Ending the Year With a Clang

There are times when it's best to destroy the evidence and swear all witnesses to secrecy. And then there are times to just come clean. This, I have no doubt, falls into the former category. And yet here I go:

The first thing I must come clean about is that back in August, when Mickens documented the key-related idiocy of a "certain (unnamed) brumpelstiltskin member", he was referring to me: Mike-Michael. The second thing I must divulge is that, last night, yours truly dropped a chain of keys—house, car, mail, work, and spare—into a fricking sewer drain.

How did said mishap come to pass? Well, it all started with a dinner (frozen Margarita pizza) and a movie (The Dark Knight) date I'd scored with a beautiful woman (Oh, who am I kidding? I've come this far, I may as well bare it all: the film was Made of Honor.)

Just before leaving for my date, I inexplicably performed three impulsive, uncharacteristic, and irrational actions: (1) I changed out of my belt-fastened work trousers and into loose-fitting sweat pants that fall down if I put anything in their pockets; (2) I inserted a recently obtained candy cane—which I typically neglect to eat until at least July—into my mouth; and (3) I decided to check my mail on the way out of my apartment.

Hence, as I exited my flat toward my car, I had a wad of credit card offers in my right hand; a half-foot peppermint in my mouth; and a heavy, key-laden ring dangling precariously between my left thumb and forefinger.

As for what happened next, I honestly cannot recall if what slipped was an envelope from my fingers or the mint from my lips, but one of said culprits prompted the reflexively fatal opening of my left hand that—along with gravity—sent my precious keys into the drain (pictured above) over which I just so happened to be walking.

As luck would have it, the keys were soon recovered: the drain was not more than four feet deep, and using a broom stick and a metal hanger (pictured right) that the aforementioned beautiful woman mercifully drove over to me, I was able to "MacGruber" those bad boys back above ground within an hour.

As I reflect on the half-hour between the original blunder and when my Chivalrous Damsel rescued her Sir in Distress, I'm struck by the fact that I never panicked. Well, except for those 30 seconds when—like a ring that's a half size too small for one's finger—I literally could not dislodge my elbow from the sewer grate I'd moronically stuck my arm through.

That last point brings me to my conclusion: namely, the following list of last night's lessons learned, which I'd like to impart to you all:

1. Never stick your entire arm through the narrow opening of a sewer grate, especially one situated in a frequently trafficked alleyway.
2. Affix your spare key to a trusted friend or family member, not to the same chain as the original it's meant to replace.
3. Patrick Dempsey is significantly, almost impossibly, dreamier on the silver screen than he is on TV.

The Scarlett Letter

I’m not quite sure what it stands for (a cross between Adultery and Arugala, perhaps?), but the letter "A" has been permanently affixed to my breast.

Let me explain. The source of my shame dates back to 2 Jan 2008, when I volunteered for Barack Obama at a pre-caucus "Stand for Change" rally in Coralville, IA (task: cajoling attendees into signing in and revealing who they intended to caucus for). Before the event, two rumors began to circulate: (1) that, after his speech, Obama would pose for a group photo and individually shake hands with all volunteers; and (2) that actress Scarlett Johansson would simultaneously give a post-rally "stump speech" before a small group of local college students.

If rumor turned to fact, I realized that a terribly conflicting decision would await me: I could meet Johansson, whose breathtaking performance in 2003's Lost in Translation made a heavy-hearted then-22-year-old want to love again; or meet Obama, whose intellectual yet inspiring rhetoric made a cynical then-26-year-old want to hope again.

By the time the actual speech concluded, it had become apparent that both rumors were true. As I anxiously paced the corridors of the Coralville Marriott Hotel & Conference Center—suffering within from a fierce tête-à-tête between passion and reason—I was reminded of a certain Seinfeld episode involving a chess scene.

But just then, fate intervened. Having aimlessly stumbled into a random conference room, I looked up to behold a small group of eager-looking, predominantly male college students—their eyes fixed upon a rather nondescript closed door. Sure enough, Ms Johansson walked through. With one glance at her beauty, it was settled: I would not be meeting Senator Obama.

Fleeting thrill, forever regret
I do not remember much of what Ms Johansson had to say. This is largely because she did not turn out to be the most, say, captivating of public speakers (e.g., to paraphrase: “I’m supporting Barack because he like, you know, wants to stop global warming”), but also because I spent the better part of her speech nervously texting seven of my friends the following note:

Im in a room with scarlet johannsen right now. She is stumping 4 Obama. She is way cuter in person.

