The Rage Diaries

Content is dead; long live comments

So I read Peter Sagal's blog explaining why the Obama-is-secretly-a-radical-communist-Muslim! theory is patently idiotic, because you'd have to accept some of the following premises:

That Barack Obama is, and has been at least from his college days, a conscienceless, hermetic liar, who refused to reveal his true agenda and thoughts to anyone other than his co-conspirators; not to his casual friends, students, colleagues, employers, clients and constituents, and that his two books on his life and political beliefs are nothing but a pack of lies, possibly ghostwritten by others. Further, that Obama never acted in any significant way to advance that Marxist/radical agenda in any of his prior jobs or offices, presumably because if he had done so (by, say, putting forward a radical Marxist bill in the Illinois State Senate, where he served for 12 years,) he would have blown his cover, and ruined his chance to become President, which has always been his goal, and from which office he will finally enact his true agenda

... and when I got to the comments, the revels really began. On the Internet, nobody may know you're a dog, but they'll soon learn what a echo-skulled nutbar you are.

I am beginning to think that really, there is no point to bothering with writing decent blog posts, when the real educational or entertainment value is found in the comments. It may be time to abandon my prolix posts and attributions of sources and just put up photos and broad half-truths. Give the people what they want!

As a matter of fact, you CAN get that latte

The demonization of the latte has been a pet peeve of this column, going back to 2006, when some financial-help gurus and their media enablers tried to convince unenlightened renters that all that stood between them and the American dream of home ownership was their penchant for froufrou coffee. (And a subprime mortgage, we suppose.) Now, of course, the message is different: Skip that latte and retire in style! "If invested, the savings from brewing coffee at home and 'brown bagging' lunch over the span of 25 years would be staggering," chirps a story in the Colorado Springs Business Journal.

-- "Hard Times," The Deal, Oct 17, 08

Hey, Yvette Kantrow and I have something in common!

It is true that unexamined daily expenditures can add up, but there's a big difference between mindlessly opening your wallet every time your monkey brain demands a treat, and using a daily latte as a motivational tool for sticking to a disciplined spending approach everywhere else. I'm inclined to argue that now is actually when you should cling to your latte habit like it's a delicious, caffeine-soaked lifeline. Think of it as a way to ward off feelings of deprivation -- or a way to remind yourself of the necessity of opportunity cost. The latte story tells us only that there are no guaranteed quick and painless fixes if you're not fiscally fit.

Previous posts touching on this:

• Hey, we're not all spilling Starbucks on our dry cleaning
• Here's what happened when Ben had to cut expenses

Pick-a-fight Friday ... Coupons. Yes or no?

You can tell people are getting squirrely about money when personal-finance reporters and bloggers begin beating the coupon drum. This coverage is fascinating me; watching the media respond to consumer unease by flinging out coupon articles is like watching a sea anenome contract upon being brushed by a fingertip. It's this mindless, predictable reflex.

When even the media engines associated with more solvent demographics begin to beat the coupon drum, it's time to examine this reflexive coverage. The NYT, home to the deliciously out-of-touch Thursday Styles and Sunday styles sections, recently ran not one, but two items on coupon-bearers: "Time to Break Out the Valpak?" (in the Freakonomics blog on Oct 17, 08) and "Clipping Coupons to Put Food on the Table" (Oct 15, 08). And NPR ran "Economic Downturn Fuels Coupon Use" on Oct 14, 08.

What I find interesting in these "But coupon-clipping really works!" articles: nobody has ever addressed the study which found that coupon users spent 8% more than non-coupon users at the grocery store. I'd love to see if this is still true or not. ("The Coupons Are Actually Cutting You," Money, May 1, 05)

Also, few examine what the industries issuing the coupons get out of the deal, and how those rewards further affect the consumers' choices in the marketplace. MediaPost's "Coupon Tactics Get Interesting" (Oct 15, 08) buries the following insights in the article:

Not only do [email coupons] allow tracking of conversion, but it provides insight into brick-and-mortar basket composition that can then be evaluated against online baskets.

[W]ith single-use coupons, it does not take long to figure out who is posting your coupons to freebie sites. Once identified, you can create specific strategies for these influential consumers.

Geotargeting provides the opportunity to target specific store-level offers or to alter coupon values depending on how far a subscriber is from your retail outlet. The farther they are, the more incentive it takes to get them to make the drive.

In any event, I want to see what you think. So: Coupons. Yes or no? Make your case in the comments below.

Previously: I shrug in indifference at coupon clipping, and fail to incite any torch-bearing mobs, possibly because fuel is expensive and rarely availble via coupon.

