Jason Bateman On Katherine Hepburn in NY Mag

Jason Bateman's thoughts on Katherine Hepburn (my least favorite of the Heps), were the most interesting part of the interview he did with New York Mag recently.

"She only wore white Reebok high-tops, so for a dress-up scene, she’d just pull black socks over them. That's what she was like. She hit ‘fuck it’ a long time before I met her."

See, that's the moment I long for, when I can afford to take it or leave it. Of course I would have to have a lot of my own "it" before I could shrug off other people's "it" and be like, "Screw you guys, I'm going home."

Totally unrelated, but fittingly, the last large combat brigade in Iraq is headed home, in keeping in line with Obama's campaign prognostications. And while we can say that we more or less completed our tasks in that country, we have to wonder if we should take a more callous, contemptuous, Cartman-esque attitude toward our allies in Pakistan and Afghanistan. And leave.

Yum Junk

Interesting article in the New York Times about various junk food trends and how they got their start. I remember those early days of huge sodas, ushered in by 7-Eleven with their Big Gulps. I used to get mine on Northern Boulevard in Bayside, Queens, along with Ne-Mo's cakes (the only mass produced cake I actually enjoy). Oh the innocence of new found soda pop gluttony! It was as close a taste of everlasting life as one could get without embracing Jesus. Endless sodas where you could take a huge sip, and then another, and know that there was plenty more, and more than you could ever hope to consume (until you eventually learned to consume it all, and regained your liquid mortality).

1976

7-Eleven convenience stores helped launch the era of fast-food and junk-food supersizing that continues today by introducing the 32-ounce Big Gulp. But even the Big Gulp seemed small after a while. In 1988, the company started selling the 64-ounce Double Gulp.

In junk food, as in Silicon Valley, creativity is limitless. In 1998, the Big Gulp cup was refined and redesigned. The new cup was taller, and now it fit in most car cup holders. Progress, of some sort, had been made.

(N.Y. Times)

University of Phoniness, Federally Funded?

High Education

Huffington Post gives us an interesting rant about the for-profit University of Phoenix. We don't want to go out on a limb and be harsh critical, since we know people who have graduated from that school, and who are far smarter or more organized that we ever hope to be. Often enough, things are what you make of them, and if we assume a reasonable and general level of responsibility on the part of Apollo Group, which owns the U of P, then a motivated student is likely to get something from the program.

Despite the successes of people those we know, it is probably imperative that the financial ties between the government and the schools be cut. Conservatives often like to point out the wonders of the private sector, and how government needs to step out of the way. Well they can begin with the for-profit education industry. Too often what some conservatives are pushing is a mere parody of economic freedom and self-reliance. Sarah Palin herself, the quitting governor, talked the independence game while Alaska itself depended on largesse redistributed via the federal government from other parts of the nation.

What we have with for-profit universities is a funding dysfunction. The students are dependent on the federal government to fund the tuition, but the schools do not show a similar commitment to student success.

These schools are not getting the education job done in terms of either graduation rates or cost. Nor can we underestimate the size of the elephant in the closet that largely gets ignored. To the extent a for-profit is also largely internet based, what is the quality of that education in terms of academic honesty? One can legitimately question the rigor of these programs and the structure, given the cost and the graduation rates.

One often hears the refrain that our non-profit colleges--public and private--can cost just as much and leave the graduate equally saddled in debt and just as bad off. That may be true, but most colleges that are non-profit rely on physical plant, academic rigor, student body, and reputation to attract the "top" educators and maintain decent, if not high, graduation rates. It's a concern for them. They place marketing value in the success of a broader base of their students. And, importantly, they are not beholden to shareholders. Further, in the non-profit sector one is able to pursue a costly education, or find a cheaper version at the community college. There is a school of quality for nearly every budget, with success or failure of student body tracked.

No such options with private colleges, charging you top dollar and shifting more of the education on the student. In some cases you find yourself listening to your team members educate you rather than anything definitive from the instructor. Then again, it is far less of a rigorous progress when applying to be instructors at the for-profit schools. True professionals don't aspire to teach at DeVry or College America. If given the choice to teach at the University of Phoenix or ASU, the entire staff of the former would probably get up and walk away across town.