In response to this text (surely the most obnoxious $1.40 I’ve ever spent), one friend (code name: "DJ The Pleiades") quite rightly responded with a well-known, two-word phrase perhaps unsuitable for Mic’s Tape (suffice it to say it's an anagram for "Yuck UFO!"). Looking back, said text response was certainly deserved, but it was also redundant; in other words, I had already screwed myself...

For that one fleeting moment, lost as I was in Ms Johansson's smoky voice, I did not question my decision. But eleven long months of sober mornings-after have brought the weight of my actions into sharp, inescapable focus: I could had met the future President-elect, but I blew it.

As I look in the mirror and see this Scarlett Letter staring back at me, I accept what I have become. But what I cannot accept is for even one of you to repeat my mistake. Thus, readers, hear my plea: if forced to choose between Potential Presidency or Certain Celebrity, please, please, please let your cooler head prevail!

Waste Not Iowa City, the Recyclopedia is Here

Back in July, I shared my dream of an “[online] index of if and where (relative to your zip code) anything and everything can be recycled”.

Four months later, I’m grateful to report that this dream has—on a local level—become a reality. In other words, the Iowa City Recyclopedia is born!

iWasteNot Systems
Before I go any further, allow me to explain how this came to be. It all started with a simple email to iWasteNot Systems—a company whose services, I soon realized, extend far beyond the Recyclopedia.

The iWasteNot philosophy essentially assumes that for every item a person or company can no longer use, there exists another person or company who can use it. To that end, iWasteNot supplies "web-based waste reduction systems" (aka "Materials Exchanges") that allow those who don't needs things to bypass the landfill and instead give/sell them to those who do need things.

The company's most common services (see full list here) are (1) "Residential" exchanges like the Newton Reusable Materials Exchange (in Massachusetts) and the Madison Stuff Exchange (in Wisconsin), which exemplify the idea that “One person’s trash can be another person’s treasure”; and (2) "Industrial/Commercial" exchanges such as the Georgia Industrial Materials Exchange, which prove that “One company’s waste can be another company’s raw material”.

Other offerings include "Agriculture/Biomass/Forestry" exchanges like the Maryland Online Farmers Market and the aptly titled manuretrader.org (which literally facilitates the exchange of manure in and around Pennsylvania); and also "Electronics (E-Waste)" exchanges like this one based in British Columbia.

Recyclopedia: Iowa City
By contacting iWasteNot, I soon found a group of "virtual doppelgangers" who shared (and indeed expanded) my vision of harnessing the power of the Internet to reduce waste. What's more, I also found a uniquely informed and friendly business team who swiftly got my project off the ground, straightforwardly walking me through the initial steps; and patiently facilitated my gradual progress, promptly responding to any questions that arose along the way.

Four months later, the "beta" version of Recyclopedia Iowa City is here. To give you a brief overview of how it works, the main page simply lists an array of everyday items ranging from Aerosol to Vinyl Records (as of tonight, there are 27 entries and counting). Clicking on a given entry will display additional information on (a) how that item can be reduced, reused, or recycled; and (b) the names of specific (predominantly local) "Reuse Businesses and Charities" where that item can be either recycled or donated/sold for reuse.

How you can help
My hope is that, in time, the Recyclopedia will tear the proverbial roof off this sucker we call Iowa City/Johnson County, IA (and that, as a result, any literal roofs that are torn off will be donated to the ReStore or Salvage Barn for reuse)!

How can you aid this goal? Here, dear readers of Mic's Tape, are a few ways:

• Read: check out the site & puts its tips into practice
• Share: tell friends, coworkers, etc about the website
• Factcheck: let me know if any information on the Recyclopedia is incorrect
• Suggest: recommend new items that should be added
• Enlighten: share any additional Reuse charities/businesses that you know of
• Join: if you live outside Iowa City, contact iWastenot and get your area online (I'll help you)

Please consider this blog post an official Iowa City Recyclopedia "message board". Help "finetune" the site: keep the comments, critiques, and suggestions coming!

Obama's Victory

As supporters of President-elect Barack Obama, last night marked quite a moment for brumpelstiltskin. We did not think it possible to simultaneously experience elation, numbness, and the welling of tears, but there we were.

As Mic's Tape political commentator, it is my honor to blog on behalf of my BS brethren. I will share just a few thoughts.

My rationale for supporting Obama included a firm belief in his abilities to practice and encourage healthy, earnest dialogue; and to inspire, through his own actions and rhetoric, selfless acts toward the common good. His victory speech strengthened my confidence in these abilities. Here is an excerpt:

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you - we as a people will get there.

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it's been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years - block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand (emphasis mine).

