December 22nd, 2006

pod

Old as the hills

25 is a big number. It is certainly bigger than 24, 23, and ALL of the teens.

And now I am it.

I hate birthdays. I hate them because they make me older, and people have asinine celebrations during them where they insist you drink too much, and my birthday's right near Christmas so everyone's getting gifts and they expect me to give twice as many gifts as I receive (I don't object to giving gifts in terms of cost, but rather I always feel neurotic about picking stuff out for people) and they remind me of my dead father which always makes me depressed.

And 25?

25 is the worst birthday of them all.

25 is the birthday where things start accelerating. I'm 25 today, in 12 months I will be 28. Then in 2008 I am going to turn 35. Once you hit 25 things just spiral out of control. bugfish turned 25 in 1999, the year I graduated High School. Today he's 103 years old (you look great for your age, man.) That's why the 18-24 demographic bracket is so desired. People stay in that one for a whole 6 years. The 35-49 bracket is lucky if someone stays there for 3 months.

In terms of what "want" for my birthday, the only gift I really desire is for nobody to say happy birthday to me. That'd be really nice. Secondly I'd like someone to steal a lawyer's identity so she could break into prison for the express purpose of having sex with me. Now since I am not IN prison she and I will not be HAVING sex, and I don't think I'd want to have sex with someone who'd risk 10 years in jail for a single romp in the hay anyway, since she'd probably rip my dick off and take it with her, but just the act of risking your freedom for nookie is a nice ego boost. So that's what I want for my birthday.
pod

Paul Krugman thinks you're a tool

Paul Krugman's latest NYTimes column (I won't link to it because nobody has TimesSelect) suggests that the Democrats shouldn't do anything about the deficit because it'll just enable some future Bush to squander the money. While there is a decent argument to be made that Clinton's fiscal responsibility paved the way for the worst president in U.S. history to spend even MORE, but suggesting that doing the right thing is wrong because someone's just gonna come along and fuck it up later is both cynical and condescending.

It also suggests that the American people can't be trusted.

Now yes, pulling the lever for Bush was a catastrophic thing to do. Anyone who did that was either rich and short-sighted or ignorant and stupid. But if you assume that we can't be trusted with our own governance, well, the whole system falls apart. Once you start down that road you find yourself headed to a very dangerous place. The Democrats have to assume that in the future the American people will make good choices, or at least that there's a chance they will.

Fiscal responsibility is essential at this point in time. We're headed into a very volatile period of history, and owing more to China and Japan will just make things worse. We need to get our house in order. Krugman's arguing that we shouldn't do so because the inbred hill people of Arkansas are going to vote another semi-sentient chimp into the White House has a logical fallacy in it. If the inbred hill people elect another chimp it won't matter what we do. We're fucked.

Democrats need to govern as wisely as possible and hope for the best.