In most cases the federal government ends up on the hook for inferior product.

The incentives are all wrong. Instead of being there to help students receive an education at an affordable cost to better prepare them to join the workforce, these "for-profits" are employing the most egregious money-grubbing tactics to bilk their students and the federal government. How's that for an Alma Mater? Senator Harkin and the GAO's work has exposed once and for all how utterly corrupt these for-profit "universities" and "colleges" really are.

(Huffington Post)

Another of our chums has repeatedly expressed a desire to go back to school. She has opted for College America thus far, and one can travel to that website and get no up front information as to the cost. That's typical of these schools. The idea is to get you in, to get you talking to a face, to get you signing on the dotted line. It was suggested to her that she should instead just enter one of Phoenix's many community college programs. Unlike in the past, community colleges today often serve a variety of practical needs, offering low cost or specialization in certain work related fields of study. At the end of your time there, you can leave with a certificate or associates, or even transfer up to a four year school. There is flexibility for that low cost, but also a broader harmony with the educational structure as whole.

Not so with the for-profits. Our friend does not want to hear too much wisdom from knowing heads, rejecting advice. The advisor she spoke with made a good pitch and she wants to give it a go. Whether she completes the program is another story, but if she starts the program, the school will reap the greater immediate reward.

What we have here is a good demonstration on how the private sector is not doing a better job in the education department. The entire for-profit education structure at the college level is dependent on financing from the federal government and it would be an interesting exercise to see if they could function without that steady, reliable flow of cash. We seriously doubt it.

The government is not off the hook either, since they are the partner providing the funding and foundation for this shaky edifice; oversight is lacking all around. Let's not kid ourselves next time we hear someone randomly and fervently praising the private sector or privatization as inherently more virtuous or cost efficient. Often both sectors are woefully managed and quite wasteful and yet each is capable--theoretically capable--of handling a responsibility if responsible minds are in charge.

Let us praise the private sector when the business model is truly independent of the government and getting the job done.

Update:
Here, via Bloomberg and Dealbreaker, we have some additional university news. Young gal pays ridiculous amount of money for a worthless degree at a for-profit school in Florida that has revenues in the billions. Due to lack of appropriate job, she is now stripping. The corporate backers, including Goldman, Sachs, have done well, but many of the students have suffered. Amusing in so many ways. The idea that a parent would sell their home an invest so much into an obviously-not-26 year old daughter's education by being impressed by a three building campus stains the imagination. You don't pay $70 per meal for a meal at McDonald's and then get disappointed at the taste.

Missourians Headstrong On Rejecting Healthcare Reform

Mo. Residents Use Their Heads

Talking Points Memo spotlights the wizened voters of Missouri who are on the brink (Aug. 3) of passing a law that would essentially destabilize Federal attempts at healthcare reform. The idea is to exempt people from the requirement of carrying and paying for insurance. But it's actually really stupid, and you just have to wonder if Missourians have totally put away their thinking caps after blessing the nation with Branson.

I had this same debate with coworkers; they resented the idea that something could be mandated or coerced from "above." While fighting the idea of Obama's soothing medicinal hands, they accept the rough hands of the state for things like auto insurance. Apparently it's okay to mandate something (insurance) if you want to drive, but it's outrageous to mandate something (insurance) if you want to not die from bad health. "Well a person does not have to drive, and further, it's the state government which is different from Federal stuff" goes the refrain.

Of course, people don't have to have good health either, and like people not driving or people not driving with auto insurance, those costs all come back to you in the form of spending on emergency care, higher premiums (to cover that emergency care), spending on public transportation (for non drivers) spending on unemployment or welfare (for those non-drivers) and higher auto premiums or coverage mandates (to cover those driving uncovered).

We are all destined to get sick, and those not covered transfer their costs to those that are. The power of the mandate is not for the government to impose its will, but to spread costs so that more services can be covered for everyone, and ultimately at less cost once everyone is fully on board.

A good example of this can be found at Groupon.com. That website lets you sign up for daily deals that give you huge discounts on products. There is a catch. A threshold number of people must sign on for each deal before the offer becomes active. If not enough people are interested, the offer does not take. Good insurance is a variant on that, where prices should come down the broader the customer base.

