http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27955316/
Yesterday, a man was trampled by a crowd at a Wal Mart store in New York. And, when others tried to rescue him, THEY were trampled as well. In addition, four other people were injured, including a woman who was eight months pregnant.
When notified that the store would be closing, the customers became irate.
Tis the Season. This is why I have disliked Christmas for years - at least the commercialized, secular version we've come to know and love (or in my case hate) in America.
I cannot even articulate how disgusting and revolting this all is. I'm sure that a lot of other Americans are just as disgusted as I am. I'm sure how a lot will be written, or spoken of on television on how we've lost "the true meaning of Christmas".
All of it will be true.
This is certainly not the first time that things like this have happened in the pursuit of the ideal Christmas gifts. I remember a few years back, when grown men and women were fighting in the aisles over Cabbage Patch Dolls.
Of course, Jesus (Remember that guy? That is what the holiday is supposedly about.) always taught that the possession of things will not make us happy (from Matthew 6:19-21), and that these gifts that were so important to get today, will be unimportant tomorrow:
19 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
We continue to pursue those "things" though. But, the reality is, is that they haven't made us any happier. They've just brought mountains of debt, which now has had a hand in bringing the larger economy to a grinding halt.
Several of our fellow Americans are currently hungry or in need, and in the days, weeks and months to follow, several more will be swallowed up in the downward spiral of the economy. During this Christmas season when we eat a lot, drink a lot, and shop and spend money we can't afford to spend, are we thinking at all about "the least of these" (See Matthew 25:31-46) that Jesus taught us to care for?
The most disgusting thing is that for a man's life, this is what the shoppers were getting in exchange:
"Items on sale at the Valley Stream Wal-Mart included a Samsung 50-inch Plasma HDTV for $798, a Bissel Compact Upright Vacuum for $28, a Samsung 10.2 megapixel digital camera for $69 and DVDs such as "The Incredible Hulk" for $9."
Think about it. For a television, a vacuum, a camera and a DVD, a man is now DEAD.
That is all certainly a cruel juxtaposition when you take a look at the prophecy of the coming of the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6), who would ultimately give his life for us:
For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Wow. That is sobering.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Friday, November 28, 2008
Just for fun......
Take the quiz below.
This is a Civics Quiz sponsored by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI - not to be confused with Pakistan's Intelligence Agency).
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
This link is an article by Kathleen Parker reporting on the results of the quiz, and offering some great insight on possible remedies and what might happen in the future if our citizens are not properly educated with regard to Civics. It is probably best to take the quiz first and read the op-ed after, as Ms. Parker gives some answers away in the piece.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/25/AR2008112502104.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
In the interest of self-disclosure, I took the quiz and got an 81. This made me unhappy, as I felt like I should have gotten 100%.
Below is the breakdown on the scores, which is very BLEAK.
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/2008/report_card.html
One of the more frightening aspects is the gap between citizenry and "elected officials" (in the link it states that: "Of the 2,508 People surveyed, 164 say they have held an elected government office at least once in their life.")
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/2008/additional_finding.html
The bullet points at the bottom of this link should make every American a little queasy (for example: "Seventy-nine percent of those who have been elected to government office do not know the Bill of Rights expressly prohibits establishing an official religion for the U.S.")
In her piece, Ms. Parker speculates as to what's responsible for the "dumbing down" of America.
"The ISI found that passive activities, such as watching television (including TV news) and talking on the phone, diminish civic literacy."
Passive activities could also include listening to talk radio.......
Ms. Parker then reports:
"Actively pursuing information through print media and participating in high-level conversations -- even, potentially, blogging -- makes one smarter."
I certainly believe that "actively pursuing" information, and participating in high-level conversations makes one smarter. I do not support the idea that blogging necessarily makes one smarter, given some of the blogs I have seen out there (hopefully not this one :-)). Some blogs I've read have been light on facts and comprehensive thought, and heavy on tin-foil hat conspiracy speculations.
The op-ed then reports:
"Civics courses, once a staple of junior and high school education, are no longer considered important in our quantitative, leave-no-child-behind world."
Not to mention that a lot of states are teaching to a "Standards of Learning" test, which focuses on memorization of "factoids" more than comprehensive, deep knowledge of subjects.
So, how are our colleges doing? After all, that is generally the standard in the business world to define if one is "educated" enough for employment (whereas in years past it was having a high school diploma):
"And college adds little civic knowledge, the ISI study found. The average grade for those holding a bachelor's degree was just 57 percent -- only 13 points higher than the average score of those with only a high school diploma."
Ms. Parker offers some recommendations, which I heartily agree with:
"The ISI insists that higher-education reforms aimed at civic literacy are urgently needed. Who could argue otherwise? But historian Rick Shenkman, author of "Just How Stupid Are We?" thinks reform needs to start in high school. His strategy is both poetic (to certain ears) and pragmatic: Require students to read newspapers, and give college freshmen weekly quizzes on current events."
