Jenga! Economy Edition

Our economy is inches away from game over, but here's the stabilizer: President Bush is finally acknowledging that there's a problem.

After numerous press conferences during which Bush used every combination of words that exists in the human language to say "The fundamentals of our economy are sound," he is at last admitting what every American has been feeling in the pits of their stomachs over the past month: Very little about our economy is sound.

Last night, Bush stood in front of America and said, "Our entire economy is in danger."

I can only imagine how difficult it must be for a president to admit to his country that he was wrong, which is essentially what Bush did in this address.

Throughout his presidency, Bush has strongly opposed government intervention in free enterprise. He said he still believes in free enterprise and allowing businesses to thrive or fail based on their own practices, but he explained that "these are not normal times."

I know many people are divided on the issue of this bailout, and with good reason -- $700 billion is more money than most people can visualize after hours of concentration -- but Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has taken a line of reasoning that I think everyone should adopt in this crisis:

"Whatever you think about whether or not there was a need [for a bailout] . . . once the president, secretary of the Treasury and chairman of the Federal Reserve have announced that if you don't do this, there will be a collapse, there's probably going to be a collapse if you don't do it."

But the bottom line in this situation rests within just a few sentences of Bush's address:

"This rescue effort is not aimed at preserving any individual company or industry. It is aimed at preserving America's overall economy. It will help American consumers and businesses get credit to meet their daily needs and create jobs. And it will help send a signal to markets around the world that America's financial system is back on track."

And I think that's a goal we can all agree on.

Trick or dog treat?

Last weekend, I witnessed an unnatural phenomenon: the power of pets in Halloween costumes.

I was working a booth at the Orlando Home Show in the Orange County Convention Center, and I was only a few feet away from the runway. Oh, yes, I said runway.

You see, Saturday was the day of the pet fashion show. I'm not mocking the pet fashion show. I'll even admit that I was excited to be stationed so close to the action. I guess I was just a little surprised to see what a frenzy occurs among a crowd of people who are treated to the sight of dogs in people clothes marching down a miniature runway.

I can see you struggling for a mental picture. Don't worry; I went backstage so I could provide documentation. If you have access to "Chariot's of Fire," play it now. If not, "Celebration" will work nicely.

Martini the princess

Conrad, Cooper and Cody the 3 little pigs

Vinnie the police officer

Ricky the carpenter/handyman

Molly the diva

On second thought...

Remember when we talked about the government passing on helping failing banks during this financial crisis and how maybe that was a good thing? Yeah, about that, I may have spoken too soon.

And, coincidentally, so did John McCain.

Poor McCain. Like so many of us, he seems to be just a little confused in the face of this "Category 4 financial crisis."

After Lehman Bros. went over a cliff and Merrill Lynch clung to the feet of Bank of America to avoid going over the edge, American International Group seemed to be the next in line.

On Tuesday, McCain was firm that "we cannot have the taxpayers bail out AIG or anybody else."

OK, McCain. On Tuesday, I was inclined to agree with that statement.

We've figured out that this crisis is a direct result of bad business practice. Slate puts it this way: "Just like the people who took on mortgages they couldn't afford, financial institutions took on way more debt than they could handle. And just like most people dealing with the credit crunch, these institutions now must learn to live without so much borrowed money."

That sounds like a personal problem.

But then McCain had a change of heart. By Wednesday, he was publicly supporting the Fed's tentative plan to create an entity that would buy unwanted mortgages and debt.

OK, McCain. I'm starting to see the reasoning for that idea, too.

According to Slate, here's the problem with leaving these businesses to fend for themselves and simply enforcing restrictions on spending: "If everyone cuts back, that would almost certainly lead to a recession, and while that's bad in and of itself, it could also translate into big problems for regional and local banks that have issued lots of loans to businesses that will inevitably suffer."

The dreaded domino effect. And the last dominoes to fall, thus bearing most of the impact, would be the taxpayers themselves.

McCain is under a lot of scrutiny for changing his mind on this issue, and while no one wants to see a man who is inches away from becoming the president flip in just one day on a subject as crucial as the economy, isn't it possible that he simply thought better of his opinion after taking one more day to consider the circumstances?

I did. Just something to ponder.

*Disclaimer: I am not in any way suggesting that confused monkey up there is John McCain. It's simply a confused monkey that I think McCain would be able to identify with.

No do-overs on Wall Street

Nothing bores me more than the economy, but here I am having an opinion about it anyway.

Sifting through the blah blah blah and Dow Jones Industrial this and that in the stories about the Wall Street crisis, I was surprised to find that I actually experienced a genuine emotion: annoyance.

First, some background for others who tune out at any mention of the stock market. On Monday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 504 points. This is bad. In fact, it hasn't been this bad since the day after the Sept. 11 attacks. Before that, Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc. filed for bankruptcy protection -- and they're the largest company to ever do so.

So I was reading the Los Angeles Times' coverage, and it was this little part here that melted the glaze from my eyes:

"[T]he selling in the stock market accelerated after [Treasury Secretary Henry M.] Paulson's remarks, which seemed designed to reassure investors but also make clear that the government had no plans for further intervention in the troubled financial system.

