News You Can Use?

In case it has escaped your notice, the Solipsist is a bit of a news-junkie. We feel a bit "off" if we don't at least skim the day's headlines. Part of this is a function of our lectaholism (copyright!)--an addiction to text and reading. But it also has to do with our desire to be "in the know"--to make sense of the world around us.

It struck us, though, that little of what makes the news is of vital importance to our day-to-day well-being. Consider, for example, the featured contents of the front page of today's New York Times:

"A Year After a Cataclysm, Little Change on Wall St."

"Lehman Had to Die So Global Finance Could Live"

"9/11's Litany of Loss, Joined by Another Name"

"Company Kept Kabul Security Contract Despite Record"

"U.S. to Accept Iran's Proposal to Hold Face-to-Face Talks"

(Digression: Brace yourselves, folks. How long until prominent conservatives seize on THAT one to point out that Obama is, indeed, a secret Muslim and Osama bin Laden's half-brother? EOD.)

"Groups Back Health Reform, but Seek Cover"

"U.S. Adds Punitive Tariffs on Chinese Tires"

"Jeter Passes Gehrig as Yankees Hits Leader"

More or less interesting? Sure. Nothing gets our day off to a crisper start than a juicy tire-tariff story. But is any of this information vital to most readers? Maybe to Derek Jeter, but he and his loved ones probably already knew about the hits record before they read it in the paper. And even if you admire the Yankees' shortstop and congratulate him on his achievements, you could probably have safely navigated whatever obstacles life might have had in store for you without knowing this particular bit of baseball trivia.

(Digression: Well, maybe not. There was the time when a mugger brandished a pistol at the Solipsist and threatened to shoot him in the head unless he successfully named the starting infield for the 1986 Mets. But we imagine that sort of thing doesn't happen too frequently. EOD)

We thought of this last Tuesday when we saw the headline of a local northern California newspaper: "Bridge Closed." The Bay Bridge, which connects Oakland and San Francisco, closed at 8:00 PM on the Thursday before the Labor Day weekend. The bridge was scheduled to reopen at 5:00 AM Tuesday, after crews had completed some major structural work. On Monday evening, though, Caltrans, the state's transportation agency, repored that the work might not be completed in time for Tuesday morning's rush hour. Obviously, this would be a traffic nightmare, and people would need to adjust their commuting plans accordingly. So when we saw the Oakland Tribune's headline, we thought, "Wow, this is actually helpful information. This is news that will benefit the paper's readers. This is what newspapers should be about!'"

The only catch? The news was inaccurate. By the time the paper hit the newsstands--or at least by the time most people were hitting the roads--the bridge had, in fact, reopened. So much for news you can use.

Now, if you'll excuse us, we have to run out and buy some tires before those tariffs hit!

Blasphemy

As we logged in to blogger.com, we noticed a piece of birthday cake. Is blogger.com celebrating 9/11 and the birth of the GWOT? Probably not. We imagine it's some blogger.com-related anniversary. Still, it does make one pause to reflect. . . .

Any plans for the big 9/11 weekend?

Too soon?

Look, we know we won't win any popularity contests for making light of September 11. It was a horrible day. (Except for a couple of FOS'es whose first wedding anniversary fell on 9/11/01! Best wishes, Guys.) Our heart goes out to those who lost loved ones. For the country, though. the real tragedy of 9/11 was not what happened that day, but what has happened since.

As we watched President Obama dedicate a wreath outside the Pentagon and listened to his sonorous tones and ever-eloquent words, we flashed back to W brandishing his bullhorn at Ground Zero in the days after the attack. We were still a nation aggrieved. We wanted to put aside partisan differences and rally around a leader; W seemed like someone who maybe--maybe--could lead. We understood and, frankly, applauded the attacks on the Taliban (while admittedly feeling a bit uneasy at the president's cowboy rhetoric). Yes, things could and, in retrospect, should have been done differently even then. But the cause still seemed just.

Remember when the French proclaimed themselves "Americans"? Remember the London Symphony Orchestra for the first time ever playing "The Star-Spangled Banner"?

But now? We go through the ceremonies: the reading of the names at Ground Zero, the laying of wreaths, the visit to an empty field in Shanksville, PA. What does it mean? New York City has returned to normal--whatever "normal" ever meant in New York City ("A Fortress City That Didn't Come to Be"). This morning, while watching the news, we noticed that the stock market ticker was missing. We thought maybe the markets were closed in honor of the day. No. The local news must just have been experiencing difficulties. And is it symbolic that the Dow closed down a mere 22 points? 0.23%. Hardly any movement at all. Just another day when not much happens.

