Phones

Something to think about before you buy your next smart phone.

An now, a fiscally responsible post.

Great article from Mint.com (an online budgeting software which I use and highly recommend) on whether you should pay with credit or debit.

Original article by GE Miller and available in context, HERE

Credit or debit? - an important question for those trying to come out ahead in recessionary times. The answer can be a little complicated. It depends on a few things, namely, your spending habits, your ability to pay your bills on time, and the total dollar amount that you pay with debit and credit. These are the variables that you can control. Unfortunately, they’re not the only ones.

What remains to be seen are the clever tricks credit card providers will play in light of the major reform that was recently signed into law by President Obama that will go into effect in 2010. About the best you can do is take advantage of the existing rules and set yourself up for future financial success.

An Easy Choice for Some

For starters, those whom the credit card companies have feasted on can be packaged into one of the following categories.

Group #1 - Buys a little or a lot, carries a balance, pays on time.
Group #2 - Buys a little or a lot, carries a balance, doesn’t pay on time.

If you’re in one of these two groups, the answer is simple. You have been targeted. Cut up your credit cards now. If you’re using credit to pay for things you can’t afford, you are digging yourself a big hole. Even with the new regulations that will go into effect next year, credit card companies will still be able to charge late fees and whatever fee they desire. Don’t let them. Switch to paying with debit. The “I need a credit card to survive” argument is a pretty weak one, regardless of circumstance.

A New Target?

Where it gets more interesting is when you consider those who have used cards responsibly. They fall into one of the following two groups:

Group #3 - Buys a lot, no balance, pays on time, uses credit to get rewards.
Group #4 - Buys a little, no balance, pays on time, uses credit to get rewards.

The question of credit or debit is not quite as simple for these responsible bill payers that have used credit cards as a means to reap financial reward. Creditors have long offered rewards to target these consumers. In theory, it should be safe to assume that those who have credit cards for their rewards are responsible bill payers - if you’re paying 15% interest on 2% rewards, you have some things to sort out.

With the industry set to take a financial hit on regulations aimed to protect those who are typically hit with fees and high interest, there has been mention of industry backlash against the users who have been responsible and not contributed as much to the credit card companies bottom lines. It won’t be long before the industry responds with new or old ways to make up for lost revenue. If annual fees are re-instated or rewards are cut back, those who have a choice of credit or debit and may have to make some decisions regarding which they option they choose.

Debit Card Rewards - A Game Changer?

To make matters more interesting, many debit cards have begun offering rewards in the last few years. Debit card rewards tend to be a little less enticing than credit card rewards, however. Banks generally offer one point for every $2 spent with a debit card, compared with one point for every $1 spent with a credit card.

It’s worth noting that many debit card rewards programs require you to use the “signature” option of your card, which means the card is swiped, you sign for the purchase and the transaction is run through the merchant’s processing system, versus punching in a PIN code. This is because the bank collects an interchange fee for that transaction from the merchant, which would be less if you paid with the debit option using your PIN. The bank then uses those fees to offset the cost of the rewards program.

Additionally, many debit rewards cards are charging annual fees. Those that don’t tend to offer highly scaled back rewards. Less rewards, annual fees, and the possibility of getting dinged on fees for going below your checking account minimum balance? This model has a little work to do.

Seeking Optimal Return at the Lowest Expense

Regardless of how the industry changes the fees and rewards for responsible card users, the goal here should be to get the highest total return. If you spend a lot (group #3) and benefit from hundreds or thousands of dollars of rewards each year, it may make sense to eat the expense of an annual fee and use a credit cards, both of which should point towards bigger rewards.If you don’t spend much (group #4) you may want to opt for a debit card or credit card with no annual fee, even if the rewards are small. Whichever way you choose, it is important to pay your bills on time, not carry over a balance, and stay above your minimum in your checking account.

For more of GE Miller’s writing, visit personal finance blog 20somethingfinance.com.

Best invention ever

From Gizmodo

Self-Cleaning Toilet Becomes a Urinal With the Push Of a Button

By Sean Fallon, 1:40 PM on Thu Jun 4 2009, 11,304 views (Edit post, Set to draft, Slurp)

Copy this whole post to another site

cancel

select site advertising consumerist deadspin defamer fleshbot gay fleshbot gawker gizmodo idolator io9 jalopnik jezebel kotaku lifehacker valleywag artists gawkershop

I've always wanted a urinal in my bathroom, but a lack of space (and money) has always been an issue. This Ultimate Clean Toilet could solve all of these problems and more.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

On one side you have a toilet and on the other, a urinal. The toilet rotates between the two at the press of a button and self-cleans with steam and a UV light bath. So you are getting both a urinal and a toilet in a single, compact unit that not only cleans itself, but most likely would result in cost savings with regard to water usage. Again, this is only a concept, but it is one that has limitless potential.

Tracy Morgan

Tracy Morgan is in a new movie.

I don't know about you, but this picture alone is enough to get me to the theater for opening day.

File this under jobs I wish I could get

Reason #256 why I'm going to light myself on fire:

Jobless? Get paid $25,000 to ride everything in Orlando

Jason Cochran
Jun 1st 2009 at 12:00PM

Pack your Dramamine: The tourist city of Orlando, home to seven of the most popular amusement parks on earth, is rolling out a job search for a couple who can take 67 days off to ride every ride, tour every attraction, get rubbed down at every spa, and generally explore every crevice (and line) of the Mecca of Mascots.