She (Parker) also offers some frightening conclusions if we do not have an educated citizenry:
"Both Shenkman and the ISI pose a bedeviling question, as crucial as any to the nation's health: Who will govern a free nation if no one understands the mechanics and instruments of that freedom?
Answer: Maybe one day, a demagogue."
Thank goodness we're not there. Yet.
This is a Civics Quiz sponsored by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI - not to be confused with Pakistan's Intelligence Agency).
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
This link is an article by Kathleen Parker reporting on the results of the quiz, and offering some great insight on possible remedies and what might happen in the future if our citizens are not properly educated with regard to Civics. It is probably best to take the quiz first and read the op-ed after, as Ms. Parker gives some answers away in the piece.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/25/AR2008112502104.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
In the interest of self-disclosure, I took the quiz and got an 81. This made me unhappy, as I felt like I should have gotten 100%.
Below is the breakdown on the scores, which is very BLEAK.
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/2008/report_card.html
One of the more frightening aspects is the gap between citizenry and "elected officials" (in the link it states that: "Of the 2,508 People surveyed, 164 say they have held an elected government office at least once in their life.")
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/2008/additional_finding.html
The bullet points at the bottom of this link should make every American a little queasy (for example: "Seventy-nine percent of those who have been elected to government office do not know the Bill of Rights expressly prohibits establishing an official religion for the U.S.")
In her piece, Ms. Parker speculates as to what's responsible for the "dumbing down" of America.
"The ISI found that passive activities, such as watching television (including TV news) and talking on the phone, diminish civic literacy."
Passive activities could also include listening to talk radio.......
Ms. Parker then reports:
"Actively pursuing information through print media and participating in high-level conversations -- even, potentially, blogging -- makes one smarter."
I certainly believe that "actively pursuing" information, and participating in high-level conversations makes one smarter. I do not support the idea that blogging necessarily makes one smarter, given some of the blogs I have seen out there (hopefully not this one :-)). Some blogs I've read have been light on facts and comprehensive thought, and heavy on tin-foil hat conspiracy speculations.
The op-ed then reports:
"Civics courses, once a staple of junior and high school education, are no longer considered important in our quantitative, leave-no-child-behind world."
Not to mention that a lot of states are teaching to a "Standards of Learning" test, which focuses on memorization of "factoids" more than comprehensive, deep knowledge of subjects.
So, how are our colleges doing? After all, that is generally the standard in the business world to define if one is "educated" enough for employment (whereas in years past it was having a high school diploma):
"And college adds little civic knowledge, the ISI study found. The average grade for those holding a bachelor's degree was just 57 percent -- only 13 points higher than the average score of those with only a high school diploma."
Ms. Parker offers some recommendations, which I heartily agree with:
"The ISI insists that higher-education reforms aimed at civic literacy are urgently needed. Who could argue otherwise? But historian Rick Shenkman, author of "Just How Stupid Are We?" thinks reform needs to start in high school. His strategy is both poetic (to certain ears) and pragmatic: Require students to read newspapers, and give college freshmen weekly quizzes on current events."
She (Parker) also offers some frightening conclusions if we do not have an educated citizenry:
"Both Shenkman and the ISI pose a bedeviling question, as crucial as any to the nation's health: Who will govern a free nation if no one understands the mechanics and instruments of that freedom?
Answer: Maybe one day, a demagogue."
Thank goodness we're not there. Yet.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Meltdown, one month hence
Up front, a note that this might well be disjointed and fragmented. Lots of different things going on which all interact together, but do not flow well because they come from different sectors of the whole of the economy.
Just to let it be known up front.
To start, a month and a half has gone by since Henry Paulson predicted "financial Armegeddon" if we did not do exactly what he told us, in the time frame he told us.
http://tuesdayramblings.blogspot.com/2008/09/meltdown.html
The situation has not really improved too much, and now, Paulson said that what they originally wanted to do to avoid Armegeddon was probably not the right thing to do, and we need to shift course and do something different.
On top of that, it's starting to come to light that banks are not using the money so graciously loaned to them by their fellow citizens to loan money to "Main Street, and get credit flowing again, but they are using the money to pay stockholder dividends, bonuses, and to acquire other banks.
Every American should be completely filled with rage at this news. Instead we are kind of getting a shrug of the shoulders and an "Eh".
Why? Because frankly, we EXPECT to be screwed. We expect the government and the experts to screw up. There is no faith that it will be done right, and that is a shame. This is the financial equivalent of the handling of Hurricane Katrina. The lack of foresight is the equivalent of pre-9/11 when intelligence agencies were briefing that something big was going to happen, and FBI agents in Arizona and Minnesota were telling headquarters, "hey, we probably ought to check out these Arab guys taking flying lessons".