Missourian anti-Obama activists won't recognize subtleties that involve existing cost shifting and burdens, or the mechanics of structuring insurance, happy to wallow in the mire they are most familiar with. They will be proud of themselves for defeating Obama care, content with having nothing, and paying out of many side pockets for it.

Comical Life, Inevitable Death

Harvey Pekar, who managed to weave a drudgery filled life and creative soul together, died a fews days back (July 12th) at the age of 70.

Here the Wall Street Journal talks of Pekar, and cartoonist Robert Crumb:

Against all odds, neither man watered down his art as he found wider success. Even stranger, both of these perennial misfits in middle age found wives who could tolerate them. Pekar was divorced twice but wooed Ms. Brabner to join him in Cleveland. Their improbable romance and adoption of a 9-year-old girl, Danielle Batone, provided the backbone to the plot of "American Splendor." Both women survive him.

(WSJ)

People who find a way to express their creative individuality in the middle of non-ideal conditions always inspire me. And people who find a version of happiness or love late in life inspire me more. He was not a great talent, and didn't have a huge vision, but he found a way to construct something of his own. Philosophically I think he has little to add to the world. It's more the idea that you can find something good, or, maybe, something good can find you. Maybe God, maybe art, maybe love, maybe some meaning.

Some related news:
Harvey and his identity at The Jewish Week
The New Republic sees Pekar as overrated.

Tea Party Not Fat, Just Big Boned

No really, it makes sense!

It's an awesome boxing match, and Republicans are leading with a strong right hand, with chin possibly exposed to someone's uppercut.

This week we watched the back and forth between the NAACP and various Tea Party spokespeople and elements. The NAACP made a rather reasonable, if targeted, request that Tea Party activists make a greater show of distancing themselves from outright racists. The purpose of this request was not so much to get racists expelled from the Tea Party movement, but to highlight the fact that there are a whole bunch of racists in the organization, and using vaguely articulated concerns about the economy to hide their general dislike for the black President.

An umbrella group called the National Tea Party Federation took to the Sunday political talk shows to announce that they had indeed expelled one particularly racial Tea Party group. The spokesman for the Federation was black, and on the same CBS show Benjamin Jealous of the NAACP suggested that they would like to see other spokespeople (meaning non-black ones) take to the pulpit to denounce racist elements.

Meanwhile a slew of articles have appeared in various publications documenting the back and forth, and asking whether there is some type of race card being played by the NAACP. The framing of some articles suggests that it is merely a battle of semantics, with two equally aggrieved parties making their cases. I read one article which spotlighted the billboard of Obama centered between Hitler and Stalin, and any number of commentors to the piece failed to see any racism in the depiction. To them the billboard and the likening of Obama to mass murdering socialist variants (on the left and right) was merely a policy critique.

"It's not racist that Tea Party members have problems with his economic polices or his stances on the issues," goes the general refrain. And further, it's playing the race card when you suggest that the motivation for the outrage has racial bias as its fuel and fire.

Actually from the very beginning Obama has been smart. He has avoided talking about racial issues, or defining issues or attacks as being based on racial notions. He touches the issue when he is forced to by others, but has generally not gone there. He has avoided, even, associating too closely with blacks who he feels might cause an increased focus on racial issues or even his blackness. He has made every effort to be as non-threatening as possible. And he has instructed his surrogates to stay in line as well, even when they are functionally lying... as we see with Joe Biden's quick assertion that the Tea Party is not racially motivated.

And why might we say that in general, the Tea Party movement is in fact racially motivated, though with some good underlying themes?

In policy and deed, Obama has passed any number of pieces of legislation that in fact annoyed his liberal base. Healthcare passed, but with modifications and suggestions from Republicans who failed to support it. Financial reform passed, but with modifications and adjustments from Republicans who failed to support it. Stimulus passed, and again, with modifications and adjustments from Republicans who failed to support it. His two Supreme Court nominees were not some ode to blackness. He picked two qualified women when he very well could have just opted for two qualified blacks. He didn't. A little something for everyone.