The pay, to cover expenses back home during those two months, will be $25,000, and the winner will be put up in a one-bedroom condo of their own in downtown Orlando, the better to dabble in its arts district, cafés, and prime Vietnamese restaurant drag when theme parking wears out. All the job holders will have to do in return is document their grueling, turkey leg-packed adventure using a supplied set of cell phone, video camera, and still camera, and to post their doings online via hotspots such as Facebook and Twitter. Their jealousy-making life, Orlando hopes, will stir Americans to venture out of their recession caves and come play again.

The application process is pretty simple: Turn in two photos, a one-minute video, and be at least 21. Applicants can be of any nationality, and your twosome can even be the same sex -- which means you can be in a romantic couple or part of an Amazing Race-style team-up. But given the name of this promotion, 67 Days of Smiles, it's a safe bet that you'll need to be able to grin on cue as an official online ambassador of the area that supports Disney, Universal, and SeaWorld. The latter two resorts, in particular, which run a combined five parks, are entering hard times thanks to precipitous tourism drops, despite the fact that both of them have just added mega-coasters to their lineups.

Vampire Weakend

Look, I really DO hate to laugh at someone else's pain, but seriously, how was this guy ever the favorite? He looks like a Vampire.

"I want to suck...at singing!!!"

Congratulations to the other dude who won, Chris something-or-other if for no other reason than saving America from being known as the country that votes for Emo Kids. Here at simsisms we strongly support a constitutional amendment forbidding anyone emo from holding any kind of elected office, be it President, Senator, American Idol, or Treasurer of the Local 4H club. Way to go America, say NO to razor haircuts and manliner! U-S-A! U-S-A!

Not laugh at someone else's pain, but....

Have fun playing on a minor league basketball team, Blake.

Questionannaire for Supreme Court Candidates.

Stolen from the New York Daily News.

Judge not, lest ye be judged

By Josh Greenman

Friday, May 15th 2009, 4:24 PM

Preliminary Vetting Questionnaire
Associate Justice

Dear potential applicant,
Thank you for your interest in serving the nation on its highest court. President Barack Obama, a former constitutional law professor, considers it his solemn responsibility to select an outstanding jurist who will interpret the Constitution with precision, clarity, integrity and, not least, empathy.
By the way, so does Vice President Joe Biden, who used to have tons of power as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and who is constantly whispering in the President's ear (in, don't worry, a grandfatherly way).
Please answer the following questions with candor. All responses will be kept strictly confidential.
Sincerely,
The White House

Qualifications and personal history

Which law school did you attend?

a)Yale Law School
b)Harvard Law School
c)University of Chicago Law School
d)Columbia Law School
e)NYU Law School
f)Another school, but I mumble its name at cocktail parties.

In how many federal cases have you ruled?

a)500 or more
b)200 to 499
c)fewer than 199
d)None. I'm your wife, Barack.

Complete the following sentence: When I am overruled, I feel:

a)Unshaken. I am confident in my rulings, which I think through exhaustively before I make them.
b)Sullen. I look back at my decision and wonder if my reasoning was flawed.
c)Vengeful. I am the law!
Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Federalist Society?
Have you ever lied under oath in a sexual harassment deposition, or are you married to someone who did?

Diversity

Latinos or latinos only: How important is your heritage to you?

a)I will not respond to questions asked in English, solamente en espanol.
b)Very important. My ethnic identity and my familiarity with the immigrant experience have profoundly shaped who I am today, including my legal sensibility.
c)Important but not defining. My legal analysis comes from my training, thinking and writing, not my background.
d)Central. I only use the surname "Richardson" because my father had an Anglo name; I assure you, my mother is Mexican.

Gay, Hispanic, Jewish women only: What do you call yourself?

a)A gay woman Latina Jew
b)A female, Jewish homosexual Latina
c)A Jewish, gay woman of color

White male Catholics only: In the right light, do you look maybe a little Asian?

a)Yes
b)No
c)My father's father's family traces back to South Asia, first century B.C. A mail-away DNA test is pending.

Judicial philosophy

Complete the following sentence. The Constitution:

a)is meant to be strictly interpreted, in accordance with original intent and with respect for precedent.
b)is a living, breathing document that must adapt as our nation and culture evolve.
c)gives me a headache.

Habeas corpus should apply:

a)any time a prisoner of any kind is held anywhere in U.S. custody.
b)in most cases, with special exceptions for nonstate actors who are waging a long-term war against the United States, and who are not being detained on U.S. soil.
c)this is hard.
d)shut up and let me think!

The Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms:

a)only for well-regulated militias.
b)for hunters and sportsmen.
c)for all American citizens.
d)for people who look really cool carrying and know how to hold the gun sideways when they shoot it.

What is your approach to stare decisis?

a)I will consider each case before me on a case-by-case basis, consistent with a careful reading of legal precedent, the applicable statute and the Constitution.
b)I *wink wink* will consider each case before me on a case-by-case basis, consistent with a careful reading of *cough* legal precedent, the applicable statute and *fidget* the Constitution.

