Sunday, September 11, 2011 - ten years later - was a day of reflection, if you believe everything you saw on television. The day was all about the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and Flight 93. The day certainly gave me a lot to think about, from the moving ceremony at Ground Zero to the 60 Minute interview with FBI Agent Ali Soufan, who interrogated Al Qaeda operatives (Frontline did an excellent job documenting Soufan's activities), to the documentary "9/11" hosted by Robert Di Niro about Engine #7, Ladder 1, a New York Fire Department response team just down the street from the World Trade Center, to the interviews with the 9/11 victims to the huge growth of America's Top Secret Security apparatus since 9/11, a thousand fold increase that now spies on its own citizens. Not all 9/11 victims died in the World Trade Center. Some were victims of the instant mood of the day; the national cry for vengeance, the dose of uber-patriotism - "the day the gloves came off," Cofer Black said. Cofer Black was "The" guy who sold Congress and the Bush Administration the "New" CIA war plan back then. He was in the right place at the right time with a plan, right or wrong, and America followed him to war. Well... there were a lot of people in the Bush Administration who already had war on their minds, especially war with Iraq. It was just a minor detail that Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan and not in Iraq, a detail that could be revised, repackaged and sold to fit the Bush agenda - even if it was a lie - especially after 9/11 finally set America's state of mind. The Iraqi War was a "product" and Bush put it on display. It is ironic that the Christian Evangelicals, one of which President Bush claimed to be, were so ready to go to war. It is ironic that, from their own behavior and speech, the God they claimed to represent mercy and justice became a God of War and injustice. After 9/11, America didn't care who it attacked, as long as the target could be even remotely connected to the Muslim extremists. The Christian Charismatic churches cheered - the end of days were near, the final war had begun. The War on Terror began - against Muslims, no matter who said it wasn't.
Two of my brother's grandchildren were born only a few weeks around the 9/11 attack. He reflected on the ten year anniversary, "What kind of world had my new grandchildren been born into?" What kind of world indeed? I would say a world of war, and this time it's different. They are ten years old and they've already been indoctrinated, in spite of anything my brother did himself, into the new America, an America with the "gloves off." They've heard the uber-patriotic ads on television and at movies about the glory of joining the National Guard, Army, Marine Corps and, although less so, the Navy and Air Force. They've heard to heroic deeds of Navy Seal Team Six who, in the dark of night and in a hostile country, killed Osama bin Laden. These are the paths to heroic deeds. They've never heard anything else. They've heard "God Bless America" so many times that they believe it's true. They will hear, if they haven't already, that "collateral damage" that kills a hundred thousand innocent Muslims is okay, and even willed by God. They will learn that torture is called "enhanced interrogation" and is necessary to find the truth, even though it never has. They may even get a daily dose of how God is on the side of our warriors, because the words "warrior" and "God" are used together more today than in the lifetime of their grandparents since World War II, if they were used as frequently in that war. The video games they see advertised, even if they don't play them, are mostly war games. Even churches build war game-rooms to attract new young members. Selling the American warrior is a big business.
By the time those children are eighteen, only eight years away, they will have been fully indoctrinated in the ways of war. We, America, may still be at war at that time, because Afghanistan is not a war we can end, even though it is identical to Vietnam, a war we did finally end by of overwhelming opinion against it. Nor will those children know any other economic system than one which gives unreasonably low wages to labor and extraordinarily high incomes to those lucky few to become industry leaders; the "trickle down free market" system. It is God's economic system, it is the system of "freedom." We've been told that for forty years. They will accept the fact that if they don't make it out of the lowly labor force, well - that's tough. They will believe that it is God's will that they are poor while other's have been given the blessing of the gospel of prosperity. That is the new religion that they will believe has been gospel forever. It hasn't been.
The above paints a picture of indoctrination, and I guess one might think that it began relatively recently, but it began a long time ago. This latest cycle, if I could point to a specific time, began in the 50s and 60s, with the rise of the New Conservatives, the neo-conservatives. Originally, Irving Kristol, the "father of new conservatism," was a Marxist, specifically a Trotskyist, and a liberal intellectual, but that changed under President Lyndon Johnson. Kristol's neocons liked Johnson's war against communism, especially in Vietnam, but they did not like his "Great Society" of welfare, so Kristol led his growing following to the Republican Party to support Senator Bary Goldwater's Cold War against communism. As a student of philosophy, he brought with him a philosophical principles that make me cringe.