Isn't it shameful that you know they are going to piss your money away, but there is not one thing you can do about it?
Just to let it be known up front.
To start, a month and a half has gone by since Henry Paulson predicted "financial Armegeddon" if we did not do exactly what he told us, in the time frame he told us.
http://tuesdayramblings.blogspot.com/2008/09/meltdown.html
The situation has not really improved too much, and now, Paulson said that what they originally wanted to do to avoid Armegeddon was probably not the right thing to do, and we need to shift course and do something different.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27721230/
I don't know about any of my fellow Americans, but this does not engender a lot of confidence.
On top of that, it's starting to come to light that banks are not using the money so graciously loaned to them by their fellow citizens to loan money to "Main Street, and get credit flowing again, but they are using the money to pay stockholder dividends, bonuses, and to acquire other banks.
Every American should be completely filled with rage at this news. Instead we are kind of getting a shrug of the shoulders and an "Eh".
Why? Because frankly, we EXPECT to be screwed. We expect the government and the experts to screw up. There is no faith that it will be done right, and that is a shame. This is the financial equivalent of the handling of Hurricane Katrina. The lack of foresight is the equivalent of pre-9/11 when intelligence agencies were briefing that something big was going to happen, and FBI agents in Arizona and Minnesota were telling headquarters, "hey, we probably ought to check out these Arab guys taking flying lessons".
Isn't it shameful that you know they are going to piss your money away, but there is not one thing you can do about it?
Is there any surprise here? Giving these companies this money is like giving your crack addicted son or daughter $700 to pay the rent. What does that addict do? That addict BUYS CRACK. The addict does NOT pay the rent. It's kind of the same principle here. You give the folks who recklessly ran these businesses into the ground more money, expecting them to do the "right thing" this time. Why is there a surprise when the right thing is not done?
To me, the big story of the economy right now might not be the stock market, or this bailout, but companies like Circuit City going bankrupt, and Best Buy having "seismic" problems with their business. The story of consumer confidence and consumer spending.
To be frank, there is nothing that Best Buy or Circuit City sells that is a NECESSITY. They did pretty good for awhile, sold a lot of stuff, and made a lot of money. They got their money, because when you swipe that credit card, they get their money. So, we bought a lot of stuff, but we did not PAY for a lot of stuff. The economy seems to be telling us now that we don't get to buy any more cool stuff until we PAY for the stuff we have now.
We have lived for a long time, the lifestyle of the rich and the famous. Only we have done it on credit, and by not paying for it when we bought it. We have not saved money. We have just counted on something happening to be able to pay the bills when it came time to pay the bills. This was largely the issue with Sub Prime mortgages too.
Now, it is time to pay the bills and the money is not there. Additionally, to get the economy flowing again, consumer spending must be ramped up. But, guess what. The money is not there to ramp up consumer spending.
Pessimistically, I can not really see this ending any other way but bad. I think, at least for awhile the days of rapacious conspicuous consumption are severly curtailed, if not completely over.
The latest economic news being discussed (disgust) is the idea of bailing out the Big Three Auto Makers. There are a lot of arguments by economists, pundits and others, pro and con. These companies mostly were as poorly managed as the other companies we are bailing out. They guessed wrong every time they had a chance to look at market trends or energy trends. Not only did they guess wrong, but some would say that they willfully tried to push their vision onto consumers who were looking for more fuel efficient quality cars. This is why Toyota has been consistently moving up and doing better than the big three.
I do not know about this at all (bailing out the big three).
I do know that we need to really figure out what is going on, and get America back on the right track. Otherwise, we are going to be in deep trouble.
Now is not the time for small, timid thinking. Now is the time for audacious, bold thinking. Is our government up to it? They have not shown over the past several years that they were. I would be pleasantly surprised if this time they were.
See, I said it would be disjointed and fragmented. That must be caused by the anger.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Arabs to the left of us.....
Arabs to the right. Here I am stuck in the middle with you......
I haven't spent any time writing here on the Presidential campaigns. While sometimes interesting, surreal, groundbreaking and entertaining, I just haven't felt the need to say anything.
Until now.
First off, a guy in Minnesota says that he's afraid of raising his child in a country where Obama is President. To which, John McCain replies there is no need to fear Barack Obama. He's a decent family man, a decent man, to which the crowd replies BOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122368132195924869.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27130171/
Then, later another lady says she cannot trust Obama, because, and I'm not making this up, he's an Arab. John McCain then snatches the mike out of her hand and says, no, he is not an Arab. Come on. If you are going to hate someone for their race or the color of their skin, at least get it right. He's a BLACK GUY. Last time I checked, being Arab was not illegal - one more 9/11 attack, and MAYBE it will be. Certainly I know a lot of Arabs FEEL like it's illegal to be Arab in America.