How long are you comfortable having the U.S. judicial system hold detainees without trial?

a)However long is necessary, until the war against terrorism ends.
b)A year or two, provided they have access to a nice couch.
c)No more than 90 days.
d)I prefer a very brief detention followed by a swift kangaroo court.

Complete the following sentence: Footnotes _________.

a)kick precedential ass.
b)complicate legal reasoning and risk alienating lay people.
c)are necessary1 with a few exceptions2 made unavoidable by the state of contemporary jurisprudence3\.

Empathy

Given a case between an evil multinational corporation and a poor, hardworking family, with whom would you empathize?

a)What do you mean by evil?
b)How is it relevant that the family is poor or hardworking?
c)What are the facts of this case?
d)What did the little girl name the puppy?

I could easily walk a mile in the shoes of:

a)a baby poisoned by industrial pollution.
b)a wheelchair-bound man denied a promotion on the basis of his disability.
c)an endangered species of whale being haunted by the sounds of U.S. Navy drills.
d)trick question. None of them walk in shoes.

If you see a poor minority child huddled in the corner, I would,

a)point.
b)walk by.
c)buy him a nice hot meal and ask him what happened to his parents.
d)adopt him and name him Barack.

Complete the following sentence. Of the final three "American Idol" contestants, I was rooting for:

a)Danny Gokey, because that poor thing lost his wife.
b)Kris Allen, because he's just so dreamy.
c)Adam Lambert, because he's just so edgy.
d)Frankly, I'm disappointed that they're all white males.
Temperament

When you saw Justice David Souter emerge as a liberal, despite being appointed by George H. W. Bush to be a reliable conservative vote, how did you react?

a)I was thrilled; independence and unpredictability should be a hallmark of the Supreme Court appointments.
b)I was horrified. A President should know what to expect when he nominates a judge.
c)Don't worry, we're cool.

Favorite TV judge of all time:

a)Judge Wapner, because he don't take no guff.
b)Judge Judy, because she don't take no guff.
c)Judge Joe Brown, because he don't take no guff.
d)Judge Marilyn Milian, because she occasionally takes some guff.

Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito are Catholic, as is Chief Justice John Roberts. Do you work well with Catholics?

a)Catholics are some of my favorite jurists.
b)Catholics can be a little doctrinaire.
c)Catholics, don't get me started.
d)Is the Pope Catholic? Seriously, I'm not joking, is he?

If challenged on your legal reasoning by a hostile Southern senator, I will:

a)smile and reply to the best of my ability.
b)punch back, rhetorically.
c)punch back, physically.
d)parrot back the question in a high-pitched whine.

Essay question: How bad do you want it?

Cannibalism

Great article on "How Stuff Works" that discusses the always great conversation starter: cannibalism. The article is fascinating but neglects 2 key things that a truly exhaustive examination of the subject should have.

1) What do people taste like?
2) What are some of the best recipes?

Other than dropping the ball on these crucial points, its a fairly fascinating read, especially the part that questions whether most tales of cannibalism, Donner party included, ever actually happened.

To read the article, click here.

Mother's Day Post

In honor of mother's day, here's a little song Paul McCartney wrote about his mom.

Foul?

1) Can we all just agree to stop pretending that Kobe is a nice guy? He's not. At this point, the only thing less believable than Kobe is a nice guy is that any of the young women on Gossip Girl are 16.

2) Can we agree that Kobe is a cheap player and a thug? He's been throwing elbows throughout the playoffs and whining about how he gets fouled so hard. Just stop it Kobe. Karl Malone thinks you need to stop throwing the elbows.

3) How, in the wake of the Tim Donaghy debacle, does NBA officiating continue to be so abysmal? I mean, the refs in game two all but suited up for the Lakers. They may as well give them the sixth man award. I know, it's a business, Kobe is a big star, and strings will be pulled to make sure that he and Lebron meet in the finals. I don't understand how the NBA can continue to hold itself out as any more legitimate of a sport than professional wrestling when it lets Rajon Rondo and Kobe Bryant run around the court acting like they're Chuck Lidell. Either the rules apply to everyone, or they mean nothing. Memo to David Stern, you need to fix the officiating in this league and you need to do it fast. If the NFL can do it, so can you.

4) Is there anyone in the NBA you would not want to piss off more than Ron Artest? He's ball-triping crazy. If I told you that an NBA player brought a switchblade to a game and stabbed another player during tip off, and you could have five guesses as to who it was, wouldn't Ron Artest be on that list? Wouldn't he be like, the top of your list, followed by Zach Randolph, and anyone with the last name Curry? Do you really think that Ron Artest is going to let you get away with that kind of thing for a whole series? I would pay someone else to start my car if I were Kobe Bryant, I'm just saying. What is the life expectancy of a man who has made Ron Artest's hit list? I see Kobe getting a letter this week from his life insurace company telling him they've cancelled his policy.

5) I sense that Tracy McGrady ends up on the clippers at the end of this season. I'm calling this now. Peace out and enjoy game 3.

Nice Ad

Music that doesn't suck # 54- Ruru

It's one of my ongoing goals in life to abolish bad music by promoting and pimping good music. To that end, I periodically take a break from my witty social/political commentary to highlight some tunes that are worthy of your valuable time.

