The brochure my mom handed me was really impressive. The dentist had printed his mail-out on heavyweight, glossy paper in full color. He focused on the fact he used laser technology -- no little picks gouging your gums and picking away the enamel of your teeth, pure Star Wars technology at work.

I called and made an appointment for a cleaning. I didn't have my insurance card with me when I called but, what the heck, I had Blue Cross, probably the largest insurance company of all, and this guy was obviously a player in the dentistry game, so I was sure his office must've have a relationship with my insurer.

So I took a day off from work, arrived promptly at my appointment...and found out they weren't in the Blue Cross network.

Sigh...

Next I looked at whoever was in the Blue Cross network and just picked a name. Surely squirting some baking soda under your gums is covered in Dentistry 101, right? Anyone could do it. So I went to a lady right in my doorway. This is where I had the experience, detailed previously, where I spent an hour-and-a-half in her chair, no one brushed my teeth even as much as I had that morning in the bathroom, and they told me I needed $5,000 of dental work before even rudimentary cleaning was done. No thanks, and screw you!

Finally I got hold of the old dental salt that my parents used. He only works three days a week now, and so even though I was calling in something like May or June, he couldn't see me until around December. I asked who was a newer guy he was passing the torch to, and he suggested a guy I made an appointment with for this Monday.

Once again I took a day off from work, arrived right on time for my appointment...and was told the hygienist had called in sick that morning! No one else was available, and they didn't have any more openings available until January! I got home and found where they had called me twice that day to tell me, but I just woke up at noon, showered, and raced to the appointment without ever listening to my messages. Wouldn't you think they would have more free hands to apply fluoride?

So now I've talked to four dentists and made three appointments this year, and no one's cleaned my teeth yet! Could one of you guys out there do it?

---

An Long Post About Wall Street

Since yet another dental appointment tanked, I spent most of the afternoon watching CNBC's coverage of the stock market "collapse," or whatever it was. I didn't see any stockbrokers selling apples by the roadside on the way to work today, so I take it America is still in business.

I've done a lot of reading on what's supposed to be happening in our economy, and it makes me realize the limits of my own mind. Here's what I gather:

The kneejerk (and maybe correct) version is that the repeal of Great Depression era laws like Glass-Steagall during the Clinton administration (yeah, I said it...at the hands of Phil Gramm) demolished the firewall between Wall Street and the banking industry, and the "masters of the universe," as they call themselves, were free to short sell, stop, put, liquidate, consolidate, portfolio, blue chip, leverage, bull, bear, capital gain and market share the country to death while they escaped with golden parachutes. Deregulation by Republicans caused it all!

But then there's the other version. Scott gave us the Bloomberg article, via Neal Boortz, that said the Democrats voted down a reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the "real culprits," sponsored by John McCain. I looked up that bill in the Library of Congress and found the bill had never actually been voted on, which probably just pissed Scott off (maybe).

But this bill, S.190, reared it's head again in my old Media teacher's blog. In my former teacher's version he said the bill was '"filibustered" by Democrats, not voted down as the Bloomberg article said. But I see absolutely nothing, not even in the article link he provided or the Library of Congress record of GovTrack.us that suggests this was every filibustered or voted on. Just looks like it was forgotten in a file cabinet and John McCain only signed on nearly a year-and-a-half after it was put on the far back burner.

Then there's this TIME magazine article I read today. It says that banks, the kind citizens use, i.e. "commercial banks," are in fact heavily regulated already. Bear Stearns, etc., were not those kind of banks, they were "investment banks" or "private equity firms" which are virtually unregulated. Instead of a commercial bank doing your mortgage they would refer you to their less-regulated brethren. After Bear Stearns or whoever did your loan, they would then sell that as a "mortgage-backed security." This means (I think) that they would sell a bond, certificate-of-deposit-type thing to someone on the basis you and a variety of other people would pay your fucking mortgage. These sort of "asset securities" are used in a variety of ways to spread out risks (your mortgage is bundled in with thousands of others, so hopefully good wins) and provide incentive for investment in otherwise risky ventures (now I'm losing myself).

Anyhow...Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's purpose, created by Congress in the `40's, was to give government insurance to mortgages. Banks put a bunch of mortgages in a pile and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy them so that the banks get their money guaranteed (I guess), and then FM and FM pass these mortgages off to the government, where treasury bonds are sold as the federal version of the "mortgage-backed security."

Now the question I have is: are Fannie and Freddie mandated to take any mortgage bundle offered them? Or can they pick and choose? And do Fannie and Freddie sell mortgages themselves, since they're technically private companies, or do they just act as a middleman for the government to sell treasury bonds on home sales? And did the investment banks give mortgages to shitty customers because they knew they could pass it off to Fannie and Freddie, or were they pressured by the Democrats as they now claim?

Either way, according to TIME, here's why this is an issue: "Now, though, we're seeing the downside of this financial internationalization. Many of the mortgages and mortgage securities owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were bought by foreign central banks, which wanted to own dollar-based securities that carried slightly higher interest rates than boring old U.S. Treasury securities. A big reason the Fed and Treasury felt compelled to bail out Fannie and Freddie was the fear that if they didn't, foreigners wouldn't continue funding our trade and federal-budget deficits."

If anyone is still awake, let's discuss the $700 billion bailout. At first I bought into the urgency of this. Suze Orman said on CNN, "No one is kidding about this. This is not a joke."

Then Wolf Blitzer asked her if it wouldn't be best to invest in Treasury bonds, "the safest investment bet," and get back in the market later? Orman said, "No, it's useless to try to time the market. If you don't need that money in the next 10, 20 or 30 years you should just invest steadily."

I never understand that "Wealthy Barber" theory. What if it was 1929, or 1986, and I said, "I plan to retire in 1939 (or `96), so today is my day to take my money out of the stock market?" Then I withdraw my life savings of $150,000 and find myself with $150? Finance talking heads tell you to keep throwing that money in because it'll pay off over the long haul, but what about the person who was planning on getting out Monday?

So now I wonder if the dissent on Capitol Hill Monday wasn't the will of the people saving the nation from financial ruin at the hands of the politicians. At the same time, what if this is more weapons of mass destruction fallout, and Bush turns out to be the boy who cried wolf? Maybe we all say, "You fooled us with all that weapons of mass destruction horseshit, but you ain't gonna vacuum our wallets with that same fear tactic!" And then...he and Suze Orman and Nancy Pelosi turn out to be right?

I feel old even talking about it. In a world of uncertaintly, the one thing I am certain of is...Metallica rocks.