"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." Abraham Lincoln said that. He should have added, "but, you can fool enough of the people all of the time." All it takes is "enough" of the people to gain power. Kristol knew this as did many of his closest followers, who later became the leaders of neo-conservatism. They preferred the political realism of Machiavelli, who principally said that anything goes in grabbing power; the goal is more important than the means used to get there, and the goal, even back in Irving's day, was to once and for all grab the ultimate power in the United States and keep it. People like Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Pearle, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, all key players in Bush's Iraq invasion. Kristol particularly liked a Chicago University Professor/Philosopher, Leo Strauss. He integrated Strauss' philosophy into the New Conservative movement. Strauss believed, like Machiavelli, and taught that "fooling the people" was appropriate to gain power, and he especially believed that religion could be used as a tool to fool people into supporting a political agenda even when the agenda was against the best interest of the people. Religion, Strauss said, was a useful myth. Another neocon who joined Cheney and Rumsfeld in the Nixon White House was Roger Ailes, who is now the Chairman of Fox Television Stations Group and runs Fox News Corp. Ailes was the media consultant to Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, G. H. Bush and Rudy Giuliani. It was Ailes who saw the benefit of political party-media coalitions and propaganda in keeping a party in power and using the media, slyly designed advertising and outright propaganda to persuade a public to keep a political party in power.
And so the die is cast. My brother's grandchildren will hear it everyday, as many other children will and have, perhaps not directly from their grandparents, but in school, or maybe a teacher, or an aunt or uncle or their own parents. There is a teacher in South Gibson High School who regularly distributes anti-Obama, ultra Right Wing, Republican and racist emails to his list almost daily. That teacher will teach his hate and lies. They will not know that the government does good things because they hear that the government "is the problem." They will believe that all Muslims are evil. They hear angry slurs, curses, rumors and innuendo against President Obama, who really doesn't deserve the slurs and who, in fact, has followed more of a Republican agenda than he has a liberal left agenda. He is a good man. He is, in fact, a Christian man, but they will believe that he is a Muslim. They will not know that Bush's wars were illegal and unjust wars or that Bush is more likely a war criminal than not. Nobody told them that. How could they know? They live in a comfortable and secure home. They do not know how close they live to poverty caused by the deregulation, war and militaristic policies of the Right that slowly decayed the heart of a country since Ronald Reagan. They will never know that what they've seen and heard from the Right-Wing is more fascist than American democracy.
Congressman Ron Paul is more right than wrong when he said that the 9/11 attack is a result of three decades, and probably longer, of misdirected American foreign policies. We've been led down a road of force diplomacy rather than peace diplomacy. It is all documented on the website of the Project for New American Century, the website of the neo-conservatives, above. It is one of fear and of projecting America's military force to spread America's morality, system of government and its economic hegemony. But, Ron Paul was met with a yelling mob when he suggested that America may be partly at fault for the 9/11 attack as much as it was the hate of Muslim extremists. The yelling mob proves more that the indoctrination is successful than it proves any knowledge of truth by the citizenry.
So, ten years later, Americans have been indoctrinated very successfully. Most citizens hate Muslims - all of them. Most citizens glorify American warriors and reject any idea that their own children are being sacrificed or scared for life or destined to live a life with disabilities. We turn our back on anyone complaining, legitimately, of war-caused bodily or psychological wounds. Complainers are un-American. Suck it up and live with it, is the message. God is a war god and we lack faith if we question that idea. "Get a job!" we scream at the unemployed, even though there are no jobs. Suddenly, the unemployed are freeloaders. Suddenly, the poor who have no place to turn are freeloaders if they take welfare. They should get a job or starve, we're told. Actually, none of these things happened "suddenly." It has been a gradual indoctrination, a brainwashing, in all aspects of American life, even religion. A preacher, Jerry Falwell, who was once thought to be a radical has become mainstream. He founded a university that teaches his particular religious beliefs and a number of Liberty University law students became district attorneys across the country. Publishing companies owned by Falwell, and other equally radical Christian organizations and preachers, now distribute their particularly radical beliefs to churches for Sunday School or the prepared text for the pastor's Sunday Sermon and even so-called "Christian" home-schooling. These companies even publish school books and many states now incorporate religious ideology in public school books.
America's indoctrination is nearly complete, if not fully complete. Now, all that's needed is maintenance, such as making sure new generations are brainwashed for the future, sort of like Hitler's youth programs that turned children against their own parents; country before family. It is all so easy. The truth is that 9/11 was the day that America turned it's back, a slow turn to be sure, on all of our compassionate and democratic beliefs. It was the day that we gave up freedom for security. It was the day that we became afraid. It was the day that we completed the Right Wing agenda and turned our back on God.
Dave
Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts
Friday, September 16, 2011
Friday, August 5, 2011
Bloomberg For President
August 5, 2011
Honorable Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg
City Hall
New York, NY 10007
Subject: Bloomberg for President
Honorable Michael Bloomberg:
It's time for you to get off the pot. It is time for you to throw your hat into the contentious 2012 presidential campaign as an Independent candidate. There is no doubt in my mind that you will win. Why?