In fact if you look at the entire cannon of Obama action, it is remarkably mainstream and not too far from various positions and stances taken by previous presidents and other nations. There was stimulus under Bush, but the Tea Party didn't exist then. Apparently  nothing to be concerned about. There were deficits under Bush, but, apparently nothing to get concerned about. There were deficit increasing actions like tax cuts and two wars under Bush, but apparently nobody was too concerned. There were rising health care costs and stagnating incomes and low job creation. But nobody protesting now, and in so organized a fashion, was out protesting then.

But now, under Obama, all the drunkards have come to the cross, and found Jesus in the form of spirit-filled anger over our economic situation and other injustices. They have found fit to liken President Obama to Hitler, and pay for billboards to do so. They have found fit to suggest insurrection and overthrowing the government, and imagine themselves patriots in the process.

Look closely at their complaints and you see dichotomy rolled up in hypocrisy wrapped in nonsense. One good example of this is in the political contest going on in Nevada, where Democrat Harry Reid is getting tarred on the airwaves. Huffington Post points out some of the nonsense:

More important than the misleading message, however, is the audacity of the messengers. Americans Crossroads is a conservative outfit run by a host of fierce critics of the Democratic stimulus program. Gillespie, the former RNC Chair and Bush hand, has criticized the stimulus package as ineffectual and misguided. Karl Rove, another American Crossroads chief and Bush confidant, actually insisted that the stimulus bill hurt the economy. Now, it appears, they see virtue in the recovery package. Were it not for the ineptitude of Harry Reid, the group argues, Nevada would be reaping more of the benefits.

Of course, the more fundamental message being advanced by American Crossroads is that Reid is simply incompetent. How, after all, could a Majority Leader not bring home the bacon to his needy constituents? But that too is misleading. As The Atlantic's Derek Thompson explains: "Republicans have spent the last three months blocking a Sen. Reid-endorsed extension to unemployment insurance that would particularly help Nevada, since federal UI contributions are tied to state unemployment rate. They're blocking Democrats' jobless aid in Washington and blaming Sen. Reid for not spending more on joblessness in Reno."

(Huffington Post)

So if your complaints are off base, where you are blaming the government for a bad economy and not just "fixing it," while simultaneously blaming the President for bringing in socialism, and if you are pillorying the President for taking actions that others have done in the past dating back to people like Hamilton, and if you are comparing the President to a mass murderer and then implying that people who voted for him are thus bad Americans... then you probably don't realize that you are in fact a situational racist.

The whole process has been to try portray Obama as something outside of the norm. You could actually break down his policies and actions and see otherwise. We still bomb terrorists with drones. We upped our troops in Afghanistan (contrary to the desires of his most fervent supporters). We passed laws--labeled socialist--that are firmly in line with other government largess efforts, whether the mortgage deduction, social security, Medicare, public schools, and so on.

You often hear the Tea Partites saying "But I paid into Social Security" but the fact of the matter is that nobody paid in enough, it's insolvent, and if you really cared about the budget, you would be against that and tax cuts as well.

Nor has any president been subjected to document demands for birth certificates, and the Tea Party in polling has yet to abandon the belief that the President is somehow not an American. Bush didn't go through that, and you can take that all the way back to Washington.

When you hold to certain untruths when facts indicate otherwise, then you need to check your motivation. But, you know, racists never do, do they? I am not fat, I am just big boned. Ha ha. 

Curious Cantor Gets A Job... in Vegas

Cantor Fitzgerald, the bond trading firm that suffered great loss of life during 911, is alive and well and venturing into a new business. Cantor will be one of the first to start taking bets on Las Vegas.

Professional gamblers often make the assertion that what they do correlates well with a career on Wall Street. Just like traders, successful sports bettors look for weaknesses in the market, they strive to know things that their opponents don't, and they frequently use technology to predict trends. But their prowess has never been tested in the same way that Wall Street's traders have been tested -- until now. Cantor Gaming, a division of bond trading specialist Cantor Fitzgerald, is the first Wall Street firm to become a bookie in Vegas.

(DailyFinance.com)

What provokes our attention is Cantor's intention to accept "in-running" action, where a bettor can make constant bets on the fly as various activities unfold on the field. We assume this would require Cantor's software to make constant odds calculations based on existing probabilities of certain things happening or not happening.

