Enjoli, for the woman that does it all

Back in the heady days of the late 1970s, feminism morphed from a fringe movement to a popular crusade. Helen Reddy sang I Am Woman and women sang along. Support for the Equal Rights Amendment reached its high water mark, and Gloria Steinem was a rock star. Women were earning $.69 for each dollar earned by their male counterparts, and were demanding compensation for household work.

In that heady climate of 1978, marketers decided to tap into the image of the all-capable woman:

♪ I can put the wash on the line, feed the kids, get dressed, pass out the kisses and get to work by five to nine, 'cuz I'm a woman – Enjoli ♫

Charles of the Ritz creates Enjoli, the new 8-hour perfume for the 24 hour woman.

♪ I can bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, and never never never let you forget you're a man. 'cuz I'm a woman. Enjoli! ♫

The feminist revolution was repackaged as slavery: women are strong, subservient, hard-working sex kittens that smell great – for eight hours! Long-lasting perfume really is such an important issue: women work 20% more than men, and if they want to hold on to a man so they can raise the children, make the money, and serve him sexually, they have to smell the part: 24 hours a day.

Bailout failout and the fallout

I had been anticipating the passage of the bailout by writing an[other] impassioned screed, a call to arms to punish representatives who voted away our future for a few extra points on the Dow. I have become so used to Congress bowing to corporatist rule that I never expected that it could be voted down, but it was. So let's take a moment to celebrate: for the moment, you've escaped an additional personal debt load of $2,300 that would have gone right into the balance sheets of companies that have well and truly wrecked our economy.

Now that the bill is dead (for the moment) a lot more details are coming out: it turns out that the "assurances" and "compromises" on the bill were window dressing. The full $700B would have committed immediately, the executive compensation measures were meaningless, and the oversight provisions were toothless. Basically, the bill got a lot longer last week, but it never got any better.

Very rich and well placed media figureheads, investors, and politicians are tut-tutting this sad state of affairs, saying "people just don't understand the magnitude of this issue." Oh, but darlings, we do understand. We understand far too well what happens when we spend far more than we take in for far too long, we understand bad investments and cutting our losses, and we're maybe starting to understand when we're being manipulated. And maybe, just maybe, we're starting to resist.

I wrote my congressmen every single day last week. I wrote them again today, and I'm going to keep up the pressure. My house representative, Hank Johnson (D-GA-7^th) voted against the bill so I sent him a nice campaign contribution as a thank-you note. If your representative voted for the bailout, you can ask for a change in the next vote, as there almost certainly will be one.

No bailout is big enough to solve the credit crunch

Portraying the credit crunch as a strange anomaly that can be cured by writing a trillion-dollar cheque is extremely naïve and unrealistic.

The United States and its citizens are carrying an unprecedented and unsustainable debt load. Thanks to the neocon regime of the past twenty-eight years (yes, you too, Mr. "3^rd Way") which hobbled the government, and the klepto-corporatist administration still in office (and up for a third term) which raided the wealth of the nation to hand over to oil and military contractors (and now financial firms), the United States is so far overextended that the entire world is collectively cutting it off from further credit.

Just as banks are suddenly thinking, "hey waitasecond, maybe we shouldn't hand out credit cards like party favours", and "maybe we should check to see whether the collateral on a loan actually exists", investors and central banks of other nations are suddenly thinking, "hmmm, the United States has a seemingly infinite trade deficit and doesn't seem to produce anything of value but porn", "I wonder what, if anything, backs T-bills these days", and finally "It doesn't seem that the US military is going to be pushing anybody else around anytime soon."

The bailout is supposed to remove toxic mortgages from the balance sheets of large financial firms, and that is supposed to magically cause the credit to flow again. Wrong. What happened with the subprime loan mess is that it eventually woke everybody up to the fact that the US is at the end of its empire, and extending it credit no longer makes any sense. The US and its citizens can't afford any more debt, and they aren't going to be allowed any more. The party's over, the keg is all tapped out, and this hangover is going to be long and difficult, with vomiting, nausea, and no more drinks for a long, long time.

There's not enough money in the collective assets of the United States at this point to buy a hair-of-the-dog large enough to make a difference. The US has declining human capital in every measurable way, it has a tarnished reputation, and the valuable raw natural resources now lie chiefly in other countries. This bailout is just a parting shot, a payoff to the powers who bought and paid for this administration, and a fond final farewell snatch from the taxpayers who made the whole show possible.