It is obvious that the insane Republicans are going to block President Obama at every turn and they are going to make him fail in spite of any good idea or good policy he has. He is criticized at every opportunity, undeservedly. They, the Republicans, will go to any length to make him a one-term president, even to the extent of going on a five week vacation without officially adjourning Congress. Of course if Congress is not adjourned while it is on vacation, President Obama cannot make recess appointments and many government offices remain vacant or filled by the previous president's appointments. They may never be filled. President Obama is hamstrung, helpless and made ineffective. The country suffers as a result.
On the other hand, the horde of Republican candidates, both declared and in the wings, are a bunch of morons, some crazier than others, that couldn't lead their own butts out of a paper bag. Even with congressional support, they would devastate the country, probably cause another expensive war, turn over vital services to their crony contractors, and kill off Medicare, Social Security, the EPA, Housing, Education and likely send us into lawless chaos.
We need help!
You seem to have a level head on your shoulders and common sense far above any Republican hopeful. I'm convinced that you will win if you run. Good God, is there anyone else who is remotely more capable than you to lead this country on the political horizon?
So, suit up and get running. It's time to give this country a jolt of hope and the world confidence in America again. Obama can't. My budget may be able to afford $5.00 a month to help you but I'll go into to debt and chip in $10 a month. At least, you'll have your billions plus $10 to pay for the campaign.
Get off the pot. Please.
Sincerely yours,
Dave Clark
Castro Valley, CA
Thursday, August 4, 2011
The Blinding Micro and the Macro of Kindness
Just when I think I have nothing more to say, I'm compelled to say something, probably with no effect but I'll say it anyway. I've just returned from a two week visit to my roots, Owensville, IN, my favorite little town and the best place in the world, at a time when the country is torn between a factious Right-Wing Republican uprising and, in my opinion, common sense. We all watched a divided congress and entrenched factions fight to the bitter end over the debt ceiling and deficit spending. And, through it all I continued to search for a reason that some people follow the extreme right and vote Republican. It made no sense to me that a small faction, claimed by some congressmen to be the Tea Party, would jeopardize our national economy for the sake of their own political beliefs, such as adamantly voting against any hint of the rich or corporations paying more taxes even if the United States defaulted. The Bill they passed promised cuts in services, a trigger for the Bush tax cuts to expire if a super committee didn't find more cuts, and more cuts. I wonder.
Why adamantly hold to ideological beliefs when such devastating results hang in the balance? And, even more perplexing is that some I talked to actually wanted America to default, a sort of "that'll teach 'em" attitude. It seemed to me that they are like drug addicts, that they won't realize how wrong they are until they hit absolute bottom, when unemployment and poverty levels have doubled and we have fallen back into recession, and only then admit that they were wrong. But, after talking and listening, I doubt that they will ever admit to mistaken beliefs. They will never see the connection between their vote and bad policy. They will never see that they bear a great deal of responsibility for the condition the country is in. A Republican vote is a vote for a philosophy that leads to failure. How did that happen?
My answer is that there is a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead us and to hide the forest from us with trees, the trees of those micro details that make us angry, the micro minutia that consumes media attention 24/7 and the horde of opinionated talking heads arguing simply for higher television ratings. Most of the so-called issues, the minutia, are generated by political ads designed to curry our favor for the sole purpose to gain power and nothing else. The ultra-right wing is more successful, so far, in framing and leading the discussion, and it is winning. We are inundated with its misleading political ads and media hype over small issues and it is those small details we argue over instead of standing back and taking a look at the larger picture. We've lost the ability to judge what's good for us; the overall good. Why?
We've forgotten our grounding philosophy, or at least it doesn't come to the surface of our conscious mind from its deeply buried subconscious place. It is buried in our subconscious beneath layers and layers, tons and tons, of minutia; the micro details inundating us every day. If there is a word that describes the founding principle of our nation and constitution, I would say that word is "kindness." It seems to me that that word is at the bottom of the thoughts and ideas of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and all of the others who participated in the first days of the United States. It seems a coincidence that I'm reading at the moment, "Examined Lives," by Jim Miller, that examines the lives of philosophers from Socrates to Nietzsche. I haven't finished the book, but one small sentence hit me like a brick from the start. Miller says that all of them actively searched for a "philosophy to live by." To live by! If there is one thing I would like to have been told in my youth, it would have been to have heard Dad say to me, "David, find yourself a philosophy to live by." The fact is that if he had said it, and if I had listened, I would have known immediately what that philosophy would have been: Kindness. It was ingrained in my upbringing by him and my family, from the church I attended, from the town I lived in and from the friends I had. I couldn't have escaped it. I think this is true of everyone I know. But, people don't think out loud about the philosophy they live by and they don't evaluate what they are voting for to any great depth; they jump on the first band wagon because their friends did, or vote for a candidate's minor promise and overlook the candidate's philosophy, or agree with a political commentator without a great deal of thought, jumping to conclusions because it sounds right.