Fiscal fitness -- October's theme ...

... might be summed up with this question: Are you ready to party like it's 1931?

In previous posts and comments, we've talked about some of the behaviors that our Depression-era grandparents never shook. Now, CNN's picked up on that with "Great Depression Holds Lessons for Surviving Tough Economy" (Oct 13, 08).

But why focus on the doom-mongering aspect? Let's turn the question around. Are you ready to use your brains and your self discipline to live well, within your means?

Also, are you ready to skip the jump, unless you want to see me ranting about unhelpful budget-type posts? Feel free.  Also also, for your convenience, previous Fiscal Fitness discussions:

• Which is better -- decluttering or stocking up?
• Is your stuff making you poorer?
• How are you affected by housing and residential costs?
• How do we cope with rising fuel costs?
• Love and money: how do you handle finances with your SO?
• How do you handle food waste and grocery shopping?
• Have you taken care of business re: death and taxes?
• Free stuff -- does it help or hurt your fiscal fitness?
• My time or my money?
• Where is my money going? And do I want it going there?

Oh, please, let there be a follow-up story

A new father has secretly named his baby girl Sarah McCain Palin after the Republican ticket for president and vice president.

Mark Ciptak of Elizabethton put that name on the documents for the girl’s birth certificate, ignoring the name Ava Grace, which he and his wife had picked earlier.

"I don’t think she believes me yet," he told the Kingsport Times-News for a story to be published Tuesday. "It's going to take some more convincing."

--"Cause for divorce? ET father names baby Sarah McCain Palin," Associated Press, Oct 13, 08

First off: if the AP is reporting on your baby name, I'm thinking it's not secret anymore.

Second off: This man has exceeded my expectations for new parents and baby name insanity.

Third off: I think this guy took the wussy way out. I want to see people going back to this country's Puritan roots with their baby-naming, and bestowing their new bundles with names like "I-bow-to-no-secret-muslim" or "Helicopters-even-the-odds-when-hunting"  or "I-totally-believe-in-this-change" or "If-you-have-to-call-me-your-friend-I-am-most-definitely-not."

Anyone else got any good neo-Puritan election baby names?

The "Aw, you're just jellus" defense is so unorginal

Writer Ann Marlowe thinks that Sarah Palin got to be the VP candidate not because Steve Schmidt decided that she would be a galvanizing factor in the race ("Steve Schmidt: the Driving Force Behind John McCain," LAT, Oct 6, 08), but because she tried harder and goshdarnit, it worked.

Whilst conveniently overlooking how Palin got her start in politics -- other pols recruited her in an effort to win over younger Wasilla voters ("Barracuda," TNR, Oct 22, 08) -- Marlow argues in "Why Elite Women Hate Sarah Palin" (Forbes, Oct 7, 08) that:

[W]ith Palin, it comes down to wanting it badly enough and being singleminded. It means spending a lot of time in deadly dull meetings talking about school bond issues or where to put a new off-ramp.

Except according to sources, it's not like she even put in quality time there either ("The Palin Problem," Newsweek, Oct 13, 08.

I respect that as a writer, Marlowe's looking to make a buck off an argument that is sure to get her attention and future assignments. (I don't think much of her editor, who apparently didn't not ask "Really?" at least once during the piece, but when is one supposed to expect rigorous critical thinking from Forbes anyway? Or, you know, arguments based on documented events?)

But she's dead wrong with her assertion that so-called "elite" women hate Palin because "The lesson of Sarah Palin for privileged women is to try harder. And that may be the toughest one to hear."

Palin did not get her slot on the ticket owing to overweening ambition -- which she does have -- because it's not like that quality makes her sui generis among politicians. She did not get that slot because she tried harder. She got that slot because someone somewhere made the cynical calculation that she'd galvanize the electorate. People may "hate" Palin but I'm thinking what they really loathe is what she stands for -- calculated and substance-free political theatre and the enfranchised idiots who fall for it every time.

Really, it's more of a "dog buys man story"

The NYT reporters looked up from the orgiastic excesses of the Thursday Styles section long enough to notice that "Full of Doubts, U.S. Shoppers Cut Spending." The article does an okay job of looking at assorted consumer activity indexes and concluding that people are not spending as much. Here's the thing to pay attention to:

Consumer spending, which accounts for nearly two-thirds of the economy, grew modestly earlier in the year but fell in July and August on an annualized rate. When the government releases quarterly numbers this month, they are expected to show that consumer spending shrank 3 percent or more. That would be the first quarterly decline since 1990, ahead of the 1991 recession, and the steepest since 1981.