How long 'til Hallmark has 9/11 cards? Don't bother. They're here. Happy Patriot Day, everyone.

As we listen to the speeches, too, we think of what we lost--again, not on that day, but in the hundreds of days since. The French aren't American anymore. Who can blame them? Even Americans don't want to be Americans. Travel advisories warn Americans (in jest?) to claim Canadian citizenship when touring global hot spots. As the names of the 3,000 or so victims are read at Ground Zero, we try envisioning a similar reading in the streets of Baghdad. Imagine a recitation of the names of those who have died there since the launch of W's war. It would be lengthier.

The Solipsist is no pacifist. He has no sympathy with terrorists and those who applaud their actions. But we can't bring ourselves to join in the solemnity of the days' proceedings because we can't help but think that--in our leadership's insane overreaction to the day's events--we have proven ourselves to be the menace that the terrorists claimed to be attacking.

We were not the enemy. But it has become us.

Capitol Offense

"The president [don't get us started on capitalization!] was greeted by booming applause from Democrats and polite handshakes from Republicans. But the political challenge at hand soon became clear as several Republican lawmakers heckled Mr. Obama. . . . 'You lie!' Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina yelled back after Mr. Obama said it was not true that the Democrats were proposing to provide health coverage to illegal immigrants." ("Obama, Armed with Details, Says Health Plan Is Necessary")

"Though President Obama has formally accepted the apology of Joe 'You lie!' Wilson, the fallout from the emotional outburst continues to ripple across the nation, even raising doubts about the Republican congressman's political future. . . . 'There ought to be a reprimand or censure,' Sen. Arlen Specter, D-PA, said. . . . 'I cringed,' Rep. David Dreier . . . said. . . . 'I've been here a long time,' said House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter, D-NY. . . 'I've never heard anyone accost a president like that.'" ("The 'You Lie!' Aftermath")

Never? Really? Hard to believe--and disappointing--that no Democrat ever so vehemently denounced George W. Bush. Maybe not on national television, but still. . . .

Much as we revel in schadenfreude at the sight of yet another Republican self-destructing, we feel a need to point out that what Rep. Wilson did really wasn't all that bad. He called the president a liar. Tacky? Sure. Inaccurate? Yes. Inappropriate? OK. But, still, all good liberals who giggled and/or applauded when that Iraqi journalist played slipperfling with W should be defending Rep. Wilson's right to verbally express his own misplaced outrage.

Besides, think about what President Obama has heard over the last couple of years: thinly (or not) veiled racial slurs, political sneers, clumsy attack ads from Democrats and Republicans alike. Frankly, we imagine "You lie!" ranks pretty low on the offense-o-meter. Probably sounds positively flattering.

Look, folks, in all honesty, we think American democracy could use an infusion of Wilsonian spirit. Have you ever seen "Question Time" in the British Parliament? The Prime Minister regularly submits himself to raucous verbal confrontation by members of his own party and the opposition. If a back-bencher screamed "You lie!" at Gordon Brown, he would probably face scorn and condemnation--from Gordon Brown. Not because of impudence, mind you, but because of unoriginality. The Brits may not explicitly endorse rudeness, but we're fairly certain they have even less patience for dullness.

"You lie!" Rep. Wilson? Is that the best you can do?

Veeeerrry Interesting

Old-time church leaders as well as many modern Muslims frown on usury. In olden times, "usury" referred to charging interest of any kind. Religious leaders opposed interest in part because of its symbolic implications. When you charge someone interest, after all, you are essentially selling "time," and for mere mortals to trade in futures of, well, the future, was a heretical usurpation of God's prerogative. In the 16th century, Henry VIII loosened laws against usury, permitting moneylenders to charge reasonable interest and paving the way for loansharks and Diner's Club alike.

Nowadays, of course, interest is part of the cultural wallpaper. Annoying when charged against us, pleasant when offered to us. Usury is still a crime, but it's confined to the most egregious abuses of fair-lending. What that means in practice varies from state to state, but most people would probably agree that an interest rate of 3,000% likely qualifies for criminal penalties, if not eternal damnation. Still, that's an all-too-probable interest rate for many unwary consumers who fall afoul of their banks' "overdraft protection" policies. ("Overspending on Debit Cards Is a Boon for Banks").

Consider: You have $99.99 in your checking account. You make a $100 purchase. Most banks allow the transaction to go through; after all, what's a penny between friends? Well, actually, that penny will likely cost you at least $30 in penalties. So, effectively, the bank has lent you one cent at 3000% interest.

