Obama has discriminating taste. So what? STFU already!

Last week, President Obama had the audacity to ask for spicy or dijon mustard with his hamburger.  Somehow, a trip to the burger joint made the news.  "How dare the man of the people try to fit in and then act like such an elitist," cried conservative commentators across the nation.  Clearly, conservative commentators and politicians are no strangers to the finer things in life.  Newt Gingrich, the Newtered one himself, had a very unpatriotic tweet just recently:

Callista and I had a great dinner with greta van susteren and her husband john at one of my favorites l'auberge chez francois in great falls

L'Auberge Chez Francois?  Sounds French.

What the heck was the point of it anyway? The take home message I get from it is as follows:  Normal Americans should not be discriminating in their tastes (don't fuss if there's no arugula or mustard).  That's where I get up in arms.  As Americans, we have the right to request whatever the hell we want on our burgers.  They don't have to have it, but we can still ask for it.  Why should we be one size fits all?  Why should we dip our fries in only ketchup?  Why should our burger by slathered in ketchup, mayo, and "special sauce?"  To accept the status quo; to not desire something greater sounds much more like communist Russia than America.  It sounds like difference is to be crushed, new ideas are to be shunned, demanding customers are to be shown the door.

Imagine if the first person who wanted ranch dressing with his chicken nuggets was deemed haughty?  We would all be deprived of this staple condiment.  The President has discriminating tastes and he likes mustard.  It may even be French mustard.  This is how the free-market works.  When the population desires some product, the market adapts to provide it.  Far from an abomination, the desire for personalized and tasty food is a hallmark of the American dream.    

Evidence Mounting That AIG is the Money Black Hole

AIG is at it again.  I had written previously that AIG is throwing your money into a sinkhole by using taxpayer money to realize the value is hastily written derivatives that should have little or no value.  In doing so, AIG has helped to prop up other banks by paying out handsomely on insurance policies to cover their losses in the sub-prime debacle.  From an AIG source of TPM:

Our source says it "is becoming assumed throughout the industry that AIG FP finding new ways to roll over" -- which is to say, using bailout money to offer counterparties on its trades generous terms in closing out its contracts with the massive issuer of credit default swaps and other exotic derivatives options.

Thus, banks have turned in an unexpectedly good quarter with help from the taxpayer. Wouldn't it be nice if all insurers would roll over and give generous pay outs? Instead, there is the standard operating procedure of low balling blue-book while keeping your car and it's many salvageable parts and then forcing you to keep it or fight through layers of call centers (paid for by your insurance premiums) to get the actual fair replacement value.

The joke doesn't stop there though.

While he did not want to name names or go into detail about any specific transactions, he said we should watch for signs of AIG FP employees being rewarded for their generosity with jobs working for their old counterparties under eyebrow-raising terms -- "like if you have a noncompete," the source explained, "and you go to a competing firm doing something far below you for an extreme salary."

Not surprisingly, credit for keeping the banking sector will go straight to the banks, and perhaps those smart cookies at AIG who knew how to spend billions of taxpayer dollars.  The price for gambling and losing your investors money, then asking the government to bail you out so your poor decisions would not allow other gamblers to fail? A new cushy job when your unit bites the dust.  No thanks to that evil government of the people and their ill gotten bailout dollars.

Keep those eyes peeled for richly rewarded underperforming executives to continue to be richly rewarded for underperforming.