Back in the days of President Johnson, a movement against the "Great Society" grew primarily under Irving Kristol's leadership. From all accounts that I've read, Kristol saw a way to gain power by following an idea suggested by Leo Strauss, a philosopher and professor at the University of Chicago. Strauss suggested that it is critical, for those who want to stay in power or to gain power, to perpetually deceive the people; to lie to them. Strauss suggested that it is "strong leadership" to tell the people what's good for them, whether it is or not and even if it's a lie, to get their support. Strauss said that the objective is to gain power by any means. Strauss was not a liberal democrat, nor for liberal democracy. He appears to have been a socialist, more inclined to Leninism and Communism. But, it was the movement against Johnson's Great Society that gave the Republicans, the neo-conservatives, their way back to power. They were effective under Reagan, Bush I and more so under Bush II. And along the way, they gave welfare a bad name. Republicans are against welfare.
Welfare is a good example of our (the royal "our" for all of us) inability to evaluate a kindness; the overall good of a program. I heard a spin on welfare that I hadn't heard before while visiting Owensville. The argument was that when the Republicans are in power, we give it away to the rich, and when the Democrats are in power, we give it away to the poor. Where did the idea that we "give it away" to the poor come from? I had never thought of welfare in those terms, a give away, a waste. It was a new spin on welfare to me. Helping the poor was part of my upbringing and I've never thought differently. In fact, I've always considered it a duty.
The main argument is that welfare creates a dependency that becomes a trap that welfare recipients refuse to escape from. They like the free money, so they become complacent, they say, and suck on the welfare teat their entire life. I don't believe that. I believe that that particular perspective is a micro view of welfare and based on a few cases of someone abusing the system or, like President Reagan's non-existent welfare mom, falsely claimed by political ads. I've never met a person abusing the welfare system. I've never spoken to a single person who likes welfare, including welfare recipients. I've never seen a proven, factual case of a welfare mom scamming the system. As far as I know, those exist only in rumor and innuendo. The micro doesn't appear to agree with the macro. I see, instead, a despondent, dejected, dispirited and depressed people with the worst luck, a chronically unemployed people, unable to find work and who seem to lose at every juncture. I don't see a dependent people; I see a depressed people. And they are depressed by the very policies that we vote for. Welfare was changed in the early 1990s by a Newt Gingrich lead Republican Congress and signed by President Clinton who found himself in a similar situation as President Obama is in; forced to accept a Republican Congress' demands or accept nothing at all.
The welfare change was to a so-called welfare-to-work program. The idea was to limit welfare to a definite period during which parents, either husband or wife or both, would receive job training to eventually move off the welfare rolls. Nearly every state has a different plan, with different goals for the program. Usually, if both the husband and wife didn't find a job by the end of the period, say five years, welfare was terminated for the family adults but continued for the sake of the children in the family. There was no other criteria used for terminating the welfare, such as mental ability or disability or local job market. This report suggests that liberal, generous and kind plans with the objective of getting the welfare recipient back on their feet, being a more productive member of society and contributing to the national economy is more successful than a more miserly and chintzy plan where the only objective is to reduce government spending. The report suggests that the so-called dependency argument doesn't hold water, then, and this is a clear distinction between political parties. A Republican's philosophy favors the miserly, chintzy welfare program because they believe that a person should live by their own work, or die, and a Democrat usually favors the more liberal and kind plan because they believe that sometimes other factors force people into welfare situations, such as job availability or economic conditions.
The dependency argument only works at the micro level when you assume that the same person who received welfare this year is the same person who receives welfare next year, that he/she did nothing but sit lazily on the couch, either did not try or did not find work, and was not retrained. But, that's not the case. The welfare rolls stay the same or increase not because those on welfare wanted it, but because the job market failed them or other reasons that we hide our eyes from. In the more successful, liberal plans, the individuals on welfare change constantly, however. On one year but off the next. We can't say that they are dependent on welfare even when the total welfare counts don't seem to change or get lower. Someone very smart said, "there will always be poor." You know who I mean. He also said to always help them. I wonder why we don't believe him?
