If you have ever read The Perfect Storm, there is a great explanation of the three weather phenomenon that came together to create the system that is the focus of the book. The movie glosses over the explanation, so read the book instead.

What we are witnessing this week is the same interaction of three deadly factors. Any one of the three would be destructive. In total, however, they have just cost you and I a trillion dollars. And don’t for a moment think the total will end there. Mark my words, this bailout has only begun to cost us.

The Three Factors

Under a Republican congress and Democratic President, Washington expanded a Carter era relic called the Community Reinvestment Act.

The Community Reinvestment Act is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound banking operations.

In other words, banks will make loans for houses to people who are ill-equipped to pay them back. The “encouragement” came in the form of penalties for not doing so.

Add to that another bill passed by a GOP controlled Congress with a Democratic President. That bill, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act sought to:

Enhance competition in the financial services industry by providing a prudential framework for the affiliation of banks, securities firms, insurance companies, and other financial service providers, and for other purposes.

In other words, prior to the law, Insurance companies could sell insurance, banks could do loans, securities firms sold stock, and never the three should meet. After the law, it was a free for all. Banks created securities out of the shitty loans they issued under the CRA, Insurance companies under wrote those while creating their own shitty securities, etc, etc.

Now into the mix you have to throw the American people. They look at the news and see home values going through the roof. The react the same way they did during the Beanie Baby craze. They rush out to get a piece of that action. They can buy a $5 stuffed animal and sell it for $300 on eBay, so they buy the hell out of Beanie Babies.

Unfortunately, economic laws will only support that for so long. The company will make more (thereby reducing demand for the things), people will lose interest, or some other force will enter the market and suddenly your left with crates full of stuffed animals rotting in closets. Beanie Babies were an artificial market.

In the same way, people saw home ownership as a great way to make money. Home flipping became the rage, people took out second mortgages to buy second homes, and suddenly everyone had to buy a house.

The Perfect Storm

The trouble is when you have people who can’t afford to buy houses meeting up with people who have to sell houses to keep from running afoul of laws designed to promote home ownership among the poor, you wind up with a) a guy who will lie about his income or b) a guy who will lie about the value of the house or the terms of the loan.

So suddenly a lot of people are invested in houses they can barely afford anyway, and the real terms of those notes go into effect. People can’t pay, so the value of that note becomes worthless.

Since you have built shitty securities on the value of that house, the value of those securities go into the toilet. When that happens, the debt that the mortgage company is carrying becomes unsustainable and the house of cards comes tumbling down.

This is exactly what we’re witnessing. We’re seeing exactly what happens when an artificial market comes tumbling down. There never was a market for housing for people who can’t afford it. The government created one, took their eyes of the guys who were managing it, and is now asking us to throw another deck on the house of cards so people who can’t afford to borrow can keep doing so.

DC is Fundamentally Broken

I have said that Washington DC is so fundamentally broken it is going to drag the rest of the country down with it. I am more convinced of that than ever today.

With this bailout, we’re solving nothing. We’re simply allowing people who shouldn’t have credit to keep on borrowing. We’re enabling addictive behavior. The Congressmen who voted for the bailout should be tried as traitors.

Despite all of that, I was forced to watch to politicians on TV last night both of whom blamed “the greed and corruption of Wall Street” for the mess while giving a pass to the incompetence and stupidity of Washington. Make no mistake. This dismal situation was the result of horrible policy that started with, and was supposed to be overseen by, Congress. They passed the laws that allowed this to happen and ARE TAKING ABSOLUTELY NO RESPONSIBILITY for the mess they created.

What’s worse, is both candidates for President, and both candidates for Vice President, appear to have learned absolutely nothing from watching this happen and are pursuing the same ridculous policies that have crippled our nation.

I believe you can absolutely count on two things.

First, when the next Administration is about 6 months or a year into its term, they will have to deal with an economic disaster of Biblical proportions. This is a band-aid fix for a missing leg. It’s stupid and will do nothing but punt the problem into an off-year when the sheep aren’t watching.

Second, if you think we dodged a bullet with this bill today, you haven’t seen anything yet.

I had previously posted on Matt Stoller’s late spring run in with the business end of a fist, and didn’t have the story quite right. My earlier post was based on a report that Matt had an argument with someone that turned violent. While I still stand by the person who gave me the story, it seems there was a little more to it than meets the eye.

