Wall-e is a masterpiece and should not have been banished the the "Best Animated" category. I loved Slumdog Millionaire but I will remember 2008 as the year when an animated film was truly the best picture. Wall-e's transcendence was made all the more clear by the animation montage where the robot looked on as the clips from the other animated features flashed by featuring a good deal of noise, crashes and silly looks. At that moment, Wall-e was one of us, looking on and wondering why such a thoughtful and beautiful movie must be lumped into a category that it has so obviously surpassed. Here was an animated character clearly demonstrating a level of interest and depth and that would not be matched by most of the living actors in the room.

Wall-e should have been Best Picture and with each Pixar movie it becomes more and more clear that the animation categories serve as much to protect the live action actors and directors as they do to recognize achievement in animation.

Small businesses have no pull in DC. No matter how Obama wants to spin it, the lion's share of the stimulus package will wind up benefiting the powerful and the influential.

I agree that this criticism is a bit too much but I found that Obama's choices for his three "real stories" a bit off key. Yes, they were generally all feel good stories and we all love that but only one (the town that rebuilt itself in an eco-friendly way following a tornado) was consistent with his message of responsibility and action. The other two struck me as odd. While I applaud Bethea for writing her letter and wanting things to improve, I wouldn't have included it in this speech. It sounds a bit too much like "Ask what your country can do for you." And the banker story was just absurd. Yes, he must be a nice guy. Yes, he must be a generous guy. But please, this story belongs in the final segment on the evening news not in a presidential speech to congress. If our country is counting on bankers to go around distributing bonuses to friends and neighbors, we're in big trouble.

Overall, I think the speech was right on but these vignettes were off the mark.

"Brief and narrow?" Weren't these adjectives used to describe the thinking behind the stimulus bill that very quickly became long-term and broad? There is no reason to believe that nationalization would be either brief or narrow. Brief? Then what is the exit strategy. Does the Government eventually relinquish ownership/control? To whom? At what price? Will the government be willing to sell at a loss? And narrow? We'll have to wait to see the results of the stress tests before knowing how narrow or broad the insolvency issue is. As new problems seem to crop up every few weeks, it's hard to believe that any objective stress test would reveal a narrow group of companies that need help.

This post makes some interesting points and its worth reading, thinking about and discussing. However, there's a huge difference between the AIG and the automakers.

Car manufacturing is capital intensive. The people, while expensive, are not the assets that drive the business. They are essential but they are also fairly replaceable. Historically, and probably even moreso today, they could find plenty of qualified and/or trainable people happy to fill the union jobs.

AIG and other professional services firms are "people businesses." They succeed and fail (as we are learning every day) based on the performance of individuals and their contributions. Whereas GM, Chrylser and Ford can provide lesser pay and benefits and still find potential employees clamoring for jobs, AIG faces a different outcome. If they fail to honor their contracts, they will find themselves facing major credibility issues with current and future employees. This is not a theory. I have a relative at AIG and since the government began bailing out AIG and taking an ownership stake in the company, employees have been leaving in droves. It is very telling that in these economic times, people have been leaving the company for fear of what government ownership will bring...this weekend's developments are a perfect example. As a people business that is dependent on professional relationships, AIG will die if enough good people leave.

So maybe it's OK if AIG dies. I happen to think this is the case. But, our government took an ownership stake in the company. This was a terrible idea but elected officials liked telling the public that this was an "investment" and that taxpayers will benefit when the company turns around. This was a terrible idea at the time for precisely this reason. Politicians cannot and should not be making these business decisions. AIG should have been allowed to fail or if necessary provided loans or other bailout funds. Private business decisions cannot be effectively made in the Press, Congress or the White House.

Unfortunately, the US taxpayer is now heavily invested in the success of AIG. As such, it is in our interest for the company to remain on good terms with its employees.

We had a say. And "we" chose to buy an equity stake in AIG. As such, we are subject to all the benefits, debts, obligations that come with that ownership. If we did not want to accept the upside and downside that comes with ownership we should never have bought into the company. AIG should have been allowed to fail or given loans to continue operations. The government has no business owning companies like these and this is yet another reason why. Please let this be a lesson and let's stop buying equity stakes in failing companies.

Remember at the time when the politicians demanded that the taxpayer be given an equity stake in AIG so that we could share in the wealth created when the company turned around. See where that thinking got us? Let the madness end now.