 at 1:54 am

    come on, moon landing jokes never miss

20. Bushwick Dill October 17th, 2008 at 11:23 am

    I don’t understand how or why all of these young people who consider themselves liberal progressives are so psyched on voting for a man who is at best a centrist. All these people go and watch these stupid debates that are designed to prevent the candidates from saying anything interesting or meaningful, then say to themselves this guy is really going to change America even though is a product of the two party political system that has created all the problems he wants to change. Why can’t people be brave and vote for someone other than the Democratic or Republican party hacks?

21. Dresden October 17th, 2008 at 12:33 pm

    Liberal progressives, rednecks in Georgia…

    no matter who you vote for – Government wins!

    That’s an old Anarchist saying. But seriously, Obama isn’t all that great. It’s just after the last 8 years, he looks pretty good.

22. Jeremy Sapienza October 17th, 2008 at 1:03 pm

    Yeah, I liked the Georgia reference, too — as if old men in a bar one mile that-a-way in MASPETH aren’t cheering for McCain.

23. Dresden October 17th, 2008 at 3:50 pm

    No matter who you vote for, government wins!

24. miked October 17th, 2008 at 5:31 pm

    It doesn’t so much matter how many parties you have and it has nothing to do with bravery. Two parties represents the US population well enough that it’s unlikely that things will change anytime soon so get over it. The two party system isn’t inherently the problem, it’s the lack of thoughtfulness, intelligence, and intellectual curiosity that has caused these problems.

    Obama brings at least those things to the table – the fact that intelligence seems progressive is scary I’ll admit. It’s just annoying that there seems to be this irrational Obama backlash as though its not cool to like him anymore because a lot of people do – or as though wisdom is equal to cynicism. I haven’t heard anyone back up their position yet.

25. Diego October 17th, 2008 at 7:33 pm

    Arguing about government? I’m just going to throw in a quote from Ralph Nader during the Wall Street Bailout protest this Thursday:

    “And so, I say that Wall Street is the wall that locks the American people out of their own government. It’s the wall that locks the American people from the wealth they own but do not control. Mr. Niederauer, take down that flag that your bosses have so disgraced and defiled.”

    (Duncan Niederauer is the CEO of the New York Stock Exchange)

26. miked October 18th, 2008 at 2:16 am

    Sure the bailout sucks but if most of the economists are speaking in unison to say that we need the bailout to stabilize the economy then what are we supposed to do. Seems that we need to address the crisis first before we get some justified revenge on wall st. What is Nader’s solution if there is no bailout? At least we got some protections and some veiled language the allows for direct equity injections, which seems to be the plan now afterall. Again if you’re going to rail against the system at least offer a reasonable alternative (mainly referring to Nader not diego)

27. Dresden October 18th, 2008 at 1:07 pm

    I have an alternative: social fascism.

    Consider China – say what you will about their humanitarian issues, in actual fact the Chinese government has done more to end human suffering and misery, by the numbers, than ANY GOVERNMENT EVER.

    Suck on that Tibet. Monks eating off gold plates while peasants work 18 hour days.

28. bry October 18th, 2008 at 1:11 pm

    oo jeremy is such a hard liner. anarchy in the bk baby. these comments threads are an unusual choice to bless this world with your deep understanding of “the system” and all human interaction

29. Jeremy Sapienza October 18th, 2008 at 2:16 pm

    My problem with Obama is not his intelligence — what a silly thing to say. I find his positions to be terrible because I find all the solutions that people in government propose to be terrible. He is a fool on economic issues — as is McCain, but to a very slightly lesser extent. He only represents a mild reduction in aggression as to how our government deals with the rest of the world. Again, none of this surprises or disappoints me — I expect nothing less of any successful candidate for president. There isn’t enough intelligence in the mind of one man to take care of all the things people expect presidents to handle. That is why I think all pretenders to the position are unqualified and why I think it’s ridiculous to have faith in yet another mere mortal in the expectation that he can tackle national problems as if he were a god.

    Two parties do not at all represent the US population — our terrible ballot access laws and winner-takes-all system brings this less representative system into being. The US is the least democratic democracy in that respect.