Matt has always claimed that the guy sucker punched him. When he made that claim here, I pointed out that I have been in a lot of fights, have never been hit or thrown a punch without knowing exactly why that happened, and was pretty sure Matt knew why he got hit.

Well it turns out that Matt did get hit out of the blue, but the story of why was still untold – but I was right, Matt knows why.

The story was the ex-boyfriend of Matt’s then girlfriend saw the two of them together, and punched Matt in the face. That appears to be true.

Sources, however, tell me there was a bit more going on. It seems Matt was banging the assailant’s girlfriend while she and he were engaged to be married. Mr. Fisticuffs was apparently a little upset that trust fund baby was nailing his fiance. When given the opportunity to exact a little payback on Stoller, he took it.

As I said at the time of the original post, “I suspect there is at least a fair probability that it was provoked.” Turns out I was right.

On a related note, conversation also turned to a psychoanalysis of the type of girl that would date Matt to begin with. There was heated debate over whether she must have serious daddy issues or simply massively low self-esteem.

Consensus was reached on one point, however. In trying to describe the awkward thought of Matt and his paramour being in union, everyone agreed it probably went something like this:

(As young lass is trying to pleasure Matt, she hears) No. Nobody does it that way. Anyone who does it like that must be stupid and not worth my time… It feels awkward… Like knowing that John McCain will die of cancer in office… By the way, did I mention that Republicans are all racist? They are…

One note of caution, Matt. Watch out for those teeth when your girl wakes up to your bullshit.

Subj: Police Activity At Our Building Last Evening

The police activity which prevented many parkers in our garage from leaving last night was due to a couple of young men trying to elude the police. Those being pursued jumped the fence on one side of the [building next door] and then scaled the fence on the other side … only to jump to the grate over the garage and then onto the ramp of the garage where they were stopped (injured) due to the height of the jump.

One of our staff was a witness and reported the activity to me after giving his statement to the police. I apologize for the inconvenience this caused many of you as you tried to leave for the day.

I actually find the last line amusing. I was always taught to apologize for things that are your fault and move on when they’re not. I would count “Perp jumps a fence, falls very far and breaks leg thereby blocking garage entrance” as something firmly outside of your control. But I do appreciate the apology…

With regard to the actual incident let me say one thing. The jump referred to above is high… like, really high… bordering on crazy high… This is a story that should go down in the “stupid criminals” file simply because anyone dumb enough to think they could make that jump and not get hurt is just fooling themselves.

Authorities in Spotsylvania County, Va., said a woman who struck people with her car in a parking lot made a Nazi symbol and yelled “white power.” …

The victims, who are white, told police that a woman struck several pedestrians and a vehicle. One victim told police that the woman made a Nazi symbol, yelled “white power.”

The assumption in hate crimes is the crazy racist/homophobe/religious zealot has a beef against a specific group and targets members of that group. I’ve always wondered how that would play out if the victims were the same gender, religion, race and sexual preference. Perhaps it’s a older white Jewish kid beating up a younger one. Is it a hate crime if he shouts “you young punk” while administering the beat down? Is ageism respected as a hate crime component? What about two people with all the same characteristics but one is buff and the other is scrawny. Is geekism or skinnyism a component?

So now we may get our answer. It seems a crazy white supremacist has gone on a rampage targeting other white people. Since she attacked them randomly with a car, you can’t really claim she knew their religion or sexual identity. So a crazy white person attacks other white people to express her belief in “white power”.

I really want to follow this one and see if they charge her under hate crime laws or just as a nut. By all accounts, this crime is exactly the sort of thing that compelled the passage of hate crimes bills. Had the victims been black, or had the attack taken place at a synagogue or gay nightclub, you can bet they would be talking hate crimes – despite the fact that we’re obviously dealing with a woman who simply has a head full of bad wiring.

Given that she attacked her own race, will they have a hard time proving racial motivations? All other details of the crime fit the hate crimes mold, but the perp/victim mix is out of whack. Will this be the incident that makes people question hate crimes bills?

Q: Can I purchase Girl Scout Cookies online?

A: Girl Scouts of the USA does not allow online sales but its cookie site, GirlScoutCookies.org can help you locate cookie sales in your community. Simply visit GirlScoutCookies.org.

Q: How do you ensure the safety of Girl Scouts who sell cookies?