We also assume that certain hedge fund types, and certain criminal syndicates, will be watching this effort closely and seeking to see if there is some way to exploit the technology. What would happen if there was a glitch in the software, or in a calculation, handing Cantor huge losses?

Of course we do know that Wall Street's calculations and statistical models always, always hold up to real life situations. Ha ha. I crack myself up. Cantor better be the Goldman of sports betting, or they could end up with unanticipated consequences.

*

(Here is a Cantor profile from last year in Time Magazine)

On the Day Before the Eve of Another Day

I am probably one of the worst Christians I know, and even in saying this, I am permeated by a secret pride that I am probably not half so bad as many others, secular or Christian alike. Often I tell myself that I've not hurt others, or wrecked the lives of others, with the greatest victim of my sins being me. My clones as firing squad, guns all pointed haphazardly in my direction, and me not even realizing half the time, or just ignoring potential doom.

But in the end this vision serves my pride, because I imagine that for every good gone undone--gentle whispers from God, conscience or nature ignored--at least, at base, I've not done incredible evil to others.

Of course that delusion, even if true, leaves me as just an unused tool hanging on the wall in the carpenter's shop.  I am the student at the back of the room, neither raising my hand with the answers, nor causing commotion. Ah, lukewarm. Past gone, future gone, forever in the present tense, buried in my body, buried inside myself. I am the man in limbo, caught between reality and imagination, between faith and disgust.

I seem not to be able to default to unbelief in God either, or open defiance. I lack the courage of the atheist. I lack also the will of God's former friend Satan, who could sit on a couch in paradise and conclude with open defiance that all that is, is not as it should be. In the end I believe in God, but have troubles with man, and most incredibly with myself. And yet, deep down, I want to love, and feel sadness that I don't, or can't, or can love some, but not others.

Which is why this song by Brandon Heath is on my playlist a lot:

Give Me Your Eyes

Looked down from a broken sky
Traced out by the city lights
My world from a mile high
Best seat in the house tonight

Touched down on the cold black tar
Hold on for the sudden stop
Breathe in the familiar shock
Of confusion and chaos

All those people going somewhere
Why have I never cared?

Give me Your eyes for just one second
Give me Your eyes so I can see
Everything that I keep missing
Give me Your love for humanity

Give me Your arms for the broken hearted
The ones that are far beyond my reach?
Give me Your heart for the one's forgotten
Give me Your eyes so I can see
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

Step out on a busy street
See a girl and our eyes meet
Does her best to smile at me
To hide what's underneath

There's a man just to her right
Black suit and a bright red tie
Too ashamed to tell his wife
He's out of work, he's buying time

All those people going somewhere
Why have I never cared?

Give me Your eyes for just one second
Give me Your eyes so I can see
Everything that I keep missing
Give me Your love for humanity

Give me Your arms for the broken hearted
The ones that are far beyond my reach?
Give me Your heart for the one's forgotten
Give me Your eyes so I can see
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

I've been there a million times
A couple of million eyes just moving past me by
I swear I never thought that I was wrong

Well, I want a second glance
So give me a second chance
To see the way You see the people all alone

Give me Your eyes for just one second
Give me Your eyes so I can see
Everything that I keep missing
Give me Your love for humanity

Give me Your arms for the broken hearted
The ones that are far beyond my reach?
Give me Your heart for the one's forgotten
Give me Your eyes so I can see

Give me Your eyes for just one second
Give me Your eyes so I can see
Everything that I keep missing
That I keep missing

Give me Your arms for the broken hearted
The ones that are far beyond my reach?
Give me Your heart for the one's forgotten
Give me Your eyes so I can see
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

Financial Reform, A Mission Accomplished (Almost)

Deserves a Cookie!

Finally a piece of financial reform legislation has been cobbled together, unifying Senate and House variations into one common bill that will cause a certain amount of structural adjustments among firms with over $50 billion in assets. It's taken a while, given the turmoil that nearly collapsed the economy occurred in 2008.

This bill goes unsupported by most Republicans, though Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown, much applauded by Republicans when he unexpectedly won the Kennedy's seat earlier this year, is turning out to be more responsible than your average Republican.