I cannot wait to hear how this will be spun on Monday. But I think it will go something like this (bulletized for your convenience):
I haven't spent any time writing here on the Presidential campaigns. While sometimes interesting, surreal, groundbreaking and entertaining, I just haven't felt the need to say anything.
Until now.
First off, a guy in Minnesota says that he's afraid of raising his child in a country where Obama is President. To which, John McCain replies there is no need to fear Barack Obama. He's a decent family man, a decent man, to which the crowd replies BOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122368132195924869.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27130171/
Then, later another lady says she cannot trust Obama, because, and I'm not making this up, he's an Arab. John McCain then snatches the mike out of her hand and says, no, he is not an Arab. Come on. If you are going to hate someone for their race or the color of their skin, at least get it right. He's a BLACK GUY. Last time I checked, being Arab was not illegal - one more 9/11 attack, and MAYBE it will be. Certainly I know a lot of Arabs FEEL like it's illegal to be Arab in America.
I cannot wait to hear how this will be spun on Monday. But I think it will go something like this (bulletized for your convenience):
- Why did you not have any of the good comments, only the bad ones (maybe a fair assertion)
- Well, that's just the liberal media trying to make John McCain look bad (when in reality, it made him look good by taking control of a situation turning ugly)
- People are angry. Stuff happens. The liberals have anger too, but the MSM just refuses to cover it.
I think that John McCain looked genuinely hurt that this happened. I really sensed that. You could see it in his face. For one second, I felt kind of sorry for him. But, then I remembered "I'm John McCain and I approved this message".
For most of the last two weeks, the McCain campaign, in an effort to take the eyes off the molten meltdown of the economy have been touting Barack Osama (oops, I mean Obama) as a terrorist and a terrorist sympathizer. The most dangerous man, trying to become President. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
So, when it turns ugly, you can't really now say, well, hey, he's a great guy. A dedicated family man. All that other stuff we said? Hey, you know, that's just part of the campaign. Wink, wink. We really didn't MEAN it.
We need to get off of this negative stuff. People are losing their homes. Their jobs. Their life savings. The Dow is dropping faster than a big rock dropped into a deep lake, with all the ripples that you get when you drop a rock in a lake emanating out into the world financial markets.
And what doe the McCain campaign want to focus on? Some board Barack Obama sat on with some guy several years back, and the guy on that board did bad things - of course, Barack Obama was EIGHT YEARS OLD when those things happened. Simply by KNOWING the guy, that makes him a terrorist.
I think Americans are looking for leadership, but, sadly the candidates don' t have anything else other than to bring stuff like this up. The Republicans simply cannot stop this campaigning because it is all they've known for twenty years or more. First with Lee Atwater, then with Karl Rove, and now the disciples that Karl Rove trained up. It's pretty hard to throw the manual out the window, especially since it worked - until now.
America saw last night some real ugliness. When it goes bad, it's easy to blame minorities and outsiders. History has a long list of that happening. Most of those situations turned out bad.
I hope that we're better than that.
I don't know though.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
CRA? Please. Give me a break
The newest story put forth by Conservatives is that the current financial meltdown can be blamed on some do gooder, socialism minded liberals and minorities.
The abridged story told by the Conservative spin machine is that a program called the Community Reinvestment Act passed in the seventies and beefed up by Bill Clinton FORCED banks to give minorities bad loans, which led to this current crisis. So, it is all the fault of community organizers (hey, wasn't that Barack Obama guy a community organizer?), Liberal Democrats and minorities.
I am going to post a few articles from various sources below which debunk this story quite nicely. The problem is that those who are disposed to believe this will not believe the stories because they come from the LIBERAL spin machine - the mainstream media.
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008104107/pre-inventing-history
http://www.newsweek.com/id/162789
Of course, if you look hard enough you can find articles to justify that the CRA was to blame (go to any conservative talk radio person's blog or web site and I'll bet you'll find it). The above is just a random sampling of several articles supporting the idea of this fallacy. I could probably post 15 or 20 that I've found.
Most of the bad loans given were given by institutions NOT covered by the dictates of the CRA.
They gave those loans out not because of any altruism that they wanted to see the joy of someone owning a home, or fear of government regulation. They gave those loans out because they made a lot of money doing so.
There has been a lot of talk about the loan givers. Not much talk about the loan takers. At the risk so sounding cold and politically incorrect, some of those people had no business owning the homes they were put into. Some of them could not afford the homes, but the desire for instant gratification, and the American desire for consumption made the loan an easy take. The loan guy probably said, well, one more loan won't hurt the system (IF he had the scruples to think that way), and the loanee, in most cases said, well, I MIGHT get a better job before the big numbers come due, or I MIGHT get a raise.