This post's subject is an up and coming band out of Provo, Utah. I know what you're thinking, nothing good can come out of Provo, and normally I would agree. At first, I too was skeptical. My buddy Chris told me about them so I went to amazon and downloaded the track "Elizabeth." My first take was that it was stunningly dark and beautiful. I downloaded the rest of the album and took it with me for my saturday run. I put the album on shuffle for the last leg and was absolutely blown away. This is one of the best freshman efforts by a band, big label or indie I have heard in a long time.

Lead singer Isaac Russell, may only be 17, but his lyrics and voice have a maturity well beyond his years. The instrumentation is not complicated or fancy, but seems to fit organically. There's not a spare note on the album and it works to focus you on Russell's voice. The sound is rooted in folk, but still hard to categorize, The best description I can give you is that many of these songs would in no way feel out of place on a Damien Rice, Elliot Smith, Nick Drake, or even a "Lonesome Death of Hattie-Carol"-era Dylan. Be warned, these songs are not for the faint of heart, as death, loneliness and alienation abound in an album that Elliott Smith might find dark.

I searched for a way to embed a decent sounding audio clip, sadly youtube doesn't have much to offer. I found this acoustic session on their myspace page which I'm posting solely because it has the best audio quality. The song is not bad, but I find some of their other tunes a bit more likeable. I encourage you to scope their myspace page (yes, I am violating one of my sacred blogger rules and directing people to visit myspace) and download their album. It's going for about 8 bucks on Amazon's mp3 section. If you want to take a song for a test drive, download the first track, "Why" and I defy you to not like it. It's freaking infectious. If you catch me on messenger I will gladly share a track with you on condition that if you life it you will go back and buy it. I am on the Ruru bandwagon, and I may have gotten whiplash jumping on it so fast. Ruru, count yourselves +1 fan in the vegas area.




Ruru on myspace, click here

The band's website, click here.

There might not be many posts in the next two weeks for finals, but look for posts about graduation, bar exams, and torture in the near future. Peace out.

Swine Flu

LOST!!!

Payback?

Geithner May Not Let Banks Pay Back TARP

John Carney|Apr. 20, 2009, 10:06 PM|4

Print

No matter how healthy an individual bank may be, the government may not let it pay back the bailout funds, the Wall Street Journal is reporting. Instead, the Treasury will consider the overall health of the banking system. What this means is that the healthiest banks may find themselves TARP hostages of the unhealthiest banks.

From the Journal:

In an interview, Mr. Geithner laid out some broad principles, including the need to consider the overall health of the financial system and the flow of credit in judging whether banks can repay their government investment. Among large banks, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. have both said they want to repay the government.

"We want to make sure that the financial system is not just stable, but also not inducing a deeper contraction in economic activity. We want to have enough capital that it's going to be able to support a recovery," Mr. Geithner said.

In a sense, this is just the logical conclusion of the logic of systemic risk. The bailout wasn't meant to rescue any individual firm but to avoid systemic failure. Once you are following that line of policy, there's no reason the interest of one firm's managers, creditors or shareholders should be allowed to re-introduce systemic risk by exiting the TARP system. If it sounds perverse that it is now government policy to prevent the market from figuring out which financial institutions are the weakest and to force the strong hands to drag along--or, perhaps, be dragged down by--the weak hands, well you haven't internalized the logic of the bailout yet. "We all drown together" as someone once said.

*****

Response to this article:

Systemic integrity has nothing to do with it. Geithner and the Obama administration won't let the banks pay back the money for the same reason they gave them money in the first place. They want control. That's all this has ever been about. Make no mistake, firms that took TARP money are now discovering that they have made a deal with the devil. A deal whose terms can change at any time.

Better to die free man than to live as slaves of the federal government.

Pay Rule Led Chrysler to Spurn Loan, Agency Says
Firm Claims It Didn't Need The Government Infusion

By David Cho, Peter Whoriskey and Amit R. Paley
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Top officials at Chrysler Financial turned away a government loan because executives didn't want to abide by new federal limits on pay, according to new findings by a federal watchdog agency.

The government had offered a $750 million loan earlier this month as part of its efforts to prop up the ailing auto industry, including Chrysler, which is racing to avoid bankruptcy. Chrysler Financial is a major lender to Chrysler dealerships and customers.

In forgoing the loan, Chrysler Financial opted to use more expensive financing from private banks, adding to the burden on the already fragile automaker and its financing company.

Chrysler Financial officials denied in a statement that the company's executives had refused to accept new limits on their pay, adding that the firm turned down the loan because it no longer needed it. But their account conflicts with a report set to be released today by the Treasury's special inspector general for the federal bailout, saying the executives' refusal led Treasury to withdraw the loan offer.

"It was certainly a deal-breaker from Treasury's perspective," said Neil M. Barofsky, the special inspector general, who spoke to the bailout program's chief compliance officer about the situation last week.

The incident is the latest controversy to illustrate the hazards confronting the Obama administration as it sets out to assist private firms.

The uproar over the federal financial rescue, much of it focused on executive pay at bailed-out firms, has made companies skittish about taking government aid. Several big banks, such as J.P. Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, have said the bailout money now carries a stigma and have taken steps to pay it back. A program to aid small-business lenders has been stymied by the firms' reluctance to accept pay limits and other requirements of bailout loans.

Government officials have said that unless financial firms have enough resources to lend liberally to consumers, the economy cannot be revived.