    As for the bailout, it is completely wrong. Once again, a huge increase in wrongheaded intervention will prop up a sick system. It rewards the most corrupt and irresponsible banks at the expense of the responsible and transparent, and increases the already sky-high moral hazard snaking its way through the entire system. But overall, it’s just a drop in the bucket of damaging government interventions into the economy. What would have been a painful but fast correction will turn into a long, drawn-out headache, similar in form to (but of course not anywhere near as severe) the Great Depression — and the institutions that contributed most to the situation will not only still be in existence, but will be partly state-owned. All this said, I don’t see a need for “revenge.” Wall Street fucked itself — if Washington intervened so it could survive, then it’s Washington’s fault. Banking and finance, despite occasional dramatic crises, provide the most efficient conduits by which our capital can find its highest and best use. We’re individually far wealthier and have a higher standard of living now than ever before in the history of mankind, and that is thanks to this intricate system which no one man fully understands — and that is why it is ill-advised for a few bureaucrats to pretend they DO understand it and to meddle with its structure and operations.

30. Jeremy Sapienza October 18th, 2008 at 2:27 pm

    Dresden, it’s dishonest to give credit to a government for lifting its citizens out of poverty when all it has done is stop oppressing them as much as it previously had. No amount of liberalization on the part of the Chinese govt should ever forgive the horrors of the Cultural Revolution or the Great Leap Forward.

31. Dresden October 18th, 2008 at 3:20 pm

    It’s a little more complex than that, but agreed. I am not sucking on the Dalia Lama trip, though. You know who created the first Dalia Lama? Kubla Khan, from CHINA.

    As far as a system that works, anarchy is about the last one I’d adopt.

    There are almost always three groups in every system that compete:

    - government (cops)
    - business (markets)
    - the black hand (gangsters)

    Without government, guess who fills the void?

32. Dresden October 18th, 2008 at 3:23 pm

    And it’s not really dishonest to say things like, without Stalin Russia would never have had the infrastructure to create the Cold War.

    China, through its questionable methods, raised its population out of feudalism, and yes that includes Tibet, Mongolia, and other tribal parts of the Asiatic steppes.

33. Jeremy Sapienza October 18th, 2008 at 5:38 pm

    Without government, who fills the void? More market. The biggest gangsters get rich and powerful on exploiting the government’s prohibitions. What’s left is roaches for the market to step on. Anyway, how did this get into a debate about anarchism?

    Obama isn’t any kind of savior, he is a darker-complected status quo, and I don’t understand the delirium he’s inspired. I am confused by the infantile expectation that one man in a less-than-all-powerful (despite the Cheney-Gonzales-Yoo camp’s attempts) position can fundamentally change this country. That is all.

    As for Stalin… I hear Cold Wars are delicious.

34. Dresden October 18th, 2008 at 6:03 pm

    The cold war allowed America it’s golden age, for as Churchill said, “A good enemy is better than a bad friend.”

    More market? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!! Jeez Jeremy. Re-examine that one.

35. Dresden October 18th, 2008 at 6:17 pm

    My response should have been – a market for protection? A market for protection from your protectors?

    More market is not viable.

36. Jeremy Sapienza October 18th, 2008 at 6:49 pm

    The cold war was an unforgiveable waste of resources on all fronts. There’s no good way to spin it.

    As for my views on economics and political philosophy, maybe there’s just a bit more to it than can be explained in a few minutes of blog comments, yes? Yes. You’re the one saying war and dictatorship were a benefit to humankind — that means I’m the one that gets to laugh.

37. Dresden October 18th, 2008 at 7:04 pm

    Perhaps not a benefit to humankind – perhaps humankind itself.

    And that, Jeremy, is the essence.

38. miked October 19th, 2008 at 6:53 pm

    Quote from Jeremy:
    “What would have been a painful but fast correction will turn into a long, drawn-out headache, similar in form to … the Great Depression”

    You make this statement as if the justification of it is self-evident, but isn’t and you didn’t provide it. Where’s the proof that this financial situation would have been short term, and that our attempt to address is the reason it will now be drawn out. You make several supposedly factual claims that are based only on your general distrust for the government. Just a gut feeling you have? Sounds like one of the several Bush doctrines.