What we got in the end was disaster.
There are several reasons this story (the CRA = Housing Crash/Credit Crunch story) needs to be pedaled now. One is to try to take down Barack Obama's campaign a few notches. The most important reason though is to blame a powerless group to divert attention from the big companies who gave out these reckless loans and the other ones that ran their companies into the dirt through risky and reckless accounting practices. Also to divert attention from a system in Washington which turned a blind eye while all this was going on.
It is also to deflect attention from their child like mantra that if you only take the hands off the market, the market will do the right thing, and will eventually correct itself. This works great, right up to the moment the government has to step in and pump massive infusions of cash in to save whatever capitalist venture that has gone wrong.
If they admitted to these things, they would have to admit that their premises about capitalism and economics were mostly incorrect.
Never mind all of this stuff above.
Does it really sound plausible that handing out a few bags of shekels to some minorities could be the cause of the WHOLE WORLD ECONOMIC SYSTEM to crash in a violent and cataclysmic manner? I don't even know how they can say it with a straight face.
And if that small event could cause the whole system to crash, what does that say about the robustness of the system? The resiliency of the system?
Not much in my opinion.
There is something fundamentally wrong with the system. In the weeks, months and years to come, we MIGHT find out what it is, or we might not.
It is acknowledged now that a lot of folks thought they understood the system, but that it has become so fast acting and complex that they do not understand it at all.
In the mean time, the need exists for those who can look at the WHOLE economy. Not just the bits and pieces that strike the media fancy that day (i.e. the stock market one day, unemployment the next).
Going to be some interesting, painful, scary times.
The abridged story told by the Conservative spin machine is that a program called the Community Reinvestment Act passed in the seventies and beefed up by Bill Clinton FORCED banks to give minorities bad loans, which led to this current crisis. So, it is all the fault of community organizers (hey, wasn't that Barack Obama guy a community organizer?), Liberal Democrats and minorities.
I am going to post a few articles from various sources below which debunk this story quite nicely. The problem is that those who are disposed to believe this will not believe the stories because they come from the LIBERAL spin machine - the mainstream media.
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008104107/pre-inventing-history
http://www.newsweek.com/id/162789
Of course, if you look hard enough you can find articles to justify that the CRA was to blame (go to any conservative talk radio person's blog or web site and I'll bet you'll find it). The above is just a random sampling of several articles supporting the idea of this fallacy. I could probably post 15 or 20 that I've found.
Most of the bad loans given were given by institutions NOT covered by the dictates of the CRA.
They gave those loans out not because of any altruism that they wanted to see the joy of someone owning a home, or fear of government regulation. They gave those loans out because they made a lot of money doing so.
There has been a lot of talk about the loan givers. Not much talk about the loan takers. At the risk so sounding cold and politically incorrect, some of those people had no business owning the homes they were put into. Some of them could not afford the homes, but the desire for instant gratification, and the American desire for consumption made the loan an easy take. The loan guy probably said, well, one more loan won't hurt the system (IF he had the scruples to think that way), and the loanee, in most cases said, well, I MIGHT get a better job before the big numbers come due, or I MIGHT get a raise.
What we got in the end was disaster.
There are several reasons this story (the CRA = Housing Crash/Credit Crunch story) needs to be pedaled now. One is to try to take down Barack Obama's campaign a few notches. The most important reason though is to blame a powerless group to divert attention from the big companies who gave out these reckless loans and the other ones that ran their companies into the dirt through risky and reckless accounting practices. Also to divert attention from a system in Washington which turned a blind eye while all this was going on.
It is also to deflect attention from their child like mantra that if you only take the hands off the market, the market will do the right thing, and will eventually correct itself. This works great, right up to the moment the government has to step in and pump massive infusions of cash in to save whatever capitalist venture that has gone wrong.
If they admitted to these things, they would have to admit that their premises about capitalism and economics were mostly incorrect.
Never mind all of this stuff above.
Does it really sound plausible that handing out a few bags of shekels to some minorities could be the cause of the WHOLE WORLD ECONOMIC SYSTEM to crash in a violent and cataclysmic manner? I don't even know how they can say it with a straight face.
And if that small event could cause the whole system to crash, what does that say about the robustness of the system? The resiliency of the system?
Not much in my opinion.
There is something fundamentally wrong with the system. In the weeks, months and years to come, we MIGHT find out what it is, or we might not.
It is acknowledged now that a lot of folks thought they understood the system, but that it has become so fast acting and complex that they do not understand it at all.
In the mean time, the need exists for those who can look at the WHOLE economy. Not just the bits and pieces that strike the media fancy that day (i.e. the stock market one day, unemployment the next).
Going to be some interesting, painful, scary times.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Meltdown
I have been watching, like the rest of my fellow Americans, this financial meltdown mess.
