The Power and the Money

Finns marry other Finns? Uh, I guess so.

  Hmm.  I am somewhat ashamed to live in a country where the below is not a firing offense at a major television news network.  No matter how dumb the show may be.  I mean, in a decent country shouldn’t displays like the one below cost you so many viewers that the network simply has to let you go?  For the bottom line, of course.  (Hat tip:  Salon.) 

Apparently not in America.  That said, my wife doesn’t think Brian Kilmeade is being serious.  “He looks like he’s African, Italian, Moroccan, totally mixed up,” she says.  “Clearly a joke.”

Uh, I hope so. 

Twins?

  My wife says that Rachel Maddow and Alison Stewart look like sisters.  Now that she's mentioned it, I think she's right. 

This goes out to James and Randy

  I am told that it can be difficult to get the Daily Show in Canada.  So, under the assumption that you might not regularly tune it in on the internets, I present to my Canadian friends the following very insightful group of talking heads:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Provinces in Peril

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Want to know more?  The preceeding story, “Provinces in Peril” is below the fold.

SNL gets its groove

  The only thing wrong with Rahm Emanuel is that he isn't from New York.  Dude should be from New York.

And here I see, for only the second time, a comedian actually get Barack Obama.

And finally, here is comedian Barack Obama on Rahm Emanuel:

Enjoy!

Observatorio Argentino 3: Best Facebook Group Evaaar

From HDTD’s agent in the Argentine comes the following Facebook group:  “Creo q el TREN BALA es un curro más grande que el MONORRIEL de Springfield!”

Translation:  “I believe that the Tren Bala is a bigger rip-off than the Springfield monorail!” 

Yes, that Springfield.  The Simpsons are, I think, a bigger cultural phenomenon in Argentina and Mexico than they are at home.  I have no idea what that means, but it has gotta mean something.  Right?

It really is an odd project for a country in as much trouble as Argentina.  Private groups estimate that CPI inflation has just hit 23%.  Farmers are on strike over export taxes again.  And strangest of all (since the currency is officially floating) Argentines are running out and trading in their pesos for dollars.  The situation got so bad last week that the banks had a mini-crisis when a volcanic explosion delayed flights carrying planeloads of Benjamins from Chile. 

It looks like average Argentines are looking at the inflation rate and figuring that the 3.2-to-one exchange rate can't last, even with the dollar's meltdown against the euro.  The central bank --- which hasn't really been independent since 2002 --- has burned through a billion dollars propping up the peso this month.  Now, that shouldn't be a big deal for a country with US$50 billion in reserves and skyrocketing export prices ... but a country with $50 billion in reserves and skyrocketing export prices should be facing the question of what to do about upward pressure on the currency, not figuring out how and when to devalue.  Which isn’t to say that a fall in the peso isn’t what Argentina needs, given spiralling inflation ... it is to say that it’s pretty sad for the country to be in this situation so soon after Kirchner’s debt repudiation gave it so much breathing space.

An Argentine editorial cartoon with a slightly different take below the fold.

The good old days really were better, except when they weren't ... or, something nice to say about Ronald Reagan

The paranoid style in American politics is always present, but it waxes and wanes.  We're currently in a waning period, but it certainly hasn't waned as much as it has in the past.

Here is a 1984 ad from the Reagan-Bush campaign.  It's about the Soviet threat, and aims to convince voters that the Reagan Administration has the correct approach.

To a modern viewer, this half-century old ad appears moderate, reasonable, and as intelligent as one would expect for a 30-second piece.  It bases its argument on prudence against a potential threat, and clearly states what the admakers believe an adequate insurance policy to be.  Contrast with this from the 2004 campaign:

A lie, an information-free bit of "contextual" information (six billion dollars!), an aversion, and a mention of an unspecified wolf-like program related activity that will presumably eat your children.  It's quite horrible, and it's quite horrifying that the Bush-Cheney campaign believed such ads would be effective.

How the Clinton ad stacks up, then, depends on your point of comparison.  As paranoid ads go, it's awful pandering compared to the artful 1984 ad that plays upon concrete fears with real prudence.  But compared to the 2004 slanderous cesspool of a piece, it's quite mild.  On the other hand, the Obama campaign's response manages to mock the whole paranoid trope while going to a whole new level of concrete in a 30-second spot.  Go below and see for yourself.