I grew up eating Little Debbies. My mom would often go to the Little Debbie Thrift Store– that was literally the name of the store– and stock up on boxes that had been slightly dented and heavily discounted. Sometimes it seemed that there was nothing in the house to eat but Nutty Bars and Zebra Cakes.  Little Debbies are to Tennesseans what TastyKakes are to Philadelphians. While I don’t necessarily have fond memories of the high-fructose confections, I do have plenty of memories– my dad slathering his Swiss Cake Rolls in grape jam– and was amused to see them roasted in the Onion: ” Heavily Processed Food Makes Pathetic Nutritional Claims.”

Pollution

Yale 360 reports that India, like China before them, has announced that they will not agree to emissions’ restrictions. Obama has said that he opposes trade sanctions against countries who do not agree to carbon caps. From the Times’ article:

The House bill contains a provision, inserted in the middle of the night before the vote Friday, that requires the president, starting in 2020, to impose a “border adjustment” — or tariff — on certain goods from countries that do not act to limit their global warming emissions. The president can waive the tariffs only if he receives explicit permission from Congress.The provision was added to secure the votes of Rust Belt lawmakers who were wavering on the bill because of fears of job losses in heavy industry.

In the floor debate on the bill Friday, one of its authors, Representative Sander M. Levin, Democrat of Michigan, said, “As we act, we can and must ensure that the U.S. energy-intensive industries are not placed at a competitive disadvantage by nations that have not made a similar commitment to reduce greenhouse gases.”

In the interview on Sunday, Mr. Obama said American industries like steel, aluminum, paper and glass had legitimate concerns about competition from developing nations. But he warned that trade sanctions based on the extent to which other countries curbed carbon dioxide emissions might be illegal and counterproductive.

While I’m sympathetic to the economic positions of emerging countries– they argue that developed countries contributed most significantly to the current warming crisis and that they should have the oppurtunity to develop in similarly ‘dirty’ manner– I think both China and India need to make some concessions, even if only symbolic ones. Certainly, China and India should be given more leeway than developed countries in terms of their emissions, but at the same time they must recognize that a) they are among the most signicant polluters [China has been #1 since 2007] and b) their refusal to concede will undermine the legitimacy and, hence, efficacy of any international ‘carbon’ agreement.

And I’m blogging again after a long hiatus. Summer is a good time to get things going again.

So today, the Times has an article detailing how many credit companies are now settling their delinquent accounts at discount rates. The writers offer an example of a guy in Chicago who was able to clear his 5 grand debt with HSBC at half that price.

Personally this bothers me. Economically and financially I know this makes me most sense for everyone involved–even myself because of the collatorael damage of the debt system–but I feel the debtors are getting off too easy. They bought into the idea that they could have something for nothing, and I think they should suffer the consequences of playing that game of make-believe. It strikes me that the people who are being dealt the worse hand in this whole financial crisis are few-and-far-between ’savers,’ the ones who didn’t rack up piles of debt and instead invested their savings in a market that went bust. Their hard-earned cash performed a vanishing act, whereas these reckless debtors likely still have their fancy flat screens and HD-DVD players. I’m not suggesting we reinstitute debtors prisons, but a little comeuppance should be in order.

Funny or Die has the first episode from the new season of Flight of the Conchords, hands down the best comedy on TV. Finally, I get my fix. Too bad I don’t have a HBO, or even cable for that matter.

Found this on The Daily Beast. Apparently, some people think it’s racist. I just think it’s hilarious.

Colbert was declared president-elect with Spider-man as his VP in the Marvel Universe, until the Daily Bugle offered a retraction when Obama emerged with the electoral vote lead:

The Onion is arguably the most consistent source of biting satire we have. Not sure if many people have seen any of the ONN (Onion News Network) videos; while, like The Onion headlines, they sometimes miss the mark, they are usually hilarious; the best parodies of the 24-hours new cycle shenanigans I’ve seen. My only complaint is that they don’t produce them more often. I’ll post some of their best videos soon, but for now, check out their post-election analysis:

Though I’ve contributed to Obama’s campaign, I hadn’t yet given much of my time other than talking to friends and family about why I think he’s the best candidate. Like a lot of liberals out there I was starting to have pre-election jitters so I decided to make some Get-Out-the-Vote calls for Obama’s campaign.

The website is remarkably user-friendly and after clicking ‘make calls,’ you have a list of 50 voters within seconds. I decided to begin with voters in Pennsylvania because, after listening to a recent This American Life that featured some Democrats for McCain in PA, I was even more worried that the Keystone state might go red after all. After dinner, I dialed for Colorado. The calls tonight were not intended as efforts at persuasion; the goal was simply to provide registered voters with polling info and encourage them to vote. After introductions, the script suggests you ask them who they plan to support; if they say McCain or Other, you thank them for their time. If Obama or Undecided, you ask them if they plan to vote, do they have the polling info, specific questions like when they will vote [apparently these type of questions prompt them to formulate a specific plan and leads to greaer success in getting-out-the-vote] and then thank them for their time.

However, for the most part, my calling was an exercise in leaving messages: I would kindly introduce myself, provide the info, and then encourage them to ‘have their voices heard.’ I did talk to some people, perhaps a dozen out of the 60 of so calls I made, though most of these weren’t the intended targets, such as the parents of young voters. By far my most interesting call occurred when I tried calling Lisa, who, I was told, wasn’t home. Seizing the opportunity, I asked the roommate what plans she had for tomorrow. She wasn’t sure who she was going to vote for. I had found one of the mythical undecideds. I asked her why, and she responded that, “she was pretty conservative.” On what issues was she conservative? She was pro-life. I said I understood her position and that my parents in Tennessee feel the same way, but then I offered that I was impressed with Obama’s efforts to find a middle ground on this divisive issue; that no one is in favor of abortion, and that people on both sides of the aisle can work together so that there are less unwanted pregnancies. He went on to talk about the economy and national security as well. She understood what she wanted, but she just wasn’t sure who or what policies would get us there. Sadly though when I asked her how she would make up her mind by tomorrow, she offered that she might simply not vote at all.