So, which is good? Which is a kindness? The macro kindness is clearly better. It is clearly a kindness to be more generous and less of a cheapskate in regards to welfare. It is not a "give-away" nor is it a waste. It is a duty. Nor should we care or go into a hyperventilated spasm about how, specifically, a welfare recipient spends what they receive. I've heard some people say with outrage, "they spend it at MacDonalds!" or, "they buy toilet paper with it!" or some other nonsense about what welfare recipients spend the money on. The fact is that once we've done our duty, we should not interfere with how another person manages their lives. They, just like us, must be free to do what they deem best with what they have, even if we don't like it or we question their wisdom, as long as it is legal.
Not only is it a kindness to the recipient of a generous welfare program that favors the recipient first, over government budget cuts, it is also a kindness to tax paying citizens. We tax payers reap the benefit of a person moving off the rolls by their own initiative, becoming a better citizen, of contributing to the national economy, helping the country grow and of becoming a tax payer themselves. The more tax payers there are, the less all of us pay.
If we evaluated policies that cause welfare on the basis of kindness, we would have prevented several policies that create it. NAFTA, for example. NAFTA allowed corporations to move manufacturing and production outside of the United States so that products created by U.S. companies were then imported free of charge under a Free Trade agreement. The Free Trade philosophy is one aspect of the Free Market, Laissez-faire philosophy. This gives corporations full reign to ride roughshod over consumers. NAFTA was the culmination of two or three decades of trying to compete with foreign companies, or so we were told, when "Made in America" became too expensive and "Made in China" meant cheap products (and cheap quality). Outsourcing caught on. The welfare rolls increased. More Americans who could not move to the jobs worked for Walmart and MacDonalds than at skilled labor.
The free trade and free market philosophy was, we were told, the great equalizer, bringing world-wide labor wages in line and eventually letting the rest of the world catch up with developed countries. The market would "self regulate," Libertarians and Conservatives said, and prices would be affordable and products would improve. US companies could compete better, company CEOs and Republicans said. In Republican Administrations, regulations were overlooked or repealed by Republican congresses. Regulators turned their heads on their small, microcosm of influence or sent an occasional "advisory" letter to companies under their purview. It was, in effect, a great give-away to corporations and foreign countries. In effect, those behind the philosophy, Republicans, threw the baby out with the bath water. Some of it was good change, but the part that went wrong was devastating; the part that should have been regulated.
In fact, NAFTA was probably the precedent toward a larger objective; domination of global markets by global companies. A "Globalist's" vision. It is a macro vision, but not an American vision. It's a world with free unencumbered trade and global reach of corporations where there are no borders. Immigration law and policies mean nothing to Globalists. They see no borders. We've already seen cases when global corporations don't like national laws, they simply move their headquarters to countries that they like better. They evade the law and taxes in that manner. This global vision is not kind, nor can it be. At that level, where global profits mean that a smaller number of individuals will be able to own so much, you and I, American middle-class, give or take, don't matter much, if we are noticed at all. Usually, globalist don't know we exist.
How little we matter to a globalist reminds me of another story told in "Examined Lives" about the philosopher Diogenes, who was particularly obstinate and somewhat degenerate, but thought to be mediocre and not worthy of notice by other philosophers. When Alexander the Great saw that he was not among the philosophers, including Plato and Aristotle, who came to pay him homage and to congratulate him on his new kingship:
A messenger from Alexander [the Great] invited Diogenes to come see the king, but the philosopher refused, instructing the messenger to tell the king, "That which prevents you from coming to us is that which prevents us from coming to you."
The messenger imagined the king's response: "So what prevents me and what prevents you?" he asked.
"You are too powerful to need me - and I am too self-sufficient to need you."
Diogenes was apparently an indigent, owning only the clothes on his back, and he wanted it that way and he therefore did not need anything from Alexander and certainly Alexander didn't need anything from Diogenes. I don't think we want to be indigent, however, to be free of the ruling class. I believe that most people simply want a good and comfortable life; not a life of constant worry about the next policy that might ruin them financially or force them from one job to another simply to satisfy corporate mergers or global schemes. A vote for Republicans, regardless of what they promise in a campaign, is a vote for globalists, not you and me nor America.