A: The safety and security of our members is always our chief concern. We have strict guidelines for safety. Girl Scouts, depending on their age, must be accompanied by an adult when selling Girl Scout cookies and always use the buddy system. Our youngest members, Daisy Girl Scouts, who are five and six—are not allowed to sell Girl Scout cookies under any circumstances.

Q: Why can’t Girl Scout Cookies be sold on the Internet?

A: Our existing National Girl Scout policy prohibits the sale of Girl Scout cookies or any other Girl Scout approved product on the Internet. The safety of our girls is always our chief concern. Even in supervised settings it is not possible to guarantee that the person purchasing Girl Scout Cookies harbors no harmful intent. Girl Scout Cookie Activities are designed to be face-to-face learning experiences for girls. In an online setting, there is no guarantee that the seller is indeed a girl member of Girl Scouts. We have many ways for girls to explore and experience the benefits of science and technology and the Internet, including our Girls Go Tech initiative.

Here is where the Girl Scout policy and my background in Internet technology crash into one another in an amazing explosion of outrage.

I find it absolutely amazing that the Girl Scouts are so adept at the Internet that they actually have www.GirlScoutCookies.org, yet they’re so clueless about the Internet that they would post something retarded like this.

Sales online is actually much, much safer than the process they have created. If I can take an order, accept payment, and ship said order without my daughter coming into contact with strangers, that’s the safest possible sales channel.

On the other hand, the Girl Scouts allow my daughter to go door-to-door. Well here’s my problem with that:

This is a map of the 142 convicted sexual predators in my zip code. That’s right! There are 142 people convicted of rape, crimes against children, sexual battery and other miscellaneous sex crimes in my neighborhood. The closest live within a couple of blocks.

Now, I recognize the Girl Scout policies say that kids always have to have a parent with them, and operate on the buddy system. However, as of 2000, the FBI’s National Crime Information Center reported 2,100 kids going missing every day. The number that actually stay missing is much, much smaller. However, the most likely candidate for abduction is an 11-year old with a stable family structure. So who sells Girl Scout cookies?

Q: Who can sell Girl Scout Cookies?

A: Only Brownie and Junior Girl Scouts and Girl Scouts 11-17 (emphasis mine) may sell Girl Scout Cookies. Participation in this Girl Scout program activity is voluntary.

Given that these girls are part of a sorority type organization that fosters a sense of community and civic involvement, I’m guessing they’re likely coming from homes with a stable family situation as well.

So that’s perfect. The Girl Scouts, in order to protect my 11-17 year old daughter will not allow her to sell cookies through the anonymity of the Internet, but will allow her to go door-to-door selling those same cookies to the 142 sexual predators who live near me.

Really solid thinking.

That’s unfortunately the kind of misguided thinking that most people who don’t spend much time online apply to the Internet. I’m seriously amazed at how stupid that is.

I guess this just goes to show that stars of successful TV shows get more time than bimbos with less acting talent than a glass of water, and/or more money than common sense. Tough break, Kiefer. If were a crappy actor or an heiress you could have skated.

358-S:5 Electronic Tracking Prohibited. No person may use any electronic means of tracking another person without a valid court order or other legal authorization or the consent of person being tracked. Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a violation. This section shall not be construed to apply to locating technology used by the enhanced 911 system or to commercial mobile radio service pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 332.

Unlike California’s bill, I think that the “other legal authorization” clause might give parents some protection should they use such technologies to monitor their minor children. It’s not certain that’s the case however.

This is yet another case of people harboring an irrational fear of a very useful technology. As I’ve said before, if I can use RFID to protect the family dog, why stop me from using it to protect the lives that really matter? If it’s good enough to save Rover, it should be good enough to save little Janie and Jack.

Also, you have no doubt heard in the news about special micro chips that can be embedded directly in an animal’s skin that can help track a missing pet. While some serve as mere computer-based identifiers so that someone who finds your missing pet can be sure it is yours, others get fairly sophisticated.

Some companies are experimenting with global positioning satellite or GPS tracking that can be affixed to a collar or implanted subcutaneously. Unfortunately, the more sophisticated the process, the more you will pay, often both in one-time setup and then in monthly fees. Yet, if you have the money, it may be worth the price for your overall peace of mind as well as the safety of your beloved pet.