The few assigned voters I reached had already voted, and when I asked if they would mind sharing who they had supported, I received rather surly responses and sudden goodbyes. I was only asking because it was on the script so I began simply thanking them for their time.

As the night wore on, I begin to appreciate how much both campaigns are inundating the people on these call lists, and I grew more and more hesitant to continue calling. I felt as though I was intruding in these people’s lives. I also worried that my calling for Obama might somehow sway voters toward McCain ought of spite; nonetheless I soldiered on assuming that the Obama campaign knew what it was doing. I would later discover from Obama’s website that by 9pm CST, volunteers had made more 710, 761 calls today alone.

One mother in PA–I had been calling for her son–expressed her frustrations saying I was the tenth call she had received that night, though I seemed to be the first live person to whom she had spoken. Apparently, the McCain campaign had put the robocall machine in overdrive. However, from the Colorado callers to whom I spoke, I garnered that there was significant overlap between the lists being given to Obama volunteers. One voter I reached, my last call of the night, told me I was about the 20th Obama volunteer who had called her. Twenty might have been hyperbole, but even 3 is too many; it just comes across as pushy. Having already voted for Obama, she was pleasant and even glad that the campaign was working so hard. Other people were much less pleased. One woman screamed for me remove her name from anything having to do with “Barack f***ing Odama [sic].”

Did I make a difference? I’m not sure I did, but I’m glad I made the calls. Introducing myself to strangers, even over the phone, is not my forte so I was proud of myself for overcoming that hurdle in order to contribute. Also, who knows. Maybe one of these people didn’t know where their polling station was. Now they do, and that information could be factor that gets them into the voting booth.

In today’s NYtimes, an interesting article / chart that scrutinizes the ‘one person, one vote’ principle of our democracy. While the electoral college was been derided for ages now, the writers look at the three factors which give votes value relative the electoral bounty of their state. First, since electoral votes equal the numbers or senators plus the number of representatives, this provides an obvious bias toward small states like South Dakota. Second, and a factor I had never considered before, is that representatives are apportioned based on how many residents of a state, not how many eligible votes. This means that in a state like California every 10 votes represent 16 residents whereas in Vermont 10 voters carry the weight of 12 residents. Third, of course would be actually voter turnout; if fewer people vote in a state, then the votes of those who do vote will carry less weight overall.

Check out Clyde Haberman’s amusing piece on our new relationship to the banks whose practices triggered our new grand depression. According to his calculations, we all–that is if you’re taxpayer like myself–now hold a $1,785.71 stake in the banks our government bailed out. He figures that as shareholders we have right to question some of their practices, from executive pay to ATM fees:

Let’s start with something really easy. Is it too much to ask that all banks have pens that work on the counters with the deposit and withdrawal slips? In too many places, the pens are useless. How can people feel confident that their money is being managed wisely if those in charge can’t even provide a functioning pen?

Though this line of questioning may be a bit facetious, he does raise some reasonable arguments.

After all, if we don’t begin asking some questions, who will? Do we really expect former Goldman golden boy Hank Paulson to come to our defense and scrutinize the actions of his former colleagues? Paulson wanted to write the banks a blank check with no strings attached until congress pressed for some accountability in the bailout package. If they hadn’t, there would be no possibility that the American people would see any return on their significant investment. Just makes you wonder who’s even watching what’s being done with our money.

Apparently, no one was watching when AIG execs used their some of their newly printed bills to take a decadent retreat during the financial tumult; though in all fairness perhaps undermining the world’s economy is stressful work and they needed some R&R. Recently, some like Joe Nocera at NYtimes, have begun pointing out that despite the ostensible objective of easing the strain on the credit market, few banks are likely to use the bailout money to extend loans any time soon. In fact, many of the banks see the current crisis and fresh funds as an opportunity to fatten their own bottom lines–wasn’t that the attitude that got us where we are today?–by acquiring other less solvent banks. In a recent column, Nocera reports what he overheard during a conference call between JPMorgan executives:

“Twenty-five billion dollars is obviously going to help the folks who are struggling more than Chase,” he began. “What we do think it will help us do is perhaps be a little bit more active on the acquisition side or opportunistic side for some banks who are still struggling. And I would not assume that we are done on the acquisition side just because of the Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns mergers. I think there are going to be some great opportunities for us to grow in this environment, and I think we have an opportunity to use that $25 billion in that way and obviously depending on whether recession turns into depression or what happens in the future, you know, we have that as a backstop.”

Read that answer as many times as you want — you are not going to find a single word in there about making loans to help the American economy. On the contrary: at another point in the conference call, the same executive (who I’m not naming because he didn’t know I would be listening in) explained that “loan dollars are down significantly.” He added, “We would think that loan volume will continue to go down as we continue to tighten credit to fully reflect the high cost of pricing on the loan side.” In other words JPMorgan has no intention of turning on the lending spigot.

Until someone–whether it’s congress or the new president–steps in and creates some genuine regulation including stipulations for the money we gave them, the culture on Wall Street will remain perversely myopic. These tails we win, heads the taxpayers lose scenarios need to end.