We now know that NAFTA, at a macro level, was a disaster for job stability and creation in America, yet those that still support it are voted into office. Ron Paul, a free-market Libertarian, for example, said "the market will decide" when he was asked why he didn't buy "Made in America" t-shirts for his presidential campaign instead of "Made in Honduras" t-shirts through Fruit of the Loom, located in Bowling Green, KY and owned by Berkshire Hathaway. He is either a globalist or doesn't get it or he looks at the market from a micro perspective, concerned only with the limited scope he comes in contact with. So, no, the market didn't decide. If we evaluate the t-shirt production process, from the factory to the market, step by step, from the perspective of kindness, we can see that the market for a t-shirt is decided at the point of sale, i.e., on the retail shelf. A Fruit of the Looms t-shirt is not significantly cheaper on Macy's shelf than any other t-shirt on the same shelf and, in fact, profits from a t-shirt made in Honduras are outrageously high because of slave-labor wages paid to women and children who make the t-shirts in Honduras, labor that violates US child labor laws. We know that for a fact. That is the truth behind Ron Paul's "the market will decide." Violating child labor laws is acceptable under the Laissez-faire philosophy, a "let it be" philosophy. So, is it a kindness to buy from a company who exploits child labor in Honduras? Is it a kindness to allow corporations with global designs, such as Fruit of the Loom, to achieve market domination by using illegal child labor? Even if that company provides a wage to very impoverished children earning the wage? I would say no. It would be a kindness to force the company to comply with child labor laws and to pay a living wage to its factory workers wherever they are located. In fact, Fruit of the Loom is practicing non-competitive methods by undercutting their competitors through the unfair and illegal practice of using child labor. It cannot be a so-called "free market" if some of the competitors are subverting good or fair business practices. It is, in fact, a subsidized market.
Gibson County may be a microcosm to Walmart, but to a citizen living in Gibson County it is a macrocosm. Walmart has had a devastating effect on the county. I suspect that when the big box stores, Walmart, K-Mart, Rural King and Menards Home Improvement came to Princeton, everyone thought it was great. There would be jobs for everyone, they likely said. But, the fact is that every town in the county was devastated. Small grocery stores, hardware stores, pharmacies and novelty stores closed their doors. Two, three or four local jobs were lost for every job Walmart created. It was a net loss to every town in the county. Citizens of Owensville and Fort Branch must now travel to Princeton or Evansville for most of their daily needs. The choices are fewer and fewer. The elderly in Owensville depend more and more on the Dollar Store, the only store in town that carries a small number of grocery items. If it wasn't for a few churches, they would suffer more in spite of having money to buy what they need but are not able to travel to Princeton, only eleven miles away. Owensville seems to be a dying town, primarily because there will come a time when no businesses exists there. I think it is a sad day coming. It could have been different. A vote for Republicans is a vote for the business killing and jobs killing Walmarts in less populated areas.
What would have happened if those who were in political office in Gibson County back when Walmart and the others began the permit process to build their stores in Gibson County? What if they had evaluated the impact of Walmart on the local businesses from the perspective of kindness? Would they have chosen Walmart over the demise of local businesses or the added burden of traveling to Walmart? I doubt it. I think they would have seen a kindness in maintaining all of the smaller groceries and hardware stores over the larger big box stores, even if the smaller store priced things slightly higher. The big stores may have a cheaper price on the shelf, but that doesn't tell us how much effort or gas or car use or time away from family we have to spend to go get the item we need. Perhaps some families could have gotten by with one car instead of two simply because they didn't need to go to Princeton or Evansville so frequently. Would a macro-view of Walmart's impact on the county, on personal lives and on the total family cost of shopping there change things? I wish it would. Gibson County isn't populated enough for big box stores. They should run Walmart and the others out and restore business health to the county and towns.
I heard several other problems caused by "big government," some I agree with. I heard a lot of anger at the EPA, suggesting that the entire EPA should be dismantled. Regulating dust created by farming, for example, stirred up animosity at the entire EPA. I have no idea how regulating dust can be done. I suppose the farmer could buy a giant vacuum to follow the combine, but that's a ridiculous idea and a ridiculous regulation. But, it is still no reason to throw out the baby, the entire EPA, simply because a few bureaucrats got carried away. Nor can it be blamed on Obama. Instead, we should insist that Congress use its oversight authority to put a kibosh on that and any other "government creep" or "spending creep" that invariably grows from any organization. Overall, I believe government, and the EPA, is doing a credible job in most programs, better than a privatized program managed by a corporation can do. A vote for a Republican will privatize most government programs, including Medicare, Social Security, more of Defense than already is, Education, Energy and Housing. After that, corporations will dictate policy behind closed doors. It may be profitable for the company, since tax payers will pay the bill, but it won't be kind.
This line of thinking was prompted by a friend's comments during my Owensville visit. He said that our generation, my generation, probably had it best, and I would add for the past one hundred years, including the generation that lived through the Great Depression. He said we had good role models with good work ethics to follow in Owensville. He said that our children and grandchildren will not fare so well. I have to agree, we had it best and, like him, it breaks my heart that my children and grandchildren will not have the opportunity I had. In fact, I'm outraged about it. He also said that our education that we received in the first twelve grades in the 1950s and 60s was probably better than any time since. There have been any number of arguments and claims about our failing education and about improving it, with recent emphasis on charter schools, a Republican school privatization objective, but the education we received in public schools way back then was a good, well rounded education, taught by dedicated teachers. It was better than any generation has received since, including charter schools and home-taught children. Those days will never return, unfortunately, unless Republicans are voted out of office for as long as they insist that public education should be dismantled and privatized.