At the same time, we write off the possibilities this would afford us in tracking lost children.

A child of a certain age, for example, should know how to get home or at least be able to offer information to others to help them get back. Yet few pets speak; they need us to employ the very best ways to find a lost pet if they have any hope to make it home again.

All this despite the fact that almost one million people go rogue each year, and of those 85% to 90% are juveniles.

That means that 2,100 times per day parents or primary care givers felt the disappearance was serious enough to call law enforcement. 152,265 of the persons reported missing in 2000 were categorized as either endangered or involuntary. The number of missing persons reported to law enforcement has increased from 154, 341 in 1982 to 876,213 in 2000. That is an increase of 468%.

Despite all of this, California is busy making it illegal to protect your kids using the same technology you use to protect your dog.

This bill would prohibit a person from requiring, coercing, or compelling any other individual to undergo the subcutaneous implanting of an identification device, as defined.

Now don’t get me wrong. I love my dog, and if he disappeared, I’d be pretty broken up. However, if some friggin’ whack job pedophile snatched my kid when I had my back turned, and I had no way of locating him simply because some ACLU lawyer thought it was a violation of his rights, I’d hunt down the guy that took him and the ACLU lawyer and dispatch them both.

We fear technology because we’re incredibly short sighted in our thinking. Just think of all the Amber Alerts that could be resolved within minutes or hours if we could pull up a grid and see the location of the missing child. Imagine the hundreds of thousands of parents crippled by the grief of a lost child who could have had their children returned safely if we hadn’t acted in fear.

Legislation like this ignores the possibilities of science, and places more value on the family pet than the family member. That’s just sick and sad.

For Larry Craig, that moment is today.

First, he holds this big press conference announcing he “intends to resign” at the end of September. Then he announces that “he intends” means he’s planning to do that if the appeal of his conviction is not overturned.

Now that his conviction is upheld, he announces that he’ll serve out his term after all.

“I am extremely disappointed with the ruling issued today. I am innocent of the charges against me. I continue to work with my legal team to explore my additional legal options.

“I will continue to serve Idaho in the United States Senate, and there are several reasons for that. As I continued to work for Idaho over the past three weeks here in the Senate, I have seen that it is possible for me to work here effectively.

“Over the course of my three terms in the Senate and five terms in the House, I have accumulated seniority and important committee assignments that are valuable to Idaho, not the least of which are my seats on the Appropriations Committee, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Veterans’ Affairs Committee. A replacement would be highly unlikely to obtain these posts.

“In addition, I will continue my effort to clear my name in the Senate Ethics Committee – something that is not possible if I am not serving in the Senate.

“When my term has expired, I will retire and not seek reelection. I hope this provides the certainty Idaho needs and deserves.”

Do you know what Idaho really needs and deserves? A Senator that isn’t an embarrassment. Unfortunately, your refusal to give them that does a disservice to the state and her people.

On that subject, I think Louisiana deserves a Senator and a Representative that don’t embarrass them. Alaska probably feels the same.

Heck, I’m sure the 47 other states have that same thought every day.

Why do these guys only tend to talk about what would be good for their states when they’re using it to justify sticking around despite being a humiliating slap in the face to all those that elected them?

So Anne and I are talking and I mention the fact that I am considering a Britney related post. After begging me to leave the poor girl alone, I explained my perspective. This post is not going to add yet another voice to the chorus beating up on Britney. Instead, I’d like to take this opportunity to address the larger issue of celebrities and their poor hiring decisions.

Celebs generally hire personal assistants, publicists, makeup artists, stylists and countless other staff to make their life easier. The one position they all need to fill is “Driver”.

If you look at most of the problems celebs have had over the last year, it all comes down to one thing – they all involved celebs trying to drive themselves. Keifer, Nicole, Lindsay, Britney, Paris, Mel, etc. etc. All of them were driving themselves and should have had someone else do the job.

Had Mel had a driver, he wouldn’t be staring down the business end of anti-semitism charges. Had Paris called a car service, she would have avoided jail time. If Lindsay had someone waiting curbside, she could go on being a giant coke whore and nobody would care.

It’s not like limos are all that hard to come by in LA. It’s not like the expense is that great given these are people who spend $2,000 on ugly pants and huge sunglasses. It’s just amazing that the one thing that could keep them out of trouble is the one accessory they don’t have.