The Treasury Department previously lent Chrysler Financial $1.5 billion, when less stringent requirements on executive compensation were in place for recipients of federal bailout money. But since that first loan was announced on Jan. 16, the Obama administration and Congress have toughened the rules.

During March, when it seemed that the first loan would run out, the Obama administration began working on a deal to lend the company an additional $750 million.

It did not take long for most of the agreement to fall in place. But on April 7, the Treasury asked Chrysler Financial to have its top 25 executives sign waivers regarding their compensation, according to the special inspector general's report.

Those waivers would have barred the executives from suing the Treasury or Chrysler Financial over new pay restrictions. As part of the economic stimulus package, Congress approved compensation limits, and the Treasury is working on clarifying what the firms must do to comply with the rules.

In other words, the executives were asked to sign the waivers without knowing what specific limits the Treasury might set.

Within a week, Chrysler Financial responded that "it was unable to obtain waivers from all 25 executives," the report said. By last week, the report added, "the request for additional funding was denied."

Chrysler Financial denied that its executives balked at new pay limits and said the firm had met all the restrictions of its first loan from the government's Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP.

"Executives have not been presented with any new demands with regard to executive compensation," the company said in a statement. "As a TARP recipient we remain in full compliance with current executive compensation requirements."

A senior industry official with knowledge of the matter said Chrysler Financial passed up the new government loan because, with auto sales down in April, there has been even less need for financing. The official said that if sales pick up, Chrysler Financial may seek additional government aid, even if it means agreeing to executive-compensation limits.

"If Chrysler Financial needs the cash to support Chrysler, they [the executives] are not going to put the auto company at risk," said the senior industry official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the negotiations were private. "These guys aren't going to blow up the car company for their personal reasons. . . . They've done everything they can to support the automotive company."

Chrysler Financial recently announced publicly that it no longer needs additional federal loans. Instead, the company said, it will rely on other sources of financing.

"Chrysler Financial has determined that it has adequate private capital funding to cover the short-term needs of our dealers and customers and as such no additional TARP funding is necessary at this time," the company said in a statement.

But by forgoing the government loan, the company had to tap loans from a group of private banks, including J.P. Morgan and Citigroup, that charged more for the money than the government would have, sources said. That line of financing had been arranged in August, when the company was struggling to stay afloat, according to an industry official.

Chrysler and Chrysler Financial are separate companies. But both are owned largely by Cerberus, a private-equity firm. The German automaker Daimler owns a 20 percent stake in each.

Treasury officials declined to comment on the matter but released a statement that said the department's auto task force would "monitor closely the financing situations for both GM and Chrysler."

"This is an issue that Chrysler and its stakeholders will need to address as part of this process and any potential deal," the statement said.

Review and Comment on the News (Illustrated)

For the week of April 6-April 12, 2009. Here is my review and comment on a few of the newsworthy events of the past week. Prepare to have your mind blown to pieces by the sweet embrace of truth.

Issue #1

PIRATES!

Somalia is one happening place. The somali's dig the retro trend in a big way and over the past week they've been partying like it's 1599. Somali Pirates have apparently made the genius move of attacking american ships, and are now holding an american sea captian hostage.

While most people tend to think of pirates as romantic figures of the pre colonial era, they in fact have continued on pillaging and plundering up through modern times. In fact, pirates have recently enjoyed a dramatic resurgence in popularity due to scarce law enforcement along the coasts of poorer nations, and throught the propagandist efforts of the Disney Corporation.

Perhaps we would have realized that pirates were not the cute, cuddly figures of mythic lore if we'd studied actual history and learned about all the raping and murdering, or maybe we should have figured out that pirates were lame when the second two movies sucked like a hoover vacuum cleaner (seriously, the witch was a 90 foot tall sea monster? was that plotline even necessary? Keira Knightly is a pirate king? Orlando Bloom is straight? I'm sorry, but suspension of belief only goes so far).

This entire subplot made no sense. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here!

Anyway, we've now discovered that pirates are not our friends, and they are, in fact, very bad. Once again, we've been misled by the liberal, elitist media, which would have you belive that pirates looked like this:

When they really look like this:

Way to really go after those facts, big media! The Pirates are now apparently back on their ship, holding the captain of the American vessel as a hostage. To the captain's credit, he staged a nearly successful escape from his captors. He was caught swimming away and dragged back, but darnit, at least the dude fought off a bunch of scummy pirates first. The news outlets have not released the name of this incredibly bada** captain, put according to our artists he looks something like this:

Here at simsisms we would like to express our confidence that the captain will escape the somali pirates and discover what lies in the shadow of the statue. He's that good. As for the pirates, they are not exactly well trained, fast running out of food and water, and they have run out of fuel for their ship. By the way, they're also surrounded by a pissed of american navy. We don't really give these guys much of a chance. In fact, we've put our best scientists to work coming up with what it would take to get the Pirates out of this jam:

Sorry guys, I'm guessing you don't have one of these aboard the ship. Rest in Peace.

Issue #2

Michelle Obama grows disgusting food

Pop Quiz time boys and girls. This quiz is one question long, and here it is. Who do you trust to tell you if food is safe to eat:

a) Scientists

or


b) Hippies

Now hold on, before you make your choice, I want you to consider some things. Remember that science gave us this guy:

Whereas hippies gave us this guy:

Hold on, there's more. Greatest accomplishment of science?