A thoughtful letter on the bailout from Rep. David Obey (D-WI-7th)

I wrote a note to Representative David Obey of the 7th district in Wisconsin. He wrote this very thoughtful and honest reply, which seemed refreshingly free of bullshit. Obviously he's going to vote for the bill, but he avoids the condescension, evasion, misdirection, and outright prevarication of shitheels like Isakson. Hopefully after Obama takes office in January we will see reversal of that indefensible bankruptcy bill and finally see some more meaningful reform. What the hell, maybe we'll get another New Deal. It's about time.

---

September 27, 2008

Dear Mr. LeDuc:

Thank you for contacting me about the President’s request for a massive $700 billion bailout of the financial markets.

As you might expect, I have heard from many, many people who are unhappy, fearful, and frustrated by what has been going on, and the vast majority are staunchly opposed to the President’s proposal for what is, in effect, a blank check. I am, too, and let me make it perfectly clear that I have no intention of giving this, or any other President, a blank check to do with as he wishes. We've seen that before when the President demanded that Congress give him a blank check for Iraq - with disastrous consequences.

We are currently paying a huge price for the fact that for over 20 years we’ve had massive deregulation of the financial sector of our economy and, at the same time, economic policies that have favored the top dogs at the expense of everybody else.

If you take all of the income growth that has occurred in this country in the last eight years and see who got it, over 95 percent of all of the income growth in the country went to the wealthiest 10 percent of families. That means 90 percent of American families – 9 out of 10 – were left to struggle to get a piece of just 4.7 percent of the total income growth that’s occurred in the last eight years.

As a result, people who, in real terms, have had their income frozen for nearly a decade have tried to keep their heads above water by borrowing. In fact, over the last eight years, mortgage debt alone has gone up by $7 trillion, almost seven times as much as the national debt that we hear so much about.

And with the umpire off the field because of the relentless drive for less regulation by the Reagan and Bush Administrations, and on occasion the Clinton Administration as well, many on Wall Street who were looking for a way to make a bigger buck than ever have made the problem worse.

I fought that pressure time and time again.

For example, I was one of 57 members in the House who opposed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which was enacted during the FDR Administration. Glass-Steagall was enacted to keep investment banking and community banking separate, because they didn't want the high-flying, risk-taking actions of investment bankers to infect the community banking system. It stood us in good stead for generations. During debate on the House Floor during the vote to repeal Glass-Steagall, I said that the bill was:

"consumer fraud masquerading as financial reform. There is nothing wrong with modernizing financial institutions. It is nice to see that my colleagues are going to try to set up one-stop shopping services for financial services. But returning 1999 to 1929 is not reform in my book.”

At this point, we don’t know what will be negotiated with the White House, but we do know that they have the Congress over a barrel because if we don't do something credit markets are likely to freeze up. It doesn't just mean that Wall Street is going to be crippled; the people who will be left holding the bag are American families. The impact on Wall Street will have trickle down consequences for every family in America, and if Main Street business can't get credit, there could be thousands of businesses that go under and we could have the worst economic mess since the Great Depression. So something has to be done.

As Franklin Roosevelt said in his inaugural address in 1932 when he was facing a similar collapse of the financial sector of the economy, "we need action and now." We must provide that action at the same time we make every effort to build in assurances that protect American taxpayers.

Middle income families have missed out on the production of wealth in recent years and taxpayers have been ripped off with giveaways to the wealthy and well-connected, paid for by ballooning the deficit and passing the costs onto future generations.

We’re looking for a number of changes to the Administration’s proposal to protect the taxpayer’s interest.

First, we are trying to ensure that the taxpayer will get the benefit of any recovery in the value of the assets the government would buy from financial institutions.

Second, we are trying to find a mechanism by which Wall Street can pay a significant share of the tab so taxpayers don't get stuck with the whole load.

Third, there needs to be an independent review board looking over the shoulder of the Fed as it makes financial decisions to blow the whistle if problems develop.

Fourth, there certainly should be limitations on compensation to the executives of the companies receiving federal aid and no golden parachutes.

Fifth, there needs to be a reinvigoration of oversight by regulatory agencies to prevent this from happening again.

And that’s just scratching the surface. There are a number of other things that need to be done, too.

I also hope we’ll see a change in the bankruptcy law passed, over my objection, by the last Congress, which did not take into account that some people are unable to make their mortgage payments or credit card payments simply because they’d either lost their jobs or had a health problem. Certainly we ought to be able to provide some sort of relief for people in that kind of situation, so that people on Main Street are getting the same sort of considerations as the big shots on Wall Street.

You should also know that, as I write this letter, Congress is considering legislation that I authored to try to help people on Main Street who are suffering because of this crisis. We're trying to make greater investments in the country's infrastructure by beefing up our sewer and water construction and highway and airport construction in order to create a good number of well paying private sector jobs. We also want to extend unemployment insurance to help address the fact that 600,000 Americans have lost their jobs this year. And we are also trying to provide some budget support for states so they do not wind up knocking poor children off health care rolls.