    By the way, the president may not be “all-powerful” but it has the power to start wars that kill millions, and that’s powerful enough.

39. Dresden October 19th, 2008 at 9:39 pm

    You ever come to terms with what humanity really is, Jeremy, you’d hand over your anarchism and start kissing the ass of every cop in the berg. Lol.

40. Jeremy Sapienza October 20th, 2008 at 11:12 am

    Miked, it should be obvious that saving banks that made such tremendous errors that it forced them to collapse will only encourage even more reckless behavior in the future. Each time intervention saves those who failed, and locks us back even deeper into a system whose main institutions regularly take on more risk than they can handle. It is not a gut feeling, it’s economics — specifically “moral hazard.” Look it up. I’m not going to give you an economics lesson in a blog comment.

    The power to go to war IS the only nearly unilateral power a president has — and that is precisely why I prefer Obama as the next president. As I have said, he is marginally less aggressive and would at least give more lip service to less-violent alternatives to force everyone the world to do what their master, the United States Government, wants them to do.

41. Jeremy Sapienza October 20th, 2008 at 11:12 am

    Dresden, I do know what humanity really is — evil jealous morons. That’s why nobody should rule anyone else. Naive? No. Naiveté would have someone think the act of electing a mere mortal to office (or mere mortals seizing power) gives them magical abilities and infinite intelligence with which to make correct decisions for hundreds of millions or billions of people. Statism is bonkers, a centuries-old delusion that is never cured by failure. Let’s just stop this whole useless side conversation by me saying that if the government only protected us, and was about 99.9% smaller than it is now, I would not be trying to overthrow it in favor of teh anrky. (Not that I am doing that now.)

42. miked October 20th, 2008 at 9:21 pm

    Jeremy, I see that you’re bitter about my moon landing comment and you’re clinging to your blog and your religion (anarchy).

    I read the papers too, I know what “moral hazard” means. I’m saying I think its amoral and hazardous to do nothing, especially when, say, my parents’ retirement funds are at stake – and they are nearing retirement age. Government has been involved with financial institutions before when it was necessary – not in quite the same way, but arguably to a similar degree.

    This is just another example of this attitude where things either are righteous or they are evil. Things are just more complicated than that man. Intervention that is thoughtful and prudent is not evil and in fact seems to be exactly what we need.

43. Dresden October 20th, 2008 at 9:41 pm

    “Statism is bonkers…”

    Well, by the general benefit it brings nation-states, it seems as if your statement is BAT-SHIT CRAZY.

    Empirical analysis is the basis of all intelligent conversation… I see none here.

44. Jeremy Sapienza October 20th, 2008 at 10:39 pm

    Bitter…about your moon landing comment. Clinging…to my blog. Ooookayyyy. I am explaining my views and you are at least attempting to do the same in between ad hominems and other logical fallacies — if anarchism is my religion, statism is yours. Look, that got us nowhere.

    Anyway, what you don’t get is that just because the government does nothing, it doesn’t mean nothing is being done. All of this upheaval is the market realigning itself with consumer preferences after the pace of credit expansion could no longer keep fooling it. That’s what a bubble bursting is. Billions of people are doing lots of things in concert — that’s practically the opposite of nothing. Most intervention has a lot of thought put into it. But it’s not enough to overcome the information problem. No amount of prudence will solve that.

    As for my use of the term “evil” in the comment on the post a few weeks ago, I think you’re misreading that. The “lesser of the two evils” is a common phrase/concept used during elections. Obama is the lesser evil. I was never literally proclaiming anyone evil. Just not intelligent or powerful or benevolent enough to fix the world — or even change the status quo.