I see a number of politicians who appear to be honest and dedicated public servants. I also see those that are dishonest, greedy and self-aggrandizing. There are several characteristics of the latter dishonest ones that can be identified for easy recognition. A politician with a gift for gab, for example, is probably one who can come up with an answer whether he knows a good answer or not and who will more than likely bullshit us as not. A person who promises too much is another one who likely won't, or can't deliver. So, choosing who to vote for should be relatively easy if you can identify the general philosophy rather than anything a politicians says or promises. When the choice is not clear, we can count on the person we vote for following the caucus they belong to when they get to Washington. So, if you have to hold your nose to vote because all candidates stink to high heaven, vote for the most kind caucus. At the moment, the Republican caucus leads to trickle-down failure and more recession. They haven't changed their philosophy that got us in this mess.
I see a day coming when local and state politicians become more important to us than national politicians. Perhaps they were more important all along. It is the local and state governments who need to be strong enough to protect the citizens from corporate driven agendas and community killing policies and to save in good times and spend in bad times. Make sure you vote for kindness. A mean politician stuck in ideology will only break hearts, maybe your heart. Make your voice heard and speak for those who can't.
Dave
Why adamantly hold to ideological beliefs when such devastating results hang in the balance? And, even more perplexing is that some I talked to actually wanted America to default, a sort of "that'll teach 'em" attitude. It seemed to me that they are like drug addicts, that they won't realize how wrong they are until they hit absolute bottom, when unemployment and poverty levels have doubled and we have fallen back into recession, and only then admit that they were wrong. But, after talking and listening, I doubt that they will ever admit to mistaken beliefs. They will never see the connection between their vote and bad policy. They will never see that they bear a great deal of responsibility for the condition the country is in. A Republican vote is a vote for a philosophy that leads to failure. How did that happen?
My answer is that there is a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead us and to hide the forest from us with trees, the trees of those micro details that make us angry, the micro minutia that consumes media attention 24/7 and the horde of opinionated talking heads arguing simply for higher television ratings. Most of the so-called issues, the minutia, are generated by political ads designed to curry our favor for the sole purpose to gain power and nothing else. The ultra-right wing is more successful, so far, in framing and leading the discussion, and it is winning. We are inundated with its misleading political ads and media hype over small issues and it is those small details we argue over instead of standing back and taking a look at the larger picture. We've lost the ability to judge what's good for us; the overall good. Why?
We've forgotten our grounding philosophy, or at least it doesn't come to the surface of our conscious mind from its deeply buried subconscious place. It is buried in our subconscious beneath layers and layers, tons and tons, of minutia; the micro details inundating us every day. If there is a word that describes the founding principle of our nation and constitution, I would say that word is "kindness." It seems to me that that word is at the bottom of the thoughts and ideas of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and all of the others who participated in the first days of the United States. It seems a coincidence that I'm reading at the moment, "Examined Lives," by Jim Miller, that examines the lives of philosophers from Socrates to Nietzsche. I haven't finished the book, but one small sentence hit me like a brick from the start. Miller says that all of them actively searched for a "philosophy to live by." To live by! If there is one thing I would like to have been told in my youth, it would have been to have heard Dad say to me, "David, find yourself a philosophy to live by." The fact is that if he had said it, and if I had listened, I would have known immediately what that philosophy would have been: Kindness. It was ingrained in my upbringing by him and my family, from the church I attended, from the town I lived in and from the friends I had. I couldn't have escaped it. I think this is true of everyone I know. But, people don't think out loud about the philosophy they live by and they don't evaluate what they are voting for to any great depth; they jump on the first band wagon because their friends did, or vote for a candidate's minor promise and overlook the candidate's philosophy, or agree with a political commentator without a great deal of thought, jumping to conclusions because it sounds right.
Back in the days of President Johnson, a movement against the "Great Society" grew primarily under Irving Kristol's leadership. From all accounts that I've read, Kristol saw a way to gain power by following an idea suggested by Leo Strauss, a philosopher and professor at the University of Chicago. Strauss suggested that it is critical, for those who want to stay in power or to gain power, to perpetually deceive the people; to lie to them. Strauss suggested that it is "strong leadership" to tell the people what's good for them, whether it is or not and even if it's a lie, to get their support. Strauss said that the objective is to gain power by any means. Strauss was not a liberal democrat, nor for liberal democracy. He appears to have been a socialist, more inclined to Leninism and Communism. But, it was the movement against Johnson's Great Society that gave the Republicans, the neo-conservatives, their way back to power. They were effective under Reagan, Bush I and more so under Bush II. And along the way, they gave welfare a bad name. Republicans are against welfare.