I have also been watching the Treasury Secretary's efforts to "correct" the problem in the form of a $700 billion dollar tax payer funded bailout. Of course, this does not even bring into the windshield view all the other issues, like the $2 trillion dollar (that is probably a conservative estimate) "time bomb" created by the never ending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That bomb will go off eventually and it WILL come due.
There has been much written and much said. Why do I feel qualified to address this? I have not done any worse than the "experts" in their predictions on the state of the economy. I am not any smarter than anyone else, I just largely did what I did with the Iraq war. Listened to what the government "experts" were saying and believed pretty much the polar opposite.
On August 14 2007 in this blog I wrote:
"Our economy, while APPEARING strong is a house of cards built on credit and the promise of cheap, plentiful energy, either of which could evaporate at any moment (and as far as credit goes has been heading that way)."
On March 7 2008 I wrote:
"One of the things I've been talking about over the past several days to my friends is the idea of looking at the economy as a whole. The people in Washington count on the idea that Americans are going to look at the economy in somewhat of a fragmented way - almost as if there are "economy boxes" - there's the energy economy box, the health care box, the housing box, the manufacturing box, the war box. It is ALL ONE BOX.What happens to one sector of the economy affects ALL sectors of the economy."
This is an excerpt from a piece by William Greider, in which he cites Section 8 of this provision. Hopefully, this will change:
"Section 8. Review. Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
This seems to be giving the government nearly dictatorial powers to deal with the economy. This is not even remotely American, OR Constitutional. The decisions of a lot of totalitarian governments with regard to their economies have been "non-reviewable" through the years. How many of those economies are still thriving?
This reminds me a lot of the rapid passing of the Patriot Act without much comment and review in the raw emotional times after 9/11.
It is also interesting to read that some economists do not absolutely believe this is the best way to handle the crisis.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/23/AR2008092302326.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26861562/
The path of least resistance which Treasury is taking seems to be to hit the taxpayers. Why? Because there is not much, in reality we can do to stop them. We could not stop them from going to war, and we can not stop them from doing this. They seem to be telling the Congress that if you don't do this, it is YOUR fault whatever happens. Congress seems to be falling in line from the bullying.
I do not know if this bail out is the right thing to do or not - I have my doubts based on what I've read. I certainly believe that it is prudent to independently monitor this. We must act swiftly, but not so swiftly that we give away the farm.
I'm also certain that the people who got us into this mess must hate the demand for independent review. When you turn that rock over in your back yard that has been sitting there for awhile, it is very interesting to see what kinds of things crawl out from under it.
A lot of people have compared this plan with Socialism. I think that is a pretty good analogy. My view is that they see us as working mules (or sheep) - not very smart, and an unending flow of easy cash to take and spend as they see fit.
Our contribution to it all is to just give them the money, and let them take care of the problem for us.
I'm not sure that is good enough.
I have also been watching the Treasury Secretary's efforts to "correct" the problem in the form of a $700 billion dollar tax payer funded bailout. Of course, this does not even bring into the windshield view all the other issues, like the $2 trillion dollar (that is probably a conservative estimate) "time bomb" created by the never ending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That bomb will go off eventually and it WILL come due.
There has been much written and much said. Why do I feel qualified to address this? I have not done any worse than the "experts" in their predictions on the state of the economy. I am not any smarter than anyone else, I just largely did what I did with the Iraq war. Listened to what the government "experts" were saying and believed pretty much the polar opposite.
On August 14 2007 in this blog I wrote:
"Our economy, while APPEARING strong is a house of cards built on credit and the promise of cheap, plentiful energy, either of which could evaporate at any moment (and as far as credit goes has been heading that way)."
On March 7 2008 I wrote:
"One of the things I've been talking about over the past several days to my friends is the idea of looking at the economy as a whole. The people in Washington count on the idea that Americans are going to look at the economy in somewhat of a fragmented way - almost as if there are "economy boxes" - there's the energy economy box, the health care box, the housing box, the manufacturing box, the war box. It is ALL ONE BOX.What happens to one sector of the economy affects ALL sectors of the economy."
This is an excerpt from a piece by William Greider, in which he cites Section 8 of this provision. Hopefully, this will change:
"Section 8. Review. Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
This seems to be giving the government nearly dictatorial powers to deal with the economy. This is not even remotely American, OR Constitutional. The decisions of a lot of totalitarian governments with regard to their economies have been "non-reviewable" through the years. How many of those economies are still thriving?
This reminds me a lot of the rapid passing of the Patriot Act without much comment and review in the raw emotional times after 9/11.