That's right, they put a man on the freaking moon. Greatest accomplishment of Hippies?

So, once again, who's judgement would you trust more, Scientists or hippies? If you picked the first choice, you are not Michelle Obama.

It's no secret that we here at simsisms oppose the organic food movement on the grounds that it is stupid. It's worse than stupid, because its advocates have discouraged famine nations from accepting genetically modified food as well as other food assistance because the evil bogeyman of "harmful toxins" could cause health problems or (gasp) damage the environment. Interestingly enough, you know the most frequent cause of death among people who have no food? That's right, it's STARVATION. Let's do the math on this: food treated with manmade pesticides = no scientificly proven danger. Organic foods which cannot be grown in sufficient supply to feed enough people = many people die of starvation.

So, this week, Michelle Obama announced her plans to plant a garden of organic food to meet the vegetable needs of the White House. Look, she even took kids on a tour through the garden.

Don't lie. That's pretty freaking cute and cuddly. No wonder Opera loves her.

We see nothing wrong with planting a garden, we just object to the brainwashing pro-organic speech that she gave afterwords. I hate to keep harping on this but I can't understand why an obviously educated and intelligent person would put stock in the whole organic food nonsense that science tells us is bunk. The same people who will beat you over the head with "science"whenever Darwin or Global Warming are mentioned seem to casually disregard actual science when it comes to things like so called "organic food." Again, we wouldn't have a problem with this if it didn't help further the radical agenda of a militant group of extremists who are content to let whole nations starve rather than take science's word that really, seriously, the food is safe. Make up your mind people, either you believe science or you don't.

Issue #3

Obama bows to the Saudis

This is one of those rare issues where we get to take both the left and right to task for being stupid. Earlier this week, Obama met with the Saudi leadership and caused an outrage when he bowed to them. When the people called him out on it, Pres. Obama had the audacity to deny that it had ever happened. Apparently, Pres. Obama did not realize that things that occur at a photo opportunity are often...you know....PHOTOGRAPHED and that there would be both pictures and videotape of him bowing.

Sorry, Mr. President. That is a bow. Nice try though. Way to show people that you are a different kind of politician, one who would never lie and is all about change. Well done.

Now that we've appropriately taken the president to task for being a liar, let's turn this around and ask his opponents, "WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL?" I mean, of all the possible criticisms to lob at the guy, you choose THIS? Let's take a quick look at other things that the President has screwed up that you should be harping on instead-

South Korea launches long range missles on Obama's watch- Legitimate Gripe





Iran is still developing nuclear weapons- Legitimate Gripe.




Banks posted record profits with our money- Legitimate Gripe



Campaigning on a platform of ending the war in Iraq and then adding more troops and admitting that Bush was right and that we can't leave until Iraq is stable- Legitimate Gripe.

All of these are legitmate things that Obama dropped the ball on. Bowing to the Saudis just doesn't seem relevant. Especially when you consider what the last guy did when he met with the Saudis.

What's this photoshop I keep hearing about? I know not of what you speak.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the right-wingers have a point on this. The President is the leader of the free world. It is a disgrace to have him bow down to anyone. It betrays the republic and it shames us all. In fact, I'll agree with the critics on this. Any president who would bow down to someone is unworthy to hold the office and should resign in disgrace.

That's it for now, see ya next week, kiddos!

Time for another illustrated review and comment on the news. Prepare yourself, as I take all that you know about your world, and comment snarkishly upon it. Prepare...to go over the edge.

1. The Economy

First and foremost on everyone's mind these days, except for the president (too busy weeping over his lame NCAA bracket), is the colossal mass of flaming goat excrement that is the remains of our economy. For those of you joining this crisis late, let's recap what's gone on:

a) In order to convince banks to loan to less credit worthy people, the government pressured banks to engage in subprime lending.

b) The federal reserve kept interest rates inexplicably low for decades.

c) Years of prosperity left investors world wide with trillions of dollars to invest and seeking a safe investment.

d) People realized that U.S. real estate almost never decreased in value over the long term, and even if a borrower didn't pay back a loan, there was still a brick and mortar secured asset which meant any money you loaned was insanely safe.

e) Financial types bought the rights to people's mortgages, bundled them all together, and sold pieces of the mortages to different investors. As the homeowner made the interest payments, the investor got a return on his investment.

f) Investors were so happy with their investments that they demanded more mortgages to invest in.

g) Loan companies lowered the standards to qualify for loans so that pretty much anyone could get a home loan, regardless of whether they had assets or even a job. Many of these loans had an adjustable rate, with a very low rate for the first months of the loan that then went way up later.

h) Financial types realized these loans were shaky, so they sold pieces of risky loans together with not-so-risky loans so that the investments looked good to the unsuspecting buyer.

i) everyone was buying so much real estate that demand went up, which drove prices way up.

j) prices for homes went up, which meant the value of everyone's home went way up. This meant a lot of people had more equity in their homes.

k) Unsavory lenders and greedy homeowners took out loans against all the equity they had in their house. People were convinced to go invest that money in the stock market, or the less savvy went and bought boats, play stations, cars, and gold plated bathroom tissue to flaunt their newly acquired wealth.

l) Realizing that Social Security was basically a giant government mandated ponzi scheme, baby boomers started pouring money into 401(k)'s and IRA's, which were linked to the stock market.

m) the stock market, fueled by these investment dollars soared, many people were happy, and investors kept looking for more places to put their money

n) around Valentines Day of 2007, Investment groups started noticing that people were defaulting on mortgage payments shortly after moving into their houses. Some weren't even able to make their first mortgage payments. Savvy investment types started closely looking at what they had been buying for their investor clients. After they went home to change their now soiled pants, the investment types called the financial types and politely told them that they would not be buying any more loans.