'We're working through a difficult period in our financial markets right now as we work off some of the past excesses,' Paulson told reporters at the White House. 'But the American people can remain confident in the soundness and the resilience of our financial system.'

The Treasury chief also said that he 'never once considered that it was appropriate to put taxpayer money on the line in resolving Lehman Bros.'"

So, basically, you're telling me that investors are upset because the government isn't going to make the boo-boo all better?

I have an extremely limited knowledge of the process here, but doesn't investing sometimes come with a little risk? A little gambling, even?

Lehman Bros. is a business like any other, and sometimes businesses fail. And being on the wrong end of a bad investment isn't ideal, but it's all a part of playing the game.

Seven years. How quickly we forget.

As I aimlessly surfed channels, I accidentally landed on the History Channel. The next two hours of my night were swallowed in images of chaos and tragedy.

The channel was showing a special about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that featured footage taken by news channels and civilians. I saw the faces of New Yorkers as they realized that this was not going to be another typical workday. I saw people trapped in Tower 2 as they hung out the windows with black smoke billowing behind them. I saw the towers fall, knowing that hundreds of workers and firefighters were still inside. Even more powerful than that, I saw the expressions on the faces of those who saw it happening.

I felt sick. I tried to walk away from the TV several times, but I kept coming back because I knew that I needed to remember that day ... and I'm not the only one who's forgotten.

At one point in the show, a man being interviewed after the first tower fell said, "We should just go over to the Middle East and start blowing things up!" Irrational? Perhaps. But I think every American said or thought that at some point that day and in the weeks that followed, when the shock gave way to righteous anger.

Time has erased much of the pain we felt on that day, but it's also erased the anger. When we see Osama bin Laden's image in the news, we need to feel that anger again. When we look at the place where the towers once stood, we need to feel that anger again. And when we hear news of the conflict in the Middle East, yes, especially then, we need to remember what this country has been through and what brought us to this place in history.

The terrorists declared war on America that day, and they have never stopped plotting their next move against us. They celebrated that day. We need to remember that.

U.S. Government: The bucket to Fannie and Freddie's Titanic

Enough with Fannie and Freddie, already!

Well, they might finally drop out of the news now that the big turning point in the fall of the mortgage giants came and went with a hard-core government takeover Sunday. So, what does that mean, exactly? Apparently, the government is now controlling the companies that control most of the nation's new-home mortgages. And that's huge.

If these companies went under, the effects would be felt around the world; I get that. But this is far from a win-win situation, if such a thing even exists in the world of business. In some ways, the government wins: It gets $1 billion in preferred shares for every company it now controls, and it can buy up to 80 percent of each of those companies. Also, bondholders that have something coming to them are protected because their investments in those companies are now backed by the government. So far, so good.

But the Washington Post puts a little rain on this takeover parade: "There is no guarantee that the takeover will work, and it comes at a potentially massive cost to taxpayers."

Yikes. And what sort of cost would that be, you ask? The only figure available at the moment is $25 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But even that's not definite, and the estimate is likely to increase as the situation unfolds.

With all of this in mind, I have to wonder ... will the wins outweigh the cost?

Lacking in wit, leading in wisdom

After Sarah Palin’s “pit bull” speech and many other harsh words spoken by former Republican presidential candidates on what turned out to be a Wednesday night full of red meat, McCain’s speech last night was less than impressive from a performance standpoint.

In comparison to Obama, who shares the gift of powerful speech with Martin Luther King Jr., McCain’s speeches almost always fall flat. The Washington Post today reports:

“McCain freely acknowledges that oratory is not his greatest talent, and his speech lacked the flourishes and drama of two others delivered during the conventions.”

But what’s a more important quality in a potential president’s speech: the power of his delivery or the power of his message?

While Obama criticizes the Republicans, Palin criticizes Obama and every other speaker finds fault with the other side, McCain is the only one who takes a stand against his own party. During his speech, he said:

“I don't work for a party. I don't work for a special interest. I don't work for myself. I work for you.”

Sure, a lot of vagaries pepper the speeches of both candidates, and McCain could have been more effectively critical of the current administration if he hadn’t tried so hard to avoid mentioning President Bush’s role in the party’s downhill slide. But I respect the wisdom he did show in resisting the temptation to place total blame on the opposing party, as so many others did.

Just for fun, Colbert's opinion of political speeches.

McCain paling beside Palin

Is presidential hopeful John McCain doubting his controversial pick for running mate? No way.

Is his running mate stealing the political spotlight? Absolutely.

Since the announcement that little-known Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would join McCain in his fight toward the White House, the media have been abuzz.

Legitimate questions have been raised: Does she have enough experience? Is she too young? What's all this controversy back in Alaska?

Well, Palin batted away most of those doubts in her big speech last night.

But perhaps the most ridiculous question to be asked regarding McCain's VP pick is one that reared its ugly head following the media's discovery that Palin's 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is five months pregnant. That question: Is Sarah Palin a good mother, and can she be a good leader?

My answer to that: Since when do a child's decisions determine whether her mother is fit for a role of political leadership? Bristol's poor decisions have no relevancy to the way she was raised and should not have a place in the debate about Palin's role in this election.

The media's obsession with this gossip is embarrassing, and it's blurring the line between news and tabloid trash.