Welfare is a good example of our (the royal "our" for all of us) inability to evaluate a kindness; the overall good of a program. I heard a spin on welfare that I hadn't heard before while visiting Owensville. The argument was that when the Republicans are in power, we give it away to the rich, and when the Democrats are in power, we give it away to the poor. Where did the idea that we "give it away" to the poor come from? I had never thought of welfare in those terms, a give away, a waste. It was a new spin on welfare to me. Helping the poor was part of my upbringing and I've never thought differently. In fact, I've always considered it a duty.
The main argument is that welfare creates a dependency that becomes a trap that welfare recipients refuse to escape from. They like the free money, so they become complacent, they say, and suck on the welfare teat their entire life. I don't believe that. I believe that that particular perspective is a micro view of welfare and based on a few cases of someone abusing the system or, like President Reagan's non-existent welfare mom, falsely claimed by political ads. I've never met a person abusing the welfare system. I've never spoken to a single person who likes welfare, including welfare recipients. I've never seen a proven, factual case of a welfare mom scamming the system. As far as I know, those exist only in rumor and innuendo. The micro doesn't appear to agree with the macro. I see, instead, a despondent, dejected, dispirited and depressed people with the worst luck, a chronically unemployed people, unable to find work and who seem to lose at every juncture. I don't see a dependent people; I see a depressed people. And they are depressed by the very policies that we vote for. Welfare was changed in the early 1990s by a Newt Gingrich lead Republican Congress and signed by President Clinton who found himself in a similar situation as President Obama is in; forced to accept a Republican Congress' demands or accept nothing at all.
The welfare change was to a so-called welfare-to-work program. The idea was to limit welfare to a definite period during which parents, either husband or wife or both, would receive job training to eventually move off the welfare rolls. Nearly every state has a different plan, with different goals for the program. Usually, if both the husband and wife didn't find a job by the end of the period, say five years, welfare was terminated for the family adults but continued for the sake of the children in the family. There was no other criteria used for terminating the welfare, such as mental ability or disability or local job market. This report suggests that liberal, generous and kind plans with the objective of getting the welfare recipient back on their feet, being a more productive member of society and contributing to the national economy is more successful than a more miserly and chintzy plan where the only objective is to reduce government spending. The report suggests that the so-called dependency argument doesn't hold water, then, and this is a clear distinction between political parties. A Republican's philosophy favors the miserly, chintzy welfare program because they believe that a person should live by their own work, or die, and a Democrat usually favors the more liberal and kind plan because they believe that sometimes other factors force people into welfare situations, such as job availability or economic conditions.
The dependency argument only works at the micro level when you assume that the same person who received welfare this year is the same person who receives welfare next year, that he/she did nothing but sit lazily on the couch, either did not try or did not find work, and was not retrained. But, that's not the case. The welfare rolls stay the same or increase not because those on welfare wanted it, but because the job market failed them or other reasons that we hide our eyes from. In the more successful, liberal plans, the individuals on welfare change constantly, however. On one year but off the next. We can't say that they are dependent on welfare even when the total welfare counts don't seem to change or get lower. Someone very smart said, "there will always be poor." You know who I mean. He also said to always help them. I wonder why we don't believe him?
So, which is good? Which is a kindness? The macro kindness is clearly better. It is clearly a kindness to be more generous and less of a cheapskate in regards to welfare. It is not a "give-away" nor is it a waste. It is a duty. Nor should we care or go into a hyperventilated spasm about how, specifically, a welfare recipient spends what they receive. I've heard some people say with outrage, "they spend it at MacDonalds!" or, "they buy toilet paper with it!" or some other nonsense about what welfare recipients spend the money on. The fact is that once we've done our duty, we should not interfere with how another person manages their lives. They, just like us, must be free to do what they deem best with what they have, even if we don't like it or we question their wisdom, as long as it is legal.
Not only is it a kindness to the recipient of a generous welfare program that favors the recipient first, over government budget cuts, it is also a kindness to tax paying citizens. We tax payers reap the benefit of a person moving off the rolls by their own initiative, becoming a better citizen, of contributing to the national economy, helping the country grow and of becoming a tax payer themselves. The more tax payers there are, the less all of us pay.
If we evaluated policies that cause welfare on the basis of kindness, we would have prevented several policies that create it. NAFTA, for example. NAFTA allowed corporations to move manufacturing and production outside of the United States so that products created by U.S. companies were then imported free of charge under a Free Trade agreement. The Free Trade philosophy is one aspect of the Free Market, Laissez-faire philosophy. This gives corporations full reign to ride roughshod over consumers. NAFTA was the culmination of two or three decades of trying to compete with foreign companies, or so