The bill is expected to have enough support to become law. Both chambers plan to vote next week. The margin in the House and Senate will likely be close because most Republicans are expected to oppose the measure.

If the bill passes, President Barack Obama is expected to sign the package into law by July 4. Thursday's agreement also gives the president leverage going into a weekend summit of world leaders in Canada, where he will prod other nations to rewrite their rules.

(WSJ)

Expect to hear a great deal of hyperbole from those against the bill, and how the heavy hand of government will lead to failing banks and higher expenses for us all. Ignore that.The number of banks and credit unions in the country is huge, with only a few firms of a certain size impacted by some provisions. The big banks can raise fees or pass along only so much before people switch their money to credit unions or smaller banks. Or before some wise entrepreneur comes along and forms a new bank to target a neglected market.  That's how capitalism works.

The legislation is pretty broad, and in the home mortgage arena, the source of all our woes, it extends changes in lending requirements initiated by the Federal Reserve in 2008.  It forces lenders to verify income, credit and job status on all borrowers, according to the Wall Street Journal. The earlier Fed adjustments along these lines were limited to sub-prime. It would also ban putting people into bad loans.

The root cause addressed, the legislation goes on to make a bunch of changes intended to limit the risk inside our larger financial institutions. Hedge funds and PE firms--which really were no factor in our financial meltdown--nevertheless get their wings clipped a little by being forced to register with the SEC, and more damaging, periodically disclose their positions. We imagine a certain amount of fraud and unintended shenanigans from that provision as people look to capitalize on the revealed holdings of these firms. We wonder if there is some time delay on what has to be revealed, or if it will be real time disclosures of current positions.

We've pointed out in the past Republican double speak over the provision that would have forced the banks to fee up in advance to cover potential collapses and unwinding of firms that might damage the financial system. That was called a "taxpayer bailout", even though, well, it's the virtual opposite. That provision was tossed, and instead using "no taxpayer funds", but government money up front (what? how?), fees will be collected from banks after any liquidation activity. Just like the Republicans wanted. But, just in case you are not paying attention, they still are uniformly not supporting the bill. All they managed to do was increase government liability by refusing to charge solvent firms a miniscule fee during good times to create a liquidation fund, in order to try to collect a fee after a potentially cataclysmic financial event. That makes a lot of sense.

Of course because Republicans have not voted for the bill, the potential stupidity of that provision will fall on the heads of Democrats, with future Republicans pointing the finger with a revisionist flourish.

The bill limits prop trading by banks, limits their investment in prop traders (meaning hedge funds), normalizes the trading of some derivatives to exchanges open to all, and forces banks to push their more esoteric derivatives trading into fully capitalized affiliates.

Again, while derivatives did not initiate our meltdown, derivatives did play a part in allowing large parties to greatly increase systemic risk when there was no systemic risk financing structure in place beyond the taxpayer.

This is a good piece of legislation that addresses the practices of businesses, individuals and governments and that is as it should be, giving the joint participation of all three in the economic meltdown.

The final vote is supposedly next week. We watch and wait.

Financial Freedom of America Financially Fleecing Americans

The radio ad offered the services of a company based in Dallas with a soothing name: Financial Freedom of America. It cast itself as an antidote to the breakdown of middle-class life.

“We negotiate the past while you navigate the future,” read a caption on its Web site, next to a photo of a young woman nose-kissing an adorable boy. “The American Dream. It was never about bailouts or foreclosures. It was always about American values like hard work, ingenuity and looking out for your neighbor.”

(N.Y. Times)

Here again we have the private sector taking advantage of people in financial distress. Observe the language in use: "Freedom," "America," "Hard work," "Looking out for your neighbor."

It's not about bailouts and foreclosures, or those things that get pinned on Obama despite the reality that the very people crawling to the debt recovery industry, and some in the industry, played a part in the mortgage collapse that derailed the country.

Notice the marketing here, appealing to and affirming people's sense of being a true American, and noble, and not at all part of the problem. These same people seeking relief will also, in their votes, turn on politicians who support bailouts or stimulus plans, often oblivious to the true scope of government action and how much that action (whether via aid or regulation) protects them from themselves, and from private sector crooks run amok.