It is also interesting to read that some economists do not absolutely believe this is the best way to handle the crisis.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/23/AR2008092302326.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26861562/
The path of least resistance which Treasury is taking seems to be to hit the taxpayers. Why? Because there is not much, in reality we can do to stop them. We could not stop them from going to war, and we can not stop them from doing this. They seem to be telling the Congress that if you don't do this, it is YOUR fault whatever happens. Congress seems to be falling in line from the bullying.
I do not know if this bail out is the right thing to do or not - I have my doubts based on what I've read. I certainly believe that it is prudent to independently monitor this. We must act swiftly, but not so swiftly that we give away the farm.
I'm also certain that the people who got us into this mess must hate the demand for independent review. When you turn that rock over in your back yard that has been sitting there for awhile, it is very interesting to see what kinds of things crawl out from under it.
A lot of people have compared this plan with Socialism. I think that is a pretty good analogy. My view is that they see us as working mules (or sheep) - not very smart, and an unending flow of easy cash to take and spend as they see fit.
Our contribution to it all is to just give them the money, and let them take care of the problem for us.
I'm not sure that is good enough.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Knoxville
It's unfortunately becoming more common. Guy walks into "x" locale heavily armed and shoots up the place (and just today, some maniac up in Wisconsin ambushed some kids swimming in the river).
This happened just recently in Knoxville, where one Jim Adkisson shot up the Unitarian Universalist Church during a children's performance of the musical Annie.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25872864/
There has been a lot of coverage that Mr. Adkisson did this despicable act to get at the liberals (stating that he couldn't get at the "Liberal Leadership - whoever the heck that is so he decided to shoot up this church because they are known for their liberal tendencies).
There has also been a lot of coverage that Mr. Adkisson was a fan of Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Savage, etc.
At the outset, the blame for this act should be laid squarely at the feet of the shooter. It is obvious that he is a profoundly broken human being.
The case will be made by those media outlets that lots of people listen to and read those peoples books every day and don't shoot up a church, so they couldn't have had anything to do with it.
This may be true. But, this guy was unemployed. So, what did he do all day? Probably stayed home and listened to the radio, and read the books. Day after day, hour after hour of ingesting those ideas that only agreed with and aligned with what HE personally believed.
This one deranged individual excluded, I think this is a bigger example of the polarization of this country. I also believe this is indicative of a new kind of coarse "entertainment" - that which disguises itself as "news" and "discussion" of the issues. In reality, these folks seek to divide (while saying they seek to unify), they seek to make us deathly afraid of the "other" whether that be someone of a different color, different faith, different nationality, or whatever.
Fear is their stock and trade, and fear is what they want to sow. Oh, they wrap it up quite righteously saying they only want to "spread the truth". But at the bottom, it's fear they want to spread.
For there is power in making people afraid.
I find it laughable that conservative talk radio and television hosts complain about the "liberal media" and yet they have literally 24 hours of total coverage somewhere on the media spectrum. Whether it be Fox News, or EIB, or whatever.
There is not even a good division anymore of what constitutes a liberal or conservative. For instance, Hannity, et al say that if you don't support the President and his wars, you are a disloyal traitorous liberal. But since day one of the wars conservative pundits such as Pat Buchanan and Paul Craig Roberts have been extremely tough on this war. NO ONE would EVER accuse Pat Buchanan of being a liberal. His conservative credentials are well known, and are certainly not in doubt.
Another thing that interests me is that the mainstream media gives so much attention to these bottom feeders. Witness the talk about Rush Limbaugh affecting the primaries. Witness the recent flap over Michael Savage and Autism. Why not just ignore them? By giving them the press, you give them EXACTLY what they want - publicity, and a platform for them to whine, mule and cry about how they are being persecuted by that mean old liberal media machine.
I believe that the proliferation of shows like Limbaugh, etc prove just how shallow we've become as a people, and despite how much we say we want to debate and understand the issues, we really just want to make all the issues a simple x = y event.
If "x" happens it is because of "y". And so much the better "y" is black, latino, an immigrant, on welfare, or whatever.
We are in deep trouble as a country. Watching Fox News or listening to Rush Limbaugh will not help us solve our problems which are extremely deep and widely systemic. We have economic woes. We have social woes. We are running two wars which the conservative press would like you to believe we are winning. Most likely we are not (and Bill Lind has a GREAT piece on that called something like Why McCain is Wrong http://www.d-n-i.net - EVERY American should read Bill Lind), and the wars are slowly bleeding the life out of this country.
I think the labels Conservative and Liberal are so overused and tired that they really don't mean anything anymore. I also do understand that those on the left sometimes trade in as much hate and fear as those on the right.
I don't consider myself Liberal or Conservative, nor have I for a few years. I call myself a "Recovering Conservative". Like when you decide to get sober of alcohol or drugs. You go to a meeting and get a poker chip.
