Honestly, Jon Stewart (well, and his writers...although his writers couldn't have prepped all his statements for his rectal demolition of Tucker Carlson on Crossfire) is making it difficult for me to view anyone else as my Greatest American Hero...even though he doesn't have the catchy theme song.

BTW, given the apo association in this post, I like to formally request that since MMA is the penultimate dick waving contest (ranking only behind teabagging for true masculine pwnage), we change the arena name from the octagon to the cocktagon. Can I get a second on my motion?

ranking only behind teabagging

Did you see the pictures of Republicans at last week's "tea party" demonstrations, carrying signs that said "TEABAG ME!" or something similar? It was psychically distressing.

MMA is the penultimate dick waving contest

MMA is the most blatantly homoerotic programming ever to be beamed across public airwaves. I can't stop watching it.

The first time I saw MMA, I thought, "this is the angriest gay porn I've ever seen on basic cable."

The irony, of course, is that Rick Santelli is right, but with a self-righteousness that belies the irresponsibility of Wall Street (the traders/management/shareholders) and the fac that they`re pleased as punch to be ripping off American taxpayers because our corrupt leadership believes they`re "too big to fail".

BS; nobody`s too big to fail, and no one has a right to make everyone else bear responsibility for his mistakes - whether Wall Street OR home owners. That`s what recessions are all about. The sooner evryone takes their losses, the sooner we`ll be over this.

But no - it`s the job of our politicians - who produce nothing - to show us how hard at work they are, "saving us" from the hole they already helped to dig for us.

Rick Santelli is right

About what? Because it might be a first.

our politicians - who produce nothing

I can see how anyone who's political beliefs were crystallized over the last eight years of American politics would believe this, but it's not true. Politicians produce public policies, laws and regulations. They're responsible for the provision of all our public goods, not to mention the system of property rights and other legal protections that support our market system. The "product" they produce is no less "real" than anything produced by lawyers, accountants, bankers, etc. in the private sector. And it's orders of magnitude more important to society than anything made by GM, or Apple, or any other private firm.

whose, dammit.

Brock, I believe in government, but only when it`s being watched like a hawk. The past 8 years have been exceptionally bad, but the fleecing of the taxpayer is only accelerating, particularly in the corrupt and irretrievably broken financial sector. The government is doing everything as opaquely as possible, and each party is focussed on spoils (and gerrymandering to lock out opposition)

Economist Willem Vuiter at the FT gets to the nub of it here: http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2009/02/insuring-toxic-assets-throwing-good-tax-payers-money-after-bad-private-money/

"Why do governments invariably prefer insuring toxic assets or even the ‘bad bank’ solution, where the government (possibly jointly with the private sector) purchases the toxic assets outright, to the ‘good bank’ solution? The reason is explained in a famous book straddling economics and political science, by Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, first published in 1965. In the book, Olson develops a theory of concentrated benefits versus diffuse costs. In a democratic society, a limited number of economic agents, each with much to gain from a policy or regulation that is socially inefficient, will generally prevail over a much large number of opponents, each of whom may not stand to lose very much individually, even though the aggregate loss of the losers exceeds the aggregate gain of the winners.

"The reputation of the banks and of some of the other highly leveraged financial institutions has taken quite a battering as a result of the financial crisis and economic slump. Despite this, the powers of persuasion, lobbying prowess and influence of the established banks and other financial institutions and of their representatives exceeds that of the millions of tax payers who stand to lose as a result of this bail-out, compared to the economically more efficient and fairer alternative offered by the ‘good bank’ solution. No-one speaks for the legions of tax payers with the same ‘voice’, eloquence and powers of persuasion that the City establishment can turn on when it makes its case in the corridors of power."

TT, I think we actually see eye-to-eye on the finance bailout. Well, except that I'd like to see some banking executives torn to pieces in the streets and their heads paraded around on pikes. And this statue replaced with one of these, as a reminder to future management.

Brock, I believe in government, but only when it`s being watched like a hawk.

I agree, but I feel the same way about private enterprise.

The difference is that where businesses compete and the consumer has choices, your ability to choose and their desire to make you happy keeps them in check.

This is quite different from government, which takes your money by force to spend where IT wishes, frequently for the self-interest of the politician/bureaucrat, and for the benefit of cronies.

Hey Tom, have you heard of this thing called "elections"?

M/tch, drinking the "representative democracy" Kool-Ade again... if 2000, 2004, and 2008 didn't demonstrate to you that there's not a dime's worth of difference between the parties, I don't know what will.

The difference is that where businesses compete and the consumer has choices, your ability to choose and their desire to make you happy keeps them in check.

They do not desire to make me happy; they desire to make themselves wealthy. I know there's nearly perfect overlap between these two things in conventional economic theory, but not so much in the real world.

M/tch / Clownæ / Brock:

Yes; I've heard of elections (and I even vote myself!), but they allow you only a crude measure of control over who's going to rip you off, spy on you and tell you how to run your life, and practically zero control over the bureaucracies). That's why both parties are adept at gerrymandering (including locking out real third-party competition) and geting us distracted with wars (bth real and cultural). Elections do not turn government even remotely into the type of consumer choice that we get in the market.

Brock, of course businesses (owners/management) want to make money, but they can only do so if someone wants to buy what they sell. Countless businesses fail all the time because people choose what someone else makes and sells. They only time when there is not a big overlap between consumer choice and a business's profitability is when government makes the business a monopoly - but even then, abusive firms/monopolies fail due competitive pressures.

But government just keeps getting bigger; and that is really what is in the personal best interests of all politicians and all of its employees. Both sets want to expand their own fiefdoms; the politicians in order so that they can get their egos stroked by businesses that want to buy favors.

Notice the news about the hundreds of millions spent recently on lobbying by financial firms? Those guys have hit the jackpot by getting hindreds of billions back. What do we get, besides the bill? Nationalized Citibank!

This is a mess fuelled by the Greenspan bubble and various policies that, for "public", regulated companies, unleased managerial greed while weakening shareholder control, so that managers and traders reaped large bonuses while passing on the down-side to counterparties, shareholders and, through our politicians (Bush AND Obama), us.

10: apo, I agree, but it's our politicians who should be going to the block - for continually freeing shareholders from the downsides of mismanagement.

Rather than us demanding the heads of bad managers, we should insist on a system where shareholders have the responsibility and ability of self-policing.

The moral hazard problem - and snowballing and counter-productive demands for regulation - has its root in the grant of limited liability to shareholders. I urge you and others to do a little thinking about root causes and sick dynamics.

Jim Kramer is supposed to be on Stewart's show tomorrow; should be entertaining.

I mean Jim Cramer, apparently.

It has only gotten better, of course. OTOH, Cramer's agent couldn't have bought this kind of publicity.

I read "Keith Jardine" as "Ken Nordine", having never heard of Keith Jardine. The video was disappointing.

Here ya go, Ned.

Wait! Did you say John Stewart and journalist in the same sentence??

Not at all. You'll notice "Journalist" appears in the title, "Jon Stewart" in the first sentence of the post. (And "John Stewart" nowhere at all.)