45. marisleysis October 20th, 2008 at 11:24 pm

    “its amoral and hazardous to do nothing,”

    the feds are clearly playing around. they tried one thing, then another, then another. now it’s another stimulus package? they obviously don’t know what to do, so the chances are high that they are going to fuck up worse. like what they did in Japan. they extended their recession by at least a decade because they kept fucking with it.

    meanwhile the stocks are volatile because investors don’t know what fuckups the feds are going to reward next.

    btw, your parents should have known better than to have their retirement funds in risky investments like the stock market. i dont think the feds are justified in inflating the values of the stocks or the real estate just to make your parents’ retirment easy. those prices should be allowed to fall to their natural levels. then maybe poor people can afford to buy homes and own stocks without leeching off other people. i have just as much right to a happy retirement 25 years from now as they do in five. Capisce?

46. miked October 21st, 2008 at 2:34 am

    401k plans and mutual funds weren’t supposed to be risky. And I’m not saying they should artificially be made more valuable and that my parents should get a “bailout”. It’s just that I think the government has an obligation to do what it can to mitigate the damage.

    They definitely dragged their feet and the initial plan they produced was plainly ridiculous but the plan they ended up with at least gave them some options when it became clear that buying the bad assets outright might not be the best move. This second plan to refer to I believe is some relief for tax layers and for local governments; to fund infrastructure projects that create jobs etc. Most of the “experts” seem to agree that this is a very good idea. Probably should have been done from the beginning but no reason to rag on it now.

    And jeremy, the clinging thing was a joke/reference to something Barack said that got him in trouble, nevermind. Anyway it would be nice if t was a normal bubble but what you aren’t accounting for is the fact that the companies on Wall st leveraged their bogus assets several times through the use of credit default swaps. These instruments created essential a super bubble to the tune of many many trillion dollars. Worse still because of the way these swaps work, the fate of many of the companies are entangled. And even worse, companies all around the world got involved with these can’t-lose schemes.

    The housing bubble is one thing but this is an entirely different thing. And they cannot be separated

47. marisleysis October 21st, 2008 at 2:19 pm

    You’re just flat out mistaken that 401Ks and mutual funds aren’t supposed to be risky. Savings accounts and CDs aren’t risky (up to the fdic limit), stocks are.

    You reduce risk by investing in mutuals because you have an expert picking your stocks instead of you, not because the investment is inherently less risky. Retirement accounts merely wrap your investments in a way that reduces your tax burden. No risk reduction at all.

    The problem with all these intrusions is that they are designed to stop the fall in values. Don’t you hear them saying how bad it is that housing values are falling? I dont think that’s necessarily bad. More poor people can afford their own homes without being tied to ludicrous mortgages. That’s a win in my book.

    The Feds did not “drag their feet”. Don’t you remember getting a stimulus check over the summer? The Bear Stearns swindle? Did they kill Lehmann by not helping them in the same way? The bailout plan was not the beginning of this nonsense.

    And, unfortunately, it will probably not be the end. Lots of economists think the bailout plan is bunk too, ya know. Nobody really knows what the best course is. Many experts, the ones who predicted this, think the Feds should do nothing and point out that the markets were/are correcting themselves. The Feds certainly should stop at this point and let the market continue to correct itself. Everytime a new plan is rolled out, it creates a distortion.

    The housing and credit default swaps are all part of this belief that too much risk is okay. You will get bailed out. People and companies over-leveraged themselves, drove up prices for people who played it striaght, and now we are bailing these people out. That includes your parents. This is telling people that it’s okay to fuck up because honest people are going to suck it up for you. The cycle begins anew.

48. marisleysis October 21st, 2008 at 2:20 pm

    sorry, i meant that your parents are suffering from bailing out fuckups, not the other way around.

49. ricmac01 October 21st, 2008 at 2:37 pm

    Just to clarify: 401K’s are not risky. What you choose to put in them determines the level of risk.

50. Jeremy Sapienza October 21st, 2008 at 5:24 pm

    The size of the bubble doesn’t matter. Nobody knows how to fix this painlessly and from the top down, so the Goldman Gang should step aside and let it continue to be fixed from the bottom up.

    (As for the joke, sorry, I guess I need to pay attention more closely to the ways Obama insults the people he wants to vote for him.)