My mother told me once that my politics were to the right of Pat Buchanan. I am somewhat ashamed that I ever held such views. I now like to consider myself independent. Hopefully a systems thinker. Progressive. Anything but those two other labels.
So, in the final analysis, what is the solution? Do not ban Limbaugh, etc. That will only make them what they want to be: Radio Martyrs. This will "prove" to them and their followers that the world is out to get them. The final solution is to turn them off and ignore them. Read a book. Talk to your wife and kids. Go to the library. Love your neighbor as yourself as Jesus taught us.
Anything but feeding off of those parasites.
Nothing Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin say is profound or deep. Nothing they say is particularly important in the grand scheme of things either.
This happened just recently in Knoxville, where one Jim Adkisson shot up the Unitarian Universalist Church during a children's performance of the musical Annie.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25872864/
There has been a lot of coverage that Mr. Adkisson did this despicable act to get at the liberals (stating that he couldn't get at the "Liberal Leadership - whoever the heck that is so he decided to shoot up this church because they are known for their liberal tendencies).
There has also been a lot of coverage that Mr. Adkisson was a fan of Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Savage, etc.
At the outset, the blame for this act should be laid squarely at the feet of the shooter. It is obvious that he is a profoundly broken human being.
The case will be made by those media outlets that lots of people listen to and read those peoples books every day and don't shoot up a church, so they couldn't have had anything to do with it.
This may be true. But, this guy was unemployed. So, what did he do all day? Probably stayed home and listened to the radio, and read the books. Day after day, hour after hour of ingesting those ideas that only agreed with and aligned with what HE personally believed.
This one deranged individual excluded, I think this is a bigger example of the polarization of this country. I also believe this is indicative of a new kind of coarse "entertainment" - that which disguises itself as "news" and "discussion" of the issues. In reality, these folks seek to divide (while saying they seek to unify), they seek to make us deathly afraid of the "other" whether that be someone of a different color, different faith, different nationality, or whatever.
Fear is their stock and trade, and fear is what they want to sow. Oh, they wrap it up quite righteously saying they only want to "spread the truth". But at the bottom, it's fear they want to spread.
For there is power in making people afraid.
I find it laughable that conservative talk radio and television hosts complain about the "liberal media" and yet they have literally 24 hours of total coverage somewhere on the media spectrum. Whether it be Fox News, or EIB, or whatever.
There is not even a good division anymore of what constitutes a liberal or conservative. For instance, Hannity, et al say that if you don't support the President and his wars, you are a disloyal traitorous liberal. But since day one of the wars conservative pundits such as Pat Buchanan and Paul Craig Roberts have been extremely tough on this war. NO ONE would EVER accuse Pat Buchanan of being a liberal. His conservative credentials are well known, and are certainly not in doubt.
Another thing that interests me is that the mainstream media gives so much attention to these bottom feeders. Witness the talk about Rush Limbaugh affecting the primaries. Witness the recent flap over Michael Savage and Autism. Why not just ignore them? By giving them the press, you give them EXACTLY what they want - publicity, and a platform for them to whine, mule and cry about how they are being persecuted by that mean old liberal media machine.
I believe that the proliferation of shows like Limbaugh, etc prove just how shallow we've become as a people, and despite how much we say we want to debate and understand the issues, we really just want to make all the issues a simple x = y event.
If "x" happens it is because of "y". And so much the better "y" is black, latino, an immigrant, on welfare, or whatever.
We are in deep trouble as a country. Watching Fox News or listening to Rush Limbaugh will not help us solve our problems which are extremely deep and widely systemic. We have economic woes. We have social woes. We are running two wars which the conservative press would like you to believe we are winning. Most likely we are not (and Bill Lind has a GREAT piece on that called something like Why McCain is Wrong http://www.d-n-i.net - EVERY American should read Bill Lind), and the wars are slowly bleeding the life out of this country.
I think the labels Conservative and Liberal are so overused and tired that they really don't mean anything anymore. I also do understand that those on the left sometimes trade in as much hate and fear as those on the right.
I don't consider myself Liberal or Conservative, nor have I for a few years. I call myself a "Recovering Conservative". Like when you decide to get sober of alcohol or drugs. You go to a meeting and get a poker chip.
My mother told me once that my politics were to the right of Pat Buchanan. I am somewhat ashamed that I ever held such views. I now like to consider myself independent. Hopefully a systems thinker. Progressive. Anything but those two other labels.
So, in the final analysis, what is the solution? Do not ban Limbaugh, etc. That will only make them what they want to be: Radio Martyrs. This will "prove" to them and their followers that the world is out to get them. The final solution is to turn them off and ignore them. Read a book. Talk to your wife and kids. Go to the library. Love your neighbor as yourself as Jesus taught us.
Anything but feeding off of those parasites.
Nothing Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin say is profound or deep. Nothing they say is particularly important in the grand scheme of things either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)