'Crash-and-burn economy?' 'Bailout beer bust?' What should we call America's economic disaster?

Over the past few years, the line between news and spin has grown thinner and thinner, to the point that it is no longer visible, even with the most advanced scientific instruments. In fact, according to most physicists, the line can only be detected by the infinitesimal gravitational pull that it seems to exert on surrounding particles, like faith in democracy, trust in authority figures, governmental accountability, and the inexplicable popularity of Perez Hilton. As a consequence, real-life causes and effects, decisionmakers and victims pale beside the far flashier waves that rustle through the covers of magazines and the ranks of the punditry. In the end, the past few presidents have demonstrated that truth is less important than "truthiness" and events are less important than titles.

In this spirit, the time has come to put a name on the economy's current crisis. As some talking heads have already noted, the Bush administration made a major mistake by allowing the term "bailout" to define the government's response to the economic meltdown. John McCain proposed the term "rescue," which sounds far more noble, while Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson suggested calling it the "Troubled Asset Relief Program," presumably hoping that a really boring title would make taxpayers forget about the issue. Using the same logic, petty thieves are now lobbying to have the term "pickpocketing" replaced with the monicker "involuntary, extralegal, above-market thigh massage."