Earnest engagement
Hearing these words strengthened my own resolve to listen better—not only to the like-minded, but also to those with whom I disagree—and to seek common ground with an unwavering faith that doing so will foster mutual gain. Moreover, as I reflect on my writing during the campaign season, I realize that at times my frustrations boiled over into unmeasured rants (especially concerning Gov Palin). In the future, I hope to temper these flashes with more productive engagement.

Joining in the work
In War and Peace, Tolstoy argued that the events of history are not—as conventional historians suggest—determined by the will and power of world leaders; rather, they are a summation of infinitesimal factors including the collective will of all people involved as well as limitless variables beyond human control. I largely agree, but I believe Tolstoy vastly underestimated the potential for world leaders to shape and inspire said collective will: an ability that Obama appears to be extraordinarily gifted at. If he can inspire the millions who "dug into what little savings they had" and "braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on the doors of perfect strangers" and "volunteered and organized" for the cause of getting him elected, imagine what else he may inspire us to do.

The challenges facing the US and the world are staggering. As Obama said, the government cannot solve all of these challenges; and, given the economy, there are other challenges that it just can't afford to solve through money alone. Thus, in addition to government, collective service and sacrifice are essential. With that in mind, I am ready to "join in the work".

Let's get our hands calloused!

Cat Litter is the New Ethanol

The word on the street—typified by chants of "Distill, baby, distill!" (hat tip: O'Chihak)—is that the future of Iowa's economy is all about ethanol. But in my opinion, that ain't nothing but a bunch of bollocks.

Rather, it is my firm belief (and that of all within brumpelstiltskin) that Iowa's future fortunes will ride the coattails of a Muscatine-based company named GPC Pet Products.

But before I go on, allow me to briefly explain how we came upon this discovery. It all began with my decision (last month) to adopt two of my feline siblings, Dickens and Dolly, from my parents. Once they'd moved in, I had to buy cat food, toys, scratching posts, nail clippers, and litter. It was the latter item that brought me to GPC.

If it's yellow, let it mellow; if it's litter, flush it down the...
For litter advice, I turned to the experts at my favorite pet depot, who recommended the GPC product, "World's Best Cat Litter" (WBCL). Incredulous at first, I honed it on their slogan:

The only litter good enough to be called "World's Best".

"World's Best"? How on Earth do they back up such a boast? For starters, WBCL is naturally made (from corn kernels), safe, clumping, long-lasting, odor-controlling, biodegradable AND...wait for it...flushable! If you don't believe me (or even if you do), please click below to view the official product demo video:



To put all these claims to the test, I purchased a 7-lb bag of WBCL and instructed D & D to do their worst. Five weeks later, I'm pleased to report that all three of us are extremely satisfied with the results. Granted, unlike the demo salesman, I've yet to eat the litter, but I do feel qualified to assess the video's other claims. As suggested, WBCL is indeed dry, dust-free, and clean-feeling; highly absorbent and clumpable; odor-repelling and—insofar as cat litter goes—quite pleasant-smelling (not unlike the scent of home-brewed beer).

I’m also impressed by its longevity and cost-effectiveness. To be clear, WBCL is quite expensive up front—I’ve spent $20.12 so far on just two 7-lb bags—but after six weeks I’ve still got a half bag left, and thus fully expect to make it a full two months off a Jackson plus change. For comparison, the previous brand I purchased (a 10-lb bag of “Better Valu”, sold at a gas station) cost only $2.63, but stunk to high heaven and needed to be changed after about a week. So, at $20.12 per two months versus $2.63 per week, the long-term costs are essentially even.

"Litter" in name only
Personally, though, my favorite aspect of WBCL is its apparent earth-friendliness. Whereas the “Better Valu” scenario detailed above would add about 40lb of litter to the landfill each month; WBCL is biodegradable, flushable, and therefore necessitates zero new trash.

So, if you own a cat (or know someone who does), please consider using (or recommending) WCBL. If enough of us do so, we may just break Iowa's economic dependence on local oil.

---

*Admittedly, it makes brumpelstiltskin slightly uneasy that California—a very environmentally progressive state—"discourages" the flushing of cat litter (a fact denoted by an asterisk on the WBCL bag), but unless evidence emerges that doing so is somehow environmentally-unfriendly, Mic's Tape will continue to use, flush, and endorse WBCL with relish.

Credit Crisis for Dummies (By a Dummy)

In the midst of the current financial crisis, people are looking to experts they can trust. Why then have I, Greenspanke, the so-called “finance minister” of the world’s 1,942,080th most popular blog, remained so conspicuously silent on the matter?

In short, I am a fraud.

Contrary to the many epithets (e.g., “First Dude of Finance” and "The Montell Jordan of Money") so often heaped upon me, in truth my economic “expertise” only extends to personal money management—not national (let alone global) finance as a whole.

