Two men, manly men, the type that build bridges and move mountains, passed: Herb Peterson and Al Copeland...or in this case the creator of the McMuffin and founder of Popeyes respectively. Is there another passing where two men, so great, of such significance and a linked significance at that, pass on the same day? The only other instance I can conjure up is of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.
Note: For any naysayers out there that think the popeyes founder doesn't stand atop the same peak of fast food history as the creator, nay, inventor of the McMuffin, is a dolt. Popeyes chicken is the shit!
Thursday, March 27, 2008
The Progressive Consumption Tax
The Democracy Journal is hosting an orgy of ideas. The one I found most interesting was Robert Frank's progressive consumption tax. In general, I think implementing some form of a consumption tax in conjunction with an income tax is a good idea. Such a hybrid system would to some degree mitigate the problem of taxing "goods" as opposed to taxing "bads". By incorporating both systems, though, you can also address concerns about progressivity. Well, Robert Frank doesn't want a stinking hybrid system, he goes big. I don't think relying excessively on either a consumption tax or an income tax is sensible. I tend to think you want to have a variety of different revenue sources so as to provide revenue stability.
What interested me about Frank's proposal was the underlying motivation. Frank seems less concerned with negative aspects of taxing work but rather consumed with deterring status or positional competition. He thinks that Americans suffer from an consumer arms race where we are all spending ourselves into debt just keep up with the joneses. I have heard this view advanced a decent amount in the liberal blogosphere (prominently by Ezra Klein) and I of two minds on the subject. My basic reaction is: so what? I am unsure why the government need intervene wielding its power to tax because some people are spiteful, envious, or have poor self esteem. Instead of taxing those that consume maybe we should tax those who envious of others' consumption. We could embed monitors on every soul and monitor envy emissions and wire this machine up to their bank account and conduct continuous withdraws as appropriate and transfer those moneys to people whose personal fulfillment is not fueled by spite. Though, this seems all a bit invasive. And I don't know if the technology exists (though we could do another Manhattan project). But, as much as I hate to admit it, I do think there is something to Frank's point of view. I can't accept it whole hog. Not gonna do it. BUT, I do think that in fact, sometimes people do consume purely to show that they can consume, and maybe there is some harm in this. And maybe in narrow instances, there is a way to harness certain folks prediliction for cupidity for the public good. In Virginia we have a car tax which is progressive. It could be made steeply progressive so that once you exceed $50 k for a non-business purchase the tax rate doubles.
In concluding this wet bag of shit post, I like Frank's idea, I am not a fan of his motivation.
What interested me about Frank's proposal was the underlying motivation. Frank seems less concerned with negative aspects of taxing work but rather consumed with deterring status or positional competition. He thinks that Americans suffer from an consumer arms race where we are all spending ourselves into debt just keep up with the joneses. I have heard this view advanced a decent amount in the liberal blogosphere (prominently by Ezra Klein) and I of two minds on the subject. My basic reaction is: so what? I am unsure why the government need intervene wielding its power to tax because some people are spiteful, envious, or have poor self esteem. Instead of taxing those that consume maybe we should tax those who envious of others' consumption. We could embed monitors on every soul and monitor envy emissions and wire this machine up to their bank account and conduct continuous withdraws as appropriate and transfer those moneys to people whose personal fulfillment is not fueled by spite. Though, this seems all a bit invasive. And I don't know if the technology exists (though we could do another Manhattan project). But, as much as I hate to admit it, I do think there is something to Frank's point of view. I can't accept it whole hog. Not gonna do it. BUT, I do think that in fact, sometimes people do consume purely to show that they can consume, and maybe there is some harm in this. And maybe in narrow instances, there is a way to harness certain folks prediliction for cupidity for the public good. In Virginia we have a car tax which is progressive. It could be made steeply progressive so that once you exceed $50 k for a non-business purchase the tax rate doubles.
In concluding this wet bag of shit post, I like Frank's idea, I am not a fan of his motivation.
Diddy Didn't Did It
A little while ago I posted on a LA Times story purporting to link associates of Diddy with Tupac Shakur's murder. Well, turns out that story was false.