Please be assured that, as we move forward to confront this challenge, the needs of taxpayers, homeowners, and working Americans and their families will be uppermost in my mind.

Thank you again for taking the time to get in touch.

Sincerely,
David Obey
Your Congressman

Johnny Isakson lies about the bailout

I just got this email reply today, 25 September 2008, from Johnny Isakson, senior senator from Georgia. The coward hasn't put it on his website, so here it is.

---

Dear Mr. LeDuc Thank you for your letter regarding the economy, the financial markets and the proposal from the Treasury Secretary to the Congress. We are in difficult financial times, and I am committed to protecting the savings and jobs of the people of Georgia by making sound decisions on both immediate actions as well as long-term actions. First, our economic stress is rooted in the decline of the housing market. The cause of the decline was the funding of marginal credit mortgages (subprime) through the creation of mortgage-backed securities that were sold around the world. As the default and foreclosure rate on these mortgages increased, the value of the securities declined. As the values declined, the balance sheet of the financial institutions that bought them deteriorated. The market for these securities declined and ultimately evaporated, thus causing a liquidity problem for the financial institutions and a credit crisis for American consumers and small businesses. In the immediate term, we must address the credit and liquidity crisis. In the long term, we must put in place the oversight and safeguards to ensure the transparency and accountability necessary to prevent this from happening again. The Treasury has proposed using up to $700 billion dollars to purchase, at a discount, these mortgage-backed securities. This would provide liquidity to the financial institutions and improve their balance sheets. The important question is this: "Is the taxpayer of Georgia protected?" If the Treasury properly discounts the securities to, say, 50 or 60 cents on the dollar, and holds the securities to maturity there should be little or no cost to the Treasury. More importantly, investors will return to the market and will compete with the Treasury to by these discounted securities and the market will be reestablished. I am working to ensure the safeguards necessary for maximum security for the taxpayer. In the long term, we must bring transparency and accountability to Wall Street. While I am not a big government regulator, if the investment bankers on Wall Street were held to the same standards of transparency and accountability as our national banking system, this would not have happened. The security rating agencies such as Moody's and Standard and Poor also share some of the blame for the way they rated the subprime mortgage-backed securities, and they should be held accountable. I will work hard for the right reform of Wall Street. The term bailout has been used a lot in this debate. Not a dollar of the $700 billion will go to the brokers who created the securities. Instead, they will go to the investors who bought them, and then only after they take a significant discount or loss. Properly executed, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve believe this proposal will restore liquidity to the credit markets and return confidence in the financial system. I will continue to work for the best interest of our economy and the safety of the savings of the citizens of Georgia. Thank you again for contacting me. Please visit my webpage at http://isakson.senate.gov/ for more information on the issues important to you and to sign up for my e-newsletter by choosing Newsletter Subscription from the topic list. Sincerely, Johnny Isakson United States Senator For future correspondence with my office, please visit my web site at http://isakson.senate.gov/contact.cfm. You can also sign up for the eNewsletter by choosing Newsletter Subscription from the topic list.

---

My reply:

I am in receipt of your condescending and misleading letter concerning the Wall Street bailout.

Don't try to confuse the issue with me, sonny. Tax money going into a private balance sheet is a bailout. Businesses making threats that if they don't get blood money they'll take down the economy is called a shakedown. If you vote for this bill, you'll be making a choice which side you're on: corporations instead of citizens. And there will be consequences.

Count on it.

Now don't make a liar of me. Let's make these bastards pay.

Not one god-damned red cent for Wall Street

I'm just as deep in the stock market as anyone else is these days. After all, government policy has been urging employers to gut pension plans (remember guaranteed retirement benefits?) in favour of investment plans (with only a set contribution, but no guaranteed returns). So most of my retirement savings is tied up in the stock market, which is a risky gamble. I could lose it, but I wanted the big payoffs that stocks might provide, so I took a chance.

That's how the free market is supposed to work, right? Isn't that what Nobel-prize winner Milton Friedman said? Isn't that the ideology which has been ascendant in the US for the past twenty-eight years? If the banking industry isn't working miracles with all of those fantastic new financial instruments they've cooked up, and are in fact just building an elaborate confection that is collapsing on itself, why should we prop it up? It sounds like a huge proportion of the finance industry is doing things of no real economic value. They need a huge handout (plenty of which they'll pass back as "campaign contributions"), and if we give it they'll demand another huge handout in a year after they waste this one.

