Ya know, it's bad enough when we suspect our politicians of mass corruption. I mean, you look at Bush and Cheney and their ties to companies like Halliburton and the bazillions that Halliburton has made off the Iraq war and you think "gosh, seems awfully coincidental that." But it's an entirely more egregious matter when politicians start mailing it in and just flaunt their corruption. A few examples...
The poor, weak MPAA and RIAA are so challenged in enforcing their copyrights, and have such a burden in providing proof, that they've effectively lobbied Congress to create a copyright enforcement agency. So, even though the courts have ruled that it is the responsibility of the copyright holder to find the offender and demonstrate damages, Congress now apparently thinks they need to subsidize these actions. Wait, I'm sorry. I thought their oaths were to uphold the Constitution, not provide law enforcement wings dedicated specifically to private corporate interests? Hmmm...
Then there are those political decisions that seem based on desperation, not on any well-considered desire to solve a problem. The sub-prime mortgage debacle has been intriguing. Basically, people made very bad investment decisions, and now are paying the price. Personally, in this case, where people made lousy decisions in trying to shoulder too much risk, I'm actually in favor of letting the market play out, even if it means taking a major economic hit nationally. Why? Because people need to accept responsibility for their actions. Unfortunately, El Presidente doesn't agree (and, why would he, really? the liar likes to live in denial and refuse responsibility for his own actions). These are perhaps the single most defining attributes of the baby boomer generation, in my opinion: selfishness and irresponsibility (neverminding the irony that one of the most active liberal generations has become one of the most corrupt neocon-fascist generations). Anyway...
The reason for this little rant is Bush's sub-prime bail out plan, which is apparently worthless. But, of course, it was created by other people, not by himself, so it's not his fault if it fails. Or something like that. Read Tyler Cowen's analysis over on Marginal Revolution, complete with links to other analyses.
Finally, more is being said on the "liar, liar pants on fire" NIE report on Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons program. According to the Chronicle, a U of MN prof is demonstrating that there's never been any evidence of such a program, and links the rumors and innuendo to exiled Iranians who are trying to publicly promote regime change. This should sound very familiar, folks. It's almost exactly how the Iraq war came about, too. And it seems rather similar to allowing Bhutto to return to Pakistan, now that I think about it. Once again, our politicians are beginning to be exposed for the corrupt bastards that they really are.
Which leads me to my final question... how does this country recover from this period of corruption? Replacing elected officials is not working, because there's a permanent layer of non-elected politicians who live permanently in Washington, bouncing from office to office, driving their own agendas. Who's actually running the country? It seems quite clear that the VP has had far more power than the President over the past 7 years. It makes me wonder if we're not rapidly devolving into the scenario described in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
A classic conspiracy theory, yes, but it's one that we have to start considering seriously. At what point do we become a parody? Is it possible to correct the problem? If so, how?
Troubling times...