Campaign Finance Proposal
I am not keen on the notion of full public finance of elections. Money, while it certainly encourages graft and some harm to the political process, is also the great equalizer against incumbents. But I digress, I happened across this awhile, it is a proposal by James Carville and Paul Begala (two professional hacks, though, arguably very good at what they do). Anywhoo, their proposal is that incumbents should be restricted from fundraising altogether and that those that seek to challenge them can raise funds. In the end, the incumbent would get a check courtesy of the government for 80% of the amount raised by their challenger. I actually think 80% is a bit generous as it probably underestimates the value of name recognition attached to incumbency and it doesn't consider that fundraising returns are well less then %100 (it takes money to raise money). Anyhow, I am sure there are a myriad of legal problems with such a proposal and maybe it is thoroughly nutty but it seems appealing to me.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Huckabee on Obama's Pastor
HUCKABEE: [Obama] made the point, and I think it's a valid one, that you can't hold the candidate responsible for everything that people around him may say or do. You just can't. Whether it's me, whether it's Obama...anybody else. But he did distance himself from the very vitriolic statements.
Now, the second story. It's interesting to me that there are some people on the left who are having to be very uncomfortable with what Louis Wright said, when they all were all over a Jerry Falwell, or anyone on the right who said things that they found very awkward and uncomfortable years ago. Many times those were statements lifted out of the context of a larger sermon. Sermons, after all, are rarely written word for word by pastors like Reverend Wright, who are delivering them extemporaneously, and caught up in the emotion of the moment. There are things that sometimes get said, that if you put them on paper and looked at them in print, you'd say "Well, I didn't mean to say it quite like that." JOE SCARBOROUGH: But, but, you never came close to saying five days after September 11th, that America deserved what it got. Or that the American government invented AIDS...
HUCKABEE: Not defending his statements.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Oh, I know you're not. I know you're not. I'm just wondering though, for a lot of people...Would you not guess that there are a lot of Independent voters in Arkansas that vote for Democrats sometimes, and vote for Republicans sometimes, that are sitting here wondering how Barack Obama's spiritual mentor would call the United States the USKKK?
HUCKABEE: I mean, those were outrageous statements, and nobody can defend the content of them.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: But what's the impact on voters in Arkansas? Swing voters.
HUCKABEE: I don't think we know. If this were October, I think it would have a dramatic impact. But it's not October. It's March. And I don't believe that by the time we get to October, this is gonna be the defining issue of the campaign, and the reason that people vote.
And one other thing I think we've gotta remember. As easy as it is for those of us who are white, to look back and say "That's a terrible statement!"...I grew up in a very segregated south. And I think that you have to cut some slack -- and I'm gonna be probably the only Conservative in America who's gonna say something like this, but I'm just tellin' you -- we've gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told "you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can't sit out there with everyone else. There's a separate waiting room in the doctor's office. Here's where you sit on the bus..." And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.
MIKA: I agree with that. I really do.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: It's the Atticus Finch line about walking a mile in somebody else's shoes. I remember when Ronald Reagan got shot in 1981. There were some black students in my school that started applauding and said they hoped that he died. And you just sat there and of course you were angry at first, and then you walked out and started scratching your head going "boy, there is some deep resentment there."
Now, the second story. It's interesting to me that there are some people on the left who are having to be very uncomfortable with what Louis Wright said, when they all were all over a Jerry Falwell, or anyone on the right who said things that they found very awkward and uncomfortable years ago. Many times those were statements lifted out of the context of a larger sermon. Sermons, after all, are rarely written word for word by pastors like Reverend Wright, who are delivering them extemporaneously, and caught up in the emotion of the moment. There are things that sometimes get said, that if you put them on paper and looked at them in print, you'd say "Well, I didn't mean to say it quite like that." JOE SCARBOROUGH: But, but, you never came close to saying five days after September 11th, that America deserved what it got. Or that the American government invented AIDS...
HUCKABEE: Not defending his statements.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Oh, I know you're not. I know you're not. I'm just wondering though, for a lot of people...Would you not guess that there are a lot of Independent voters in Arkansas that vote for Democrats sometimes, and vote for Republicans sometimes, that are sitting here wondering how Barack Obama's spiritual mentor would call the United States the USKKK?