Now, some might argue (as banks unsurprisingly do) that account holders simply must keep track of the money in their accounts. That one cent example sounds egregious, but really the banks are providing a service, essentially offering an automatic extension of credit to people when they most need it--when they're standing at a cash register to purchase that life-saving prescription (or that venti latte). Fair play. But if that's so, and if banks are so certain that they provide a desired service, one wonders why they so vehemently resist the idea of an alert system: A consumer would be warned before the purchase goes through that the purchase would cause an overdraft and incur a penalty. The consumer could then decide if the purchase is really necessary and, if so, gladly accept the penalty.

We suspect our hypothetical shopper mentioned above might reject the 3000% loan--or at least negotiate with the cashier to sell him the item for $99.99.

What's truly outrageous about these fees is the way the banks game the system to maximize penalties. Let's say you have $100.00 in your account. In quick succession, you use your debit card to make purchases of $2.00, $4.00, $5.00, and $96.00--in that order. You would expect the bank to pay the first three charges, leaving you with $89.00, and that you would get hit with one overdraft fee when the $96.00 charge goes through. But the banks will often take the opportunity to put the $96.00 charge through FIRST, followed by the $5.00, $4.00 and $2.00 purchases. You're still only $7.00 overdrawn, but you've been hit with THREE overdraft charges. At (let's say) $30 each, that amounts to a seven dollar loan with $90 interest; if you're playing along at home, that's almost 1,300%.

We have some personal experience with this. Awhile back, WOS was hit with some overdraft charges by a bank that shall remain nameless (except to say that the bank's first name is "Bank" and its last name is the same as that of the country in which we live; its middle name is "of"). When we backtracked to figure out where we went wrong, we stumbled across an anomaly. At one point, before WOS went to make a purchase, she checked her balance. According to the bank's OWN ATM, her available balance was more than sufficient to make all the purchases she subsequently made. Only it turned out her "available balance" wasn't. Available, that is. See, the bank was holding back information about a previous overdraft fee. In other words, we had less money than we thought we did because the bank was planning to levy charges that it hadn't yet levied, which, in turn, caused MORE overdraft fees to be incurred. When asked how we were supposed to know this at the time we checked the balance--and how, therefore, to avoid further overdrafting--the bank's assistant manager simply shrugged and explained that it was really all our fault.

Suffice to say, we don't bank there anymore.

Congress is considering legislation to combat the worst of these abuses. We're just happy to know that Americans everywhere continue to do their part to bail out the troubled financial services industry!

Urge to Commune. . . . Rising

Everybody OK?

We assume the Sloppists survived President Obama's speech to the nation's youth? We're feeling all right ourselves. No twinges of impending socialism troubling our minds--well, a mild desire to redistribute the surplus of the capitalist production system among the legions of the proletariat. Of course, that could just be acid reflux.

We're pressed for time today. Tuesdays are busy for your ol' pal, Solipsist. After he finishes hosing down the llamas, he has to run to his weekly chanting class--this week: Gregorian! Still, we wanted to make sure we checked in.

By the way, suggestions for "brief" blog topics would be appreciated. You know, it'd be nice to have a bunch in reserve for days such as today.

See you tomorrow!

Tonight's the Night

Some Sloppists already follow this show fanatically, but, for anyone who does not, we would like to highly recommend the Showtime series "Dexter."

Based on a series of novels by Jeff Lindsay, "Dexter" revolves around Dexter Morgan (Michael C. Hall), one hell of a nice guy who works as a blood spatter (forensic) analyst for the Miami Metro Police Department. Dexter also happens to be a prolific serial killer. In his defense, though, he follows a code taught to him by his adoptive father, a policeman named Harry (James Remar): He only kills people who really really really deserve to die: murderers who have beaten the system and are likely to kill again.

Michael C. Hall is perfect in the title role. It's not an easy part. Dexter is both charming and cold-blooded, but he's no Hannibal Lecter: He takes no pride in his nature, frequently referring to himself as a "monster" but unable to do anything about his "dark passenger." (A major plotline of the second season involved Dexter's participation in a 12-step program where he sought to "beat" his addiction.) What makes Hall's performance especially fascinating is the many roles he has to play as Dexter: mild-mannered analyst, passionate killer, somewhat clueless and socially inept boyfriend to the long-suffering Rita (Julie Benz), as well as numerous improvised identities that Dexter snaps into when stalking his prey.