0) Financial types realized they were deeply screwed.

p) People started defaulting on loans and filing for bankruptcy in record numbers. Banks that held these mortgages realized they were deeply screwed. Not having any money left to lend, banks started declining money to anyone. About this time, I bought an Altima.

q) While consumers were losing their houses, the government was content to sit on its golden toilet seat and watch the whole thing unfold on the 96" plasma TV the government had mounted to its bathroom wall, whilst wiping its rear end with $100 bills and smoking cigars made out of illegal immigrant tax contributions.

r) Suddenly, companies started missing debt payments, resulting in the payout of massive credit swaps. Credit swaps are complicated and difficult to explain, but the basic thrust is that its similar to a life insurance policy that you can take out on someone else's debts (when they default, you get paid), sell to another person, and is not regulated in any way by the government. In fact regulation was expressly rejected by congress on a 96-0 vote (how's that for bipartisanship). At it's height, there was about 30x more liabilities than assets represented by credit swaps. Credit swaps were purchased from many sources, but one of the largest was money contributed to money market accounts, supposedly one of the safest type of accounts you could have because they never returned a loss.

s) The biggest money market holder posted a loss, which meant rich people were losing money. banks were now unwilling to lend money to pretty much anyone, and our debt glutted economy began to screech to a halt. Since rich, campaign contributing people were losing money, the government decided that it was appalled and went into panic mode.

t) The government decided to give a ton of money to banks so that they would lend the money out and credit would start moving again. The banks took their money, and promptly didn't lend it to anyone.

u) AIG, the largest holder of credit swaps, announced that it was about to go under, and threatened to hurt lots of rich campaign contributors if it went, so the government gave it a ton of money. AIG promptly gave its executives large bonuses and congratulated them for having sucha good year.

v) the auto industry announced that it was going under, and that if it went out of business the UAW would no longer be able to donate to DNC re-election campaigns, so the government gave them a ton of money. A number of people, myself included, called shenanigans at this point, said that we should force the automakers into Bankruptcy and said that they would just need more money later if we didn't.

w) Barack Obama is elected president, promises bi-partisanship, a solution to people losing their houses, lower taxes, and to restore the confidence of the market.

x) Barack Obama takes office, tells republicans to go screw themselves, does nothing to save a single home foreclosure, raises taxes, and destroys confidence in the market until it drops below 7000.

y) Barack Obama appoints a tax dodging nincompoop as treasury secretary, prints trillions of dollars for banks, fills out the lamest NCAA bracket in history, and continues to ignore homewoners.

z) Obama administration is shocked, SHOCKED, when the auto makers return and say they need more money. Considers forcing them into bankruptcy, $30 billion dollars after everyone else said that they should.

This review was not fact checked in any way and contains glaring inaccuracies. Sorry, it was all taken off the top of my head. Which brings us to where we are today. On the brink of what may very well be a depression. Obviously nothing on the scale of the Great Depression, but still, pretty stinking bad. What's more, we've been here for over two years and the prevailing wisdom among both parties in the government is that we can somehow spend our way out of this. Here's a pictoral representation of what continued undisciplined spending will bring.

More Unemployment

Inflation

Continued losses in the market

Possible death of the dollar

When are our president, and the incredibly clueless mr. Geithner going to wake up? We cannot print enough money to end this recession. We have to end the madness. Stop giving money to companies that are failures. I know giving money to failures seems counter intuitive to a group that is dedicated to public schools, but I think it is time to admit that throwing good money after bad in this case is just not working. Also, maybe the administration might want to reconsider its continued war on people with money. Who exactly do you think is going to pay for this recovery you want to have, Mr. Obama? Cause it's not going to be the minimum wage workers. Instead of worrying about fairly getting money to everyone, worry about getting money into the hands of people who can spend it. We have to end our current economic policy, which can best be described as:

2. Continued Foreclosure Crisis.

For those wondering, yes, I do read www.BlackCommentator.com regularly. But back to the issue. We're two years into this mess, and how many homes have we saved? Zero. We need to accept that until the housing market is stabilized, we're not going to start a recovery. The housing market is not going to stabilize until we get these recently built homes into the hands of people who can afford them. This is why I support, and you should support, the current bill that will allow bankruptcy judges to modify the mortgages on debacle-era homes, and if necessary reduce the principal on loans so that the owners can afford to keep their homes.

Will this lead to an increase in bankruptcy filings? Maybe. But, until we get the housing market stabilized there is no real economic recovery in sight. Until the houses are in the hands of people who can afford to own them, there will be no stability. We can either make them affordable to the people who currently own them in a relatively short period of time, or we can drag this out for years, as new wave of people finally run out of the means to pay for their overpriced house. I for one prefer that we get this over with quickly, stabilize the market, and move on.