HUCKABEE: I mean, those were outrageous statements, and nobody can defend the content of them.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: But what's the impact on voters in Arkansas? Swing voters.
HUCKABEE: I don't think we know. If this were October, I think it would have a dramatic impact. But it's not October. It's March. And I don't believe that by the time we get to October, this is gonna be the defining issue of the campaign, and the reason that people vote.
And one other thing I think we've gotta remember. As easy as it is for those of us who are white, to look back and say "That's a terrible statement!"...I grew up in a very segregated south. And I think that you have to cut some slack -- and I'm gonna be probably the only Conservative in America who's gonna say something like this, but I'm just tellin' you -- we've gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told "you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can't sit out there with everyone else. There's a separate waiting room in the doctor's office. Here's where you sit on the bus..." And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.
MIKA: I agree with that. I really do.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: It's the Atticus Finch line about walking a mile in somebody else's shoes. I remember when Ronald Reagan got shot in 1981. There were some black students in my school that started applauding and said they hoped that he died. And you just sat there and of course you were angry at first, and then you walked out and started scratching your head going "boy, there is some deep resentment there."
PeP Links
Anatol Lieven has a column over at the Financial Times (the world's best pink paper) detailing why we should be wary of a McCain presidency.
Spencer Ackerman has an article on Obama's likely foreign policy approach over at the American Prospect.
Julian Sanchez has a pair of interesting columns on wiretapping, one at the Los Angeles Times and one at the American Spectator.
Tyler Cowen has an interesting post on stagnant wages.
Inside Higher Ed has an interesting post on affirmative action at universities.
Spencer Ackerman has an article on Obama's likely foreign policy approach over at the American Prospect.
Julian Sanchez has a pair of interesting columns on wiretapping, one at the Los Angeles Times and one at the American Spectator.
Tyler Cowen has an interesting post on stagnant wages.
Inside Higher Ed has an interesting post on affirmative action at universities.
The Screwiest Campaign Season Ever
A year ago, I was telling anyone who would listen that McCain didn't have a shot in hell. He was a favorite of the media and independents, but not exactly beloved by the base and it is the base that you need in order to get nominated. I assumed Giuliani would run a competent campaign. When Fred Thompson entered the race, I assumed, well, that he would in fact enter the race as opposed to running an armchair campaign. Regardless, I assumed that whoever got nominated, would get trounced by the Democratic nominee, whether it be Obama, HRC, or Hubert Humphrey's corpse (I would have no problem voting for HHH's corpse by the way). I thought this because the Democratic base was amped up and the conservative base was completely deflated. Well, it looks like the internecine squabble between HRC and Obama is in fact taking its toll and is turning this election into a legitimate fight... an election that should have been a surefire win.
Hillary at this point has trotted out the race card, played the is Obama a muslim trick, and has essentially stated that McCain is better qualified to be a president than Obama. Democratic voters of the world, this should tell you something about the Clintons. Their concern is not to be able to strengthen the country at home or abroad, or to strengthen the Democratic party, it is to be in power.
Hillary at this point has trotted out the race card, played the is Obama a muslim trick, and has essentially stated that McCain is better qualified to be a president than Obama. Democratic voters of the world, this should tell you something about the Clintons. Their concern is not to be able to strengthen the country at home or abroad, or to strengthen the Democratic party, it is to be in power.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
McCain and the Financial Meltdown
McCain is utterly inept when it comes to domestic policy. By this, I don't mean that his proposals are entirely worthless, he has a group of advisors (some quacks like Kevin Hassett, and some quite good like Douglas Holtz-Eakin) to fill in the gaps. But it is clear that McCain himself has little interest or feel for domestic plicy. I think this comes across in his public persona. There are three personal narratives that McCain has cultivated: The Maverick, The Reformer, and the Veteran. None of these speak directly to kitchen table issues. However, it is this second narrative, as the reformer, as the Teddy Roosevelt follower, that I think will ultimately boost his electoral viability in the wake of the financial meltdown. He has oft seemed disdainful of business, as if it were a crude and lesser calling. This combined with the Clinton and Obama's dominance on fundraising from the finance industry (especially Clinton with Rubin hanging around) may very well give him the appearance as a credible reformer even though he has little or nothing substantive to say about capital markets and the regulation thereof.