But what makes the show soar is the writing. Each season (the Solipsist just finished watching season 3 on DVD) is essentially a 13-episode novel for television. The plots are intricate and, most important, thoroughly unpredictable. This is not just because of plot twists--of which there are many. It should be noted, though, that the show has never had an "unearned" plot twist: The kind of seemingly random occurrence that makes one roll one's eyes at the apparent desperation of a writing staff; all of "Dexter"'s twists and turns seem pleasingly logical even in retrospect.

But again, it's not the plot twists that make the show unpredictable. The unpredictability arises because of the nature of this show and its lead character: We don't know how the story is going to end because, frankly, we're never 100% sure what the "right" ending should be.

To digress for a moment: One of our favorite action movies is "In the Line of Fire," wherein Clint Eastwood plays a Secret Service agent trying to prevent a presidential assassination. Now, because it's Clint Eastwood, we assume that he will succeed. The catch, though, and the thing that makes the movie exciting, is that "success" in this case could very well mean Eastwood's death--as long as he dies saving the President. In other words, the audience doesn't know what constitutes a "good" ending.

Such is the case in "Dexter." Sure, we want him to succeed. At the same time, though, Dexter's antagonists are often perfectly decent people--Detective Sergeant James Doakes (Erik King), for example, the one cop who suspects Dexter Morgan is not as decent as he seems. Even Dexter's sister, police officer Debra Morgan (Jennifer Carpenter), is often a potential roadblock for our hero. So we don't want them to succeed, but it's hard to root against them, too. In the most recent season, Jimmy Smits portrays Miguel Prado, an Assistant District Attorney who befriends Dexter. Without going into too much detail--no spoilers here--suffice to say there were several points in the season where we had absolutely NO IDEA where the story was going to go. Such feelings are all too rare when viewing popular entertainment.

Seasons 1-3 are available on DVD. Season 4 is about to start. We don't get Showtime, but we've already placed Season 4 on our Netflix queue. We strongly recommend that you Sloppists do the same.

Rooting for Ebola

Today's word is Re-remics: "Re-securitization of real estate mortgage investment conduits" ("Wall Street Pursues Profit in Bundles of Life Insurance").

In plain English, this refers to the practice of large investment banks combing through the wreckage of the subprime-mortgage collapse, looking for relatively stable mortgages, rebundling them into the types of packages that caused all kinds of havoc last year, and then selling them again to eager investors. Deja vu all over again.

But if the term causes a sad shaking of the head, the latest money-making Wall Street scheme sends a chill down the spine. It involves the "life settlement" industry.

Life settlement itself sounds like a somewhat clever--if morally dubious--practice. The basic idea: Let's say you are 75 years old and have a million-dollar life insurance policy. Your kids are all grown and financially secure, and you really don't feel like continuing to shell out monthly premiums. Many people might just stop paying and let their policies lapse. But what about all the money you've sunk into this policy over however many years you've held it?

This is where life-settlement agencies come into the picture. A company might offer you a sizable chunk of the policy's value--say $400,000--in exchange for which you sign the policy over to them. They continue making the premium payments and, when you die, they collect $1,000,000.

If you think about it, this isn't a bad idea: You pocket a nice chunk of change to enjoy in your golden years, and, assuming you don't defy the actuarial odds and live another 25 years or so, the life settlement industry itself reaps a tidy little profit, even after paying you the 400 grand and however much more in monthly premiums.

Enter Wall Street.

See, if one little company can make a tidy profit off of one transaction, then perhaps one gi-normous company can make a filthy profit by bundling these "life settlements" and reselling shares in these bundles to aggressive investors. This, as far as we understand it, is known as "securitization."

Now, we know that the market is an amoral place, but do you think it bothers these investors at all that they are essentially betting that they will make a profit off of people dying in a timely manner? Because, you see, if the insured people whose policies are being bought out have the audacity to beat the actuarial odds, they cost the life-settlement agencies money: Those companies will have to continue paying premiums for a longer period of time, and the underlying policies thereby become less profitable--if not, indeed, losses.

The big banks are hedging their bets: "Goldman Sachs has developed a tradable index of life settlements, enabling investors to bet on whether people will live longer than expected or die sooner than planned." Surprisingly, "Spokesmen for. . . Goldman Sachs declined to comment."

Think that's ghoulish? Consider this straightforward explanation of the best way to diversify an index fund: "A bond made up of life settlements would ideally have policies from people with a large range of diseases--leukemia, lung cancer, heart disease, breast cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's. That is because if too many people with leukemia are in the securitization portfolio, and a cure is developed, the value of the bond would plummet."

Yes, that's right. As these bonds proliferate, Wall Street's Masters of the Universe will be praying AGAINST a cure for cancer.