So fine, let my portfolio lose seventy-five percent of its value. Even ninety-five percent – we'll work it out. I'd rather spend a trillion dollars helping people in need than wasting it on more empty suits. Recessions are necessary: endlessly trying to apply the juice to extend a boom just makes the crash that much harder, and that's what we're seeing now. So let it go, and then we'll work out a more relevant (and possibly even less corrupt) financial system.

Bush said today the sky is falling so we've got to unlock the US Treasury with no questions asked and no accountability. He's the same guy that wanted to gut Social Security and put it all in the stock market! (Wow, too bad we didn't get to experience all of that great growth, huh?) First, we had to surrender all of our civil liberties because the terrorists were going to kill us all with box cutters. Second, we had to invade another country because they were going to nuke our balls. Now we're supposed to give an enormous birthday present to Wall Street because they blew our money on bear whores and cocaine. The man has no credibility. Fool me thrice: go fuck yourself.

Giving a huge payoff to this gang of crooks won't do a damned bit of good; it just encourages them to do it again. Write your senators and representative and tell them no. Maybe some regulation is in order. Maybe the banks need to be nationalized. Maybe mortgages need to be refinanced en masse. Maybe some depositors are going to lose their money (me included). So be it: when there is hell to pay, I'll pay it, but I won't pay one god-damned red cent in protection money.

Tropicana: How not to run a loyalty campaign

Tropicana has a long-running loyalty campaign for their orange juice: you get 10 Aéroplan miles for each bottle of sugar-water you buy. They print a little code at the top of each carton, and you go to their website and enter the code to get your points. Sounds great, right?

The problem is that Tropicana can't seem to print the codes legibly. Every single time you try to enter a code, there's some problem or other: either the code is completely illegible, or the code isn't recognized, or a cosmic ray strikes their server, but whatever it is, you don't get your points. Furthermore, if you're trying gamely to puzzle out the code, the system locks you out, figuring you're trying to guess the code randomly. Check out these beauties:

Although I don't like to ascribe to malice what is more easily explained by negligence and sheer incompetence, this has been going on for years. I can't help but suspect at this point Tropicana's behaviour is willfully fraudulent: they print the offer on the carton to influence buyer behaviour, but they make it too irritating, difficult and time consuming to actually get the points. They could easily prove me wrong by fixing this problem, but something tells me they won't.

Anti-Harper stickers in Vancouver

Seen on Davie Street in Vancouver tonight: little posters of Stephen Harper pasted to newspaper boxes and bus shelters.
I can't wait for the elections to be over – on both sides of the border.

Saturn's Children: an homage to Friday

Charles Stross was a bit embarrassed about the cover to his new book Saturn's Children. Charlie's a stand-up guy: he cares about people, women specifically, and I think he was worried people would think he was a creepy lech. But this book is about a lonely sexbot, and the cover doesn't just stand on its own: the book is a tribute to Robert A. Heinlein's Friday, and so is the cover. The book has an engaging milieu and a somewhat bewildering set of characters (personality versioning is hard to keep track of) and Stross maintains the pace and keeps the story moving. It's a good read, and a nice departure from the usual strong-AI-ate-my-balls story lines. It's packed with obscure Heinlein references and in-jokes:

"Why bother learning all that biochemistry stuff—or how to design a building, or conn a boat, or balance accounts, or solve equations or comfort the dying—when you can get other people to do all that for you in exchange for a blow job?"

an inversion of a fatuous quote by Lazarus Long in Time Enough for Love

Friday was one of my favourite Heinlein books: for a nerdy gay teenager, an oppressed bicurious gengineered courtesan spy was terribly compelling; plus she was black (covers lie), and she traveled the world in semiballistic missiles, tumbling into bed with various exciting characters of various genders. At the time young-adult fiction didn't really speak to gay kids; at that time gay fiction was exclusively boomers talking to their contemporaries about AIDS and Fire Island (not to say that I didn't devour those books, but they didn't mean as much to then as they do now). At the same time I was obsessed by comic books, particularly the New Mutants, teenagers who were hated and oppressed because their secret mutant powers manifested themselves at puberty. So for a science-fiction-obsessed gay boy, Friday presented a character with whom I could identify.

Cory Doctorow has spoken a great deal about why he chose to write Little Brother, a young adult novel about technology and totalitarianism. He read Heinlein when he was a boy: he explained that young people are very idealistic and looking for different ways of looking at the world. Friday did that for me, but I don't think of Saturn's Children as a young-adult book: it is more of a story-driven contemplation on the evolution of identity with technology. The references to Friday are creative and amusing, and the contrast between the two stories shows how the shape of the future has changed over the past twenty-five years. Saturn's Children is seemingly addressed to people of Charlie's (and my) generation.