Smoke Filled Rooms
Thomas Sowell offers one of the more plausible arguments in favor of convention hijinx like the superdelegates. I still very much disagree, but at least he is candid about the purpose of the superdelegates.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
History Lesson: What Constitutes "Victory" in War
Can America "win" in Iraq? As Frank Rich points out in today's NYT, those who argue that we are on our way to "victory" in Iraq, such as John McCain, never quite tell us what victory will look like. And today, according to the NYT, "At Least 51 Die in Attacks Across Iraq," including attacks on America's Green Zone. In light of such events, it is difficult to believe that victory, under any meaningful description, is at hand or lies ahead.
Let me offer a clear criterion of victory: the end of violent struggles between foreign troops and Iraqis. And let me offer these words from Sallust - who was a Roman senator and military officer under Caesar - in support of this sensible definition of victory:
Let me offer a clear criterion of victory: the end of violent struggles between foreign troops and Iraqis. And let me offer these words from Sallust - who was a Roman senator and military officer under Caesar - in support of this sensible definition of victory:
It is always easy to begin fighting, but the man who starts may find it exceedingly hard to stop; for while anyone - even a coward - can open hostilities, only the victor can decide when they shall cease. (Sallust, The Jugurthine War, VIII, 83)On this view, America is fighting a war in Iraq that cannot be won. The sooner our nation faces up to the impossibility of "victory," the sooner we can put an end to our losses, both human and financial.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
The Social Security Trust Fund
Dean Baker, of the American Prospect and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, is outraged by a column by Allen Sloan. In the column, Sloan makes the sensible observation that there is no real trust fund and as a result Social Security will become problematic in 2017 not 2041. Baker contests this, he says, wait, the trust fund has treasury bonds, those are perfectly good instruments. Sloan, in his column, and Baker in his post, identify that in order for the bonds to be redeemed, the government (read taxpayer) has to shell out cash. Baker's outrage would be justified if all these years we had actually set aside funds or paid down debt commensurate with the social security surplus which is used to purchase the treasury bonds set aside in the trust fund. But we haven't (save a couple of years at the end of the Clinton administration where there was no war, an asset bubble, a congress that was elected on the basis of getting rid of government, and a president that himself was a fiscal hawk; in short, a situation not likely to repeat itself anytime soon). The result is that we have taxed people so as to prefund a portion of social security (the trust fund) but will need to tax folks again to provide the same benefits they have already paid for. As to Baker's broader point, he is technically correct that Social Security's finances are in good shape, if you look at Social Security in isolation. But if you look at Social Security in the context of Government as a whole, the situation looks piss poor.
Brilliant Political Commentary
DMX on Barack Obama:
"Are you following the presidential race?
Not at all.
You’re not? You know there’s a Black guy running, Barack Obama and then there’s Hillary Clinton.
His name is Barack?!
Barack Obama, yeah.
Barack?!
Barack.
What the fuck is a Barack?! Barack Obama. Where he from, Africa?
Yeah, his dad is from Kenya.
Barack Obama?
Yeah.
What the fuck?! That ain’t no fuckin’ name, yo. That ain’t that nigga’s name. You can’t be serious. Barack Obama. Get the fuck outta here.
You’re telling me you haven’t heard about him before.
I ain’t really paying much attention.
I mean, it’s pretty big if a Black…
Wow, Barack! The nigga’s name is Barack. Barack? Nigga named Barack Obama. What the fuck, man?! Is he serious? That ain’t his fuckin’ name. Ima tell this nigga when I see him, “Stop that bullshit. Stop that bullshit” [laughs] “That ain’t your fuckin’ name.” Your momma ain’t name you no damn Barack.
So you’re not following the race. You can’t vote right?
Nope."
"Are you following the presidential race?
Not at all.
You’re not? You know there’s a Black guy running, Barack Obama and then there’s Hillary Clinton.
His name is Barack?!
Barack Obama, yeah.
Barack?!
Barack.
What the fuck is a Barack?! Barack Obama. Where he from, Africa?
Yeah, his dad is from Kenya.
Barack Obama?
Yeah.
What the fuck?! That ain’t no fuckin’ name, yo. That ain’t that nigga’s name. You can’t be serious. Barack Obama. Get the fuck outta here.