I know a lot of people think that this is ridiculously unfair to the lenders. Why should they have to absorb a loss just because some schmo bought a home he couldn't afford. Well, ignoring the fact that the lenders have already been given a trillion dollars they don't deserve, let's talk about investing. A loan is an investment. Like any other investment a loan carries risk. You are NEVER guaranteed a return on an investment; housing is no different. These loans were made with the understanding that they were risky investments and this time the imprudent investors are going to get taken to the cleaners.

Besides, the lenders are already going to be hit with those losses. Right now its a matter of whether they are going to take the loss when they go through an expensive foreclosure process, take possession of the home and then sell the home for a loss on the open market and write off the loss. A mortgage cramdown (where a judge rewrites a loan) means that the bank takes the loss it was probably going to take anyway, but it avoids the foreclosure process and the debtor gets to keep the home. Banks can actually come out BETTER in this scenario because they will be getting the appraisal value for the house, whereas most houses being sold on the market today are actually going for below market value. Banks also get to save on the cost of the foreclosure. This is one of the reasons why many of the big banks have now embraced the idea of mortgage cramdowns.

It's not about fair anymore, it's about what works.

3. AIG

Speaking of things that don't work, let's talk about AIG. Believe it or not, I don't have any problem with AIG executives getting a massive bonus. I have a problem with us having given AIG any money in the first place. It's a failed company that ran around and staked it's future on risky ventures. It took a risk and should have to pay. As for the bonuses, I find it wholly disingenuous for the government to bend over backwards to allow these executives to get their bonuses, and then act shocked when the whole thing comes to light. I find it even more unethical to pass an ex post facto law (which the constitution prohibits, if memory serves) to tax those bonuses as a way of congress covering its own screw up. I don't care if the supreme court backs this law, it is wholly unamerican to single out a group for punishment that did nothing illegal.

On the subject of bonuses, let's talk about congress for a minute. Congress gave itself a payraise this past term, and gave out bonuses to its staff. As far as I am concerned, the failed workers of a failed government are far less deserving of a reward than the failed workers of a failed company. AIG lost billions, Congress has cost us TRILLIONS. So much money that our children's children will be saddled with the debt. If anyone should be giving back salary and bonuses, it is this congress.

4. Auto Bailout

Months ago, when the American Automakers showed up with designer hat in hand to ask for a bailout, pretty much anyone with half a brain (Mitt Romney), and even some people with less than half a brain (me) said we should tell them to pound sand and head over to the Bankruptcy court. We were told that was not an option, the economy wold hopelessly dies, etc. etc. Now, we're hearing reports that the automakers might be forced into bankruptcy. Nice going, government. Couldn't you have reached this conclusion BEFORE we gave them 30 billion dollars?

5. Gay Marriage in Iowa

Not content to accept the overwhelming will of the people, God, or even the dictionary Iowa has decided to allow gays to marry. As a student of the law (by student, I mean one who plays spider solitaire continuously while an angry lesbian lawyer rambles on) I am continually amazed at judges who substitute their own will for the will of the people and 6000 years of accepted moral history. Even societies which tolerated homosexual relationships did not afford them the status of a marriage. Period. But this is the internet, let's not judge positions based on rational argument and thought. Let's judge them by the people associated with each idea. First, let's look at the leading advocates of gay marriage:

Now, let's look at the leading opponent of gay marriage:

Sure, one is the Savior and Redeemer of mankind, but the other one, she had a talk show. She clearly must be qualified to dictate social policy.

And yes, God is anti-gay marriage. Remember Sodom and Gommorah? Here's a rough picture of what they look like now.

I'm guessing, and this is only a guess, that if he felt that strongly about the issue 4000 years ago, that he probably hasn't changed his views that drastically. Of course you are free to disagree with me, but the fact remains that no society has ever recognized a gay marriage, the majority of Americans OPPOSE gay marriage, and there is nothing in the law which permits or calls for it. If you doubt me, take the argument to the supreme court and just see how well that one goes. You are firmly, undeniably, and completely in the wrong and you need to accept it and back off. As for me, I'm officially marking down Iowa as a state to avoid. I predict a smiting in its future.

6. NCAA Tournament

Here at simsisms, we don't have a lot of time to follow sports, which is probably a good thing because if we'd watched the Padres last season we might have been forced to commit Hari Kari. However, we do like to keep up on what is going on. We were very glad to see that UConn finally got eliminated, and that UNLV didn't even make the tournament.

As for the championship game, if the lead picture didn't give you some idea of who we are pulling for, maybe this will:

Sorry, I can't stand Hanbrough. He's an over-rated hemophiliac and I can't see him amounting to much in the NBA. As much as it pains me to root for a team in Michigan, I gotta cheer for the underdog in this one. Also, while we're on the subject of Michigan, I found this picture, which I would like to publicily dedicate to my friend Nick.

As far as both teams go, I hope it is a good close game, and that the players enjoy this once in a lifetime experience. Go live it up afterwards, too. The nation understands that athletes train hard and are intensely dedicated. If you guys need to blow off some steam, don't worry, no one will look down on you. This country treats its star athletes like kings.

Or maybe not.

Sorry for the lengthy post. Feel free to leave a comment on the many controversial, strange, and frankly, wrong things I've just written about.