As such, asking me to weigh in on something as wholly beyond my grasp as the world financial crisis is much like, oh I don’t know, asking someone with no apparent insight into the intricacies of domestic and international politics to run for US vice president.

All of that said, I have done some research (aided greatly by my mentor, TG), and will take a stab at briefly summarizing the current crisis.

Sowing the seeds of catastrophe
Roots of the crisis largely stem from the Federal Reserve’s 2001 decision, under then-chairman Alan Greenspan, to lower the “federal funds rate” (FFR) and then keep it low for several years (e.g., under 2% until Sep 2004). The FFR had a strong ripple effect on other interest rates like those for mortgages and car loans (see below graph). Thus, having the FFR so low for so long basically flooded the world with cheap money.

House of cards
In conjunction with this influx of easy cash, the real estate market underwent a meteoric rise in home values and, in addition, the banking system implemented an astounding reduction in eligibility requirements for would-be borrowers. Thus, not only did buying a home become a more tempting investment, but obtaining a loan to do so became absurdly easy. As my mentor put it: "no money down, no income documentation—your mom's cats could have gotten loans". As a result, the system enabled everyday people like Joe and Mario the Plumber to do things like buy homes beyond their means; or take out "second mortgages" on the seemingly ever-rising equity in their homes to buy things they didn't need like flat screen TVs and second houses.

A related issue is that mortgage salespeople (now affectionately known as "predatory lenders") had every incentive to sell high-risk loans (e.g., "subprime" and "adjustable rate" mortgages) to high-risk borrowers. Namely, the lenders got a commission for their sale and, what's more, the institution they worked for often turned around and sold the new mortgage (and its risk) to other entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. By the banks financing these loans to begin with, and by Freddie and Fannie buying such "mortgage-backed securities" from the banks, all parties put themselves at the incredibly risky mercy of (a) home prices continuing to rise and (b) borrowers continuing to make their mortgage payments.

Death of a party
Alas, circa 2006 the US housing bubble burst and home prices started to fall. Making matters worse for borrowers, by this point the Fed had started raising interest rates. Adjustable interest rates spiked, mortgage payments went way up, borrowers began to default on payments, and home foreclosures sprang up in droves. Soon enough, mortgage-back securities became "toxic assets" and the financial institutions who'd bet the farm on them—such as Bear Stearns, Freddie and Fannie, and Lehman Brothers—saw their risk come home to roost.

Bailout blues
In the wake of all this, stock prices have plummeted and the banks have taken huge losses, which has greatly impaired the banks' capacity and willingness to make new loans to businesses, individuals and each other. With lending (i.e., the glue that holds the economy together) in such dire straits, the US government has decided to step in with its projected $700b Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP, aka bailout).

So, what is the bailout aimed to do? I think I'll quote my mentor (again) on that one:

The bailout package will help some because the government will buy from the banks $700 billion worth of the worst crap they have on their balance sheets. [The banks] will not get face value for this stuff - maybe somewhere north of the current very low market values which exist because there is essentially no market. In addition, the accounting changes that are part of the bill will allow the banks to sell the stuff, perhaps realize the losses over a period of time instead of immediately, and therefore have some capacity to lend, which may help lower rates for real people. As the economy is run by credit this is necessary but not sufficient for getting the economy going again. This will also help restore some confidence to arcane things like the interbank and commercial paper markets which are frozen or near frozen and in which rates are very high and impeding activity (emphasis mine).

In short, then, it seems the bailout aims to save the banks arses and, by doing so, help restore the banks' ability to lend and also restore overall confidence in the marketplace.

No time to blink
In conclusion, I trust that the elementary, bullet point regurgitation of other people's ideas presented above will put to rest rumors that I am anything but a novice when it comes to big time economics. That said, if the next president asks me to be treasury secretary, I will answer him yes because I have the confidence in my readiness, and know that you can't blink. You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we're on, reform of this country, and victory in the war. You can't blink. So, I wouldn't blink then, if asked to be treasury secretary.

The Soft Sexism of Low Expectations

In the wake of Thursday night's VP debate between Sen Joe "Bosniak" Biden (D-DE) and Gov Sarah "Toxic mess on Main Street that's affecting Wall Street" Palin (R-AK), it seems like everyone's talking about how Palin "exceeded expectations".

But let's be frank: this didn't take much doing. As one reader of Andrew Sullivan's blog, put it:

She didn't poop her pants. So basically she did great!