You’re telling me you haven’t heard about him before.
I ain’t really paying much attention.
I mean, it’s pretty big if a Black…
Wow, Barack! The nigga’s name is Barack. Barack? Nigga named Barack Obama. What the fuck, man?! Is he serious? That ain’t his fuckin’ name. Ima tell this nigga when I see him, “Stop that bullshit. Stop that bullshit” [laughs] “That ain’t your fuckin’ name.” Your momma ain’t name you no damn Barack.
So you’re not following the race. You can’t vote right?
Nope."
Foreclosures
Anti has accused the Bush administration of doing nothing to help those facing foreclosures. I guess the question left unasked is whether the administration should be doing anything to prevent foreclosures, leaving aside the macroeconomic questions (also, the administration has been strongarming industry to renegotiate loan terms as part of the hope alliance, which i think is an awful idea, Barack Obama to his credit hasn't said a peep about preventing foreclosures). All of the discussion of preventing foreclosures boils down to one basic element: keeping people in homes they can't afford. Is this a desirable policy goal? I don't think so. It certainly does present a considerable moral hazard.
Over the last four years there have been those of us that have sat out the housing market because we have seen what looked like, and was in fact a bubble, but also, simply couldn't afford to buy. What's the responsible thing to do when you can't buy a place, well, not to buy the place. The responsible thing is not to get a no-document loan, or an interest only loan on the hopes on that appreciation will build equity for you. For a good many of the folks whose houses have gone into foreclosure they entered into mortgages with low teaser rates where they were paying interest only for a year and once the reset set in discovered that their house had depreciated and that they couldn't afford the new rate. Who is somebody that doesn't have any equity in a house, a renter. Why not just accept this reality rather than maintaining the fiction that these folks are actual homeowners.
If the administration were to put a moratorium on foreclosures it would essentially be taking money from fairminded folks who decided to live within their means for deciding not to enter into a mortgage that they couldn't afford and giving it to the profligate and stupid. At least with Bear Stearns what we are seeing is basically an orderly liquidation of the firm. JP Morgan is taking their good assets, though, along with the attendant litigation risk (they have purportedly set aside $6 billion for lawsuits) and the fed has become the speculator of last resort.
I think there is one other aspect though that needs to be fleshed out here. I think people are under the impression that foreclosures are good for the banks. They are awful, they truly are the last resort for the bank. The banks have every incentive to renegotiate the loan terms with the "homeowner". Mortgages are non-recourse loans. So if I default on my payments and can't negotiate new terms with my bank my home goes into foreclosure. Let's say the value of my loan was $500,000 but the bank can only get $350,000. As a mortgage is a non-recourse loan they can't pursue me for the $150,000 difference. They are stuck with the loss. So a foreclosure is a pretty shitty deal all around. I think the reason that you aren't seeing renegotiations en masse is that so many of these mortgages were so insanely stupid. The rule of thumb with a mortgage is that you want have a 1:4 ratio income to mortgage with 1:6 as the outerbound. You are seeing on a lot of the foreclosures, especially in Florida and California, trends where the ratio was closer to 1:9 or 1:10.
Over the last four years there have been those of us that have sat out the housing market because we have seen what looked like, and was in fact a bubble, but also, simply couldn't afford to buy. What's the responsible thing to do when you can't buy a place, well, not to buy the place. The responsible thing is not to get a no-document loan, or an interest only loan on the hopes on that appreciation will build equity for you. For a good many of the folks whose houses have gone into foreclosure they entered into mortgages with low teaser rates where they were paying interest only for a year and once the reset set in discovered that their house had depreciated and that they couldn't afford the new rate. Who is somebody that doesn't have any equity in a house, a renter. Why not just accept this reality rather than maintaining the fiction that these folks are actual homeowners.
If the administration were to put a moratorium on foreclosures it would essentially be taking money from fairminded folks who decided to live within their means for deciding not to enter into a mortgage that they couldn't afford and giving it to the profligate and stupid. At least with Bear Stearns what we are seeing is basically an orderly liquidation of the firm. JP Morgan is taking their good assets, though, along with the attendant litigation risk (they have purportedly set aside $6 billion for lawsuits) and the fed has become the speculator of last resort.