The skeptic in me wants to know exactly how much of the nation's consumer spending has been powered by lines of credit as opposed to cash. This slowdown in the consumer sector may not be entirely due to people sliding more of their twenties under their mattress -- it could be due to them being less willing or less able to float purchases courtesy of their friends at Citibank.

However, absent any real numbers like "Approximately 40 cents of every retail dollar earned are, in fact, coming from credit cards" -- fine, blame it all on American shoppers and not, say, bank speculation gone sour. Which leads me to my next question: Are y'all cutting back your spending? Where and why? I'll share my answer in the comments when you do.

Belated fiscal fitness post from September ...

So last month was supposed to be focused on stuff -- what it costs to keep it, throw it out, organize or replace it. And then, well, other things claimed my attention. None of those things were stuff-management related, by the way.

But I'd like to wrap up that theme before unveiling October's theme, so let's commence the linkage and (I hope) a little discussion in the comments.

Now I regret my inabilty to accessorize ...

The women who used to invite all their girlfriends over to their fantastic homes for good wine and catered nosh on the pretense of selling merchandise to one another (Pampered Chef! Rolls of fancy wrapping paper for school charity!) are now inviting one another over to their fantastic homes for parties where everyone turns their gold into cash (ca$h!!) and winds up convulsing with giddy laughter over such treasures as wedding bands from bad marriages or those door-knocker earrings left behind by dearly departed Nana.

-- "The 24-Karat Party," WaPo, Sep 30, 08

I am not a jewelry person. So much not a jewelry person, in fact, that I completely forgot about needing to buy wedding bands until two weeks before the wedding. But these turn-your-jewelry-into-cash parties intrigue me, because they combine the appeal of decluttering -- which I totally get -- with the appeal of getting cash for your goods. Which, again, I get.

There is also something about selling your old baubles for cash that sounds so nineteenth century, like the last measures of a genteel but impoverished heiress. I wonder if the people who are selling their old bling feel that too?

When current events are history

The Watchman trailer has revived a comics conversation in some online circles, and a sentiment I've run across a few times was this one: "Yeah, I read it, but I don't get what the big deal is." And then old people like me had to explain that if you grew up in the post-Watchman world, you took things like dysfunctional superheroes and densely-layered narrative for granted, the same way that comics readers who came of age in the post-Sandman, post Love & Rockets world take for granted the idea that women in comics aren't always the real characters' love interests, but well-textured characters in their own right.

This got me thinking: is there ever anything that feels more historic than a work that embodies the seed of a new status quo?

I just spent a little time on the other end of that time-dilating media continuum. New York magazine -- the city magazine by which I measure all others -- turned 40, and it featured links to some of its most iconic covers. Some have articles. I clicked and read, and was charmed by each piece's tone of immediacy. It helped the words reach across the years, and gave their subjects the contemporary context that explains why Ms. magazine and disco and Central Park crime and Bill Clinton were so appealing when they appeared. And from a historical context, it's enlightening to look at where we are now while reading these pieces.

So tear your thoughts away from your ever-dwindling 401(k) and read the following:

"The Housewife's Moment of Truth," by Jane Reilly, Dec 20, 71 ... "The nineteenth century ended 72 years ago, but we are still trying to arrange our households according to that "ideal" image of family life. Think of something new."

"Tribal Rites of the New Saturday Night," by Nik Cohn, June 7, 76 ... "The sixties, unlike previous decades, seemed full of teenage money. No recession, no sense of danger. The young could run free, indulge themselves in whatever treats they wished. But now there is shortage once more, just as there was in the fifties. Attrition, continual pressure. So the new generation takes few risks. It goes through high school, obedient; graduates, looks for a job, saves and plans. Endures. And once a week, on Saturday night, its one great moment of release, it explodes."

"Rendezvous in the Ramble," by Doug Ireland, July 24, 78 ... "Others gravitate toward the Tunnel, that part of the Bridle Path which runs under the 77th Street overpass. The Tunnel is the most active group-sex scene in that area of the park. Some nights it will be crowded wall to wall with men until four in the morning."

"Bill Clinton: Who Is This Guy?" by Joe Klein, Jan 20, 92 ... "The other half of the confluence and the key to Clinton’s early success is a message that transcends traditional labels (and therefore is often called “moderate” or neo-something) but appears to be connecting with actual civilians. Clinton is offering activist government—national economic, educational, health, and energy plans—but he’s also ready to acknowledge that it hasn’t been just the Republicans or the Congress, the rich or the poor, but a lack of responsibility across the social spectrum that has caused the economic drift and strange, sour mood that permeates the country."