To be fair, Palin accomplished far more than simply not defecating herself. Namely, she established herself as a very formidable 21st century, reality-TV-era, style-over-substance debater: she displayed a firm command of the talking points her campaign advisers had crammed into her; she effectively zinged her opponent several times over past inconsistencies between himself and Obama; she spoke in a confident, aggressive fashion (albeit quickly and a bit nervously at points); she avoided obvious gaffes and awkward silences; she did not look physically unattractive; she looked straight in the camera, smiled, talked and winked at the same time; she correctly pronounced "Ahmadinejad" five times (and four times in the same response!); and she implemented a folksy, "doggone it"-infused delivery style that made me want to drive a stake through my ears and gouge my own eyes out—but evidently connects with a vast swath of the US electorate.

So again, to be clear, she did "exceed expectations". But let's also talk about what she did not do. She rarely answered questions directly (if at all). She failed to explain how exactly she and John McCain would "change" Washington or end the war in Iraq. She utterly lacked substance. She failed to demonstrate—much like George W Bush—that she: (a) understands that the word "nuclear" has one "u", not two; or (b) possesses an ounce of intellectual curiosity or independent thought (e.g., the kind needed to stray even one inch from talking points and note cards). And, most crucially, according to this CNN poll, she convinced only 42% of viewers (compared to 87% for Biden) that she is qualified to assume the presidency.

Straight talk?
In my opinion, though, Palin's biggest shortcoming was highlighted during the first half of the debate after Biden pointed out to moderator Gwen Ifill that the Alaska Governor had not answered a question about deregulation. When Ifill then asked, "Would you like to have an opportunity to answer that before we move on?" Palin responded (see 2:45 mark in this 10-minute debate recap):

I'm still on the tax thing because I want to correct you on that again. And I want to let you know what I did as a mayor and as a governor. And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or [Biden] want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also (emphasis mine).

Not going to answer the questions that either the moderator or Biden want to hear? What does that mean? What types of questions was she referring to? For some insight, let's review clips from the three interviews (with Charlie Gibson, Sean Hannity, and Katie Couric) that Palin granted prior to the debate (please watch):

Based on these interviews, it seems the questions Palin "may not answer" are those that: (a) cannot be sufficiently answered using memorized talking points; (b) refer to topics that she does not adequately grasp; and (c) press for specific examples to supplement the vague, ridiculous, rambling bullcrap that she (like every politician) often spews out.

Fortunately for Palin, when it came to the VP debate, the McCain campaign successfully insisted that:

[Her and Biden would] have shorter question-and-answer segments than those for the presidential nominees [which allowed] much less opportunity for free-wheeling, direct exchanges between the running mates. McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive (emphasis mine).

Clearly, the plan worked. As evidenced by her above response to Ms Ifill, Palin used the debate's short 2:00 segments to her advantage. She did not have to be free-wheeling, but rather—thanks to a virtual lack of direct exchange and cross-examination—she successfully avoided specifics and glossed over questions she did not want to (or could not) answer with folksy, prepackaged, sound-bite-infested, stump speech drivel.

A sexist, disrespectful double standard
In my opinion, the "expectations" that Palin exceeded are—by the very nature of their lowness—demeaning and sexist. Had a male candidate for VP performed as Palin did Thursday night, I seriously doubt anyone would have lauded his performance as "better than expected"; or that that the conservative National Review editor Rich Lowry would have been smitten enough to write:

I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when [he] dropped [his] first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think [he] just winked at me." And [his] smile. By the end, when [he] clearly knew [he] was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, [he's] got it.

Rather, had Palin been a male, I suspect that the overwhelming majority of analysts would have bashed said candidate's performance, pronounced Biden the decisive winner, and lambasted John McCain's judgment for selecting said candidate to potentially be next in line to the presidency. To not apply the same standard to Palin is disrespectful to the fact that women are just as capable as men, and should be cheered and jeered based solely on their words and actions—not their identity.

Beyond gender
That said, this whole situation extends far beyond gender. For instance, it's inconceivable that female politicians like Sen Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Sen Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), Gov Kathleen Sebelius (D-KA) or Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice would receive this kind of treatment, either. Likewise, when former Rep Geraldine Ferraro (D-NY) ran for VP in 1984, the Mondale campaign certain didn't rewrite the debate format to avoid free-wheeling and direct exchanges, nor did they shield her from unscripted press conferences. In contrast to Ferraro, who faced reporters within days of her selection, Palin has yet to hold a press conference—36 days and counting since McCain picked her—which is both unprecedented and astounding.

So what is it about Gov Palin that warrants this special treatment? Is it her beauty pageant good looks, or because she's so clearly—borderline pitiably—unready for presidential prime time? I don't know. But if I have to listen to myself think about it any longer, I will drive a stake through my ears, so at this point I must digress.