I think there is one other aspect though that needs to be fleshed out here. I think people are under the impression that foreclosures are good for the banks. They are awful, they truly are the last resort for the bank. The banks have every incentive to renegotiate the loan terms with the "homeowner". Mortgages are non-recourse loans. So if I default on my payments and can't negotiate new terms with my bank my home goes into foreclosure. Let's say the value of my loan was $500,000 but the bank can only get $350,000. As a mortgage is a non-recourse loan they can't pursue me for the $150,000 difference. They are stuck with the loss. So a foreclosure is a pretty shitty deal all around. I think the reason that you aren't seeing renegotiations en masse is that so many of these mortgages were so insanely stupid. The rule of thumb with a mortgage is that you want have a 1:4 ratio income to mortgage with 1:6 as the outerbound. You are seeing on a lot of the foreclosures, especially in Florida and California, trends where the ratio was closer to 1:9 or 1:10.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Bear Stearns
No matter how many times I see this clip it's still funny every time. Here is a clip of Jim Cramer on an episode of CNBC's Mad Money which aired Tuesday, March 11th.
Here is what I found interesting/very sad, for those of you not paying attention the Fed rushed to bail out Bear Stearns by helping to broker a deal between Bear Stearns and JP Morgan, as part of the deal, the Fed put up $30 billion to guarantee Bear Stearns riskiest investments. While at the same time the Fed and the Bush administration have done next to nothing to help out those facing foreclosures on their homes.
On Monday, reporters questioned White House Press Secretary Dana Perino about the bailout.
Here is what I found interesting/very sad, for those of you not paying attention the Fed rushed to bail out Bear Stearns by helping to broker a deal between Bear Stearns and JP Morgan, as part of the deal, the Fed put up $30 billion to guarantee Bear Stearns riskiest investments. While at the same time the Fed and the Bush administration have done next to nothing to help out those facing foreclosures on their homes.
On Monday, reporters questioned White House Press Secretary Dana Perino about the bailout.
Reporter: “But people who are facing, say, foreclosures, individuals, the little guys who are facing their foreclosure, are looking at the big guys getting government, if not brokered, certainly they’re overseeing deals that are engineered to sort of keep the big picture financial community afloat, and they’re saying, well, where’s my boost of liquidity?”
Dana Perino: “They’re going to get that boost of liquidity in the form of a stimulus package and a tax rebate that’s coming to them the second week of May.”
Reporter: “But that’s not going to save their houses.”
RE: Obam Race Speech
I just got done listening to Obama's speech and I have to agree with Xtra's critique.
What I thought was the most profound aspect of his speech was that it wasn’t political, it wasn't a stump speech, it wasn't a speech pandering for votes, but instead a speech that was intrinsically aspirational in its nature. He basically laid out what could be described as his national vision statement in a direct, personal, honest and straightforward manner.
It was a brilliant and inspirational speech.
Here's a link if you want to look at the transcripts or view the video.
What I thought was the most profound aspect of his speech was that it wasn’t political, it wasn't a stump speech, it wasn't a speech pandering for votes, but instead a speech that was intrinsically aspirational in its nature. He basically laid out what could be described as his national vision statement in a direct, personal, honest and straightforward manner.
It was a brilliant and inspirational speech.
Here's a link if you want to look at the transcripts or view the video.
Obama Race Speech
I have only caught snippets of the Obama race speech, but what I have seen is superlative.
Diddy Did It
The LA Times has an interesting article attributing Tupac Shakur's murder and a prior shooting to associates of Sean "Puffy" Combs, aka, Puff Daddy, P.Diddy, Diddy. The article doesn't speak to any involvement on the part of Diddy, and Diddy denies any such involvement, I just liked the alliteration in the headline.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Get Your Freak On
I know that Spitzer's resignation was in the bin if for no other reason than the rank hypocrisy. Why should he be exempt from the laws that he prosecuted others for breaking? But I wonder why some politician doesn't come along and just say "I bought sex, I like sex. I am a freak, what can I say? It's out there, if you don't like having a freak in the office, vote me out." Just a thought. It would help if you combined the statement with proposed legislation to decriminalize or even legalize prostitution. It could be called the "Let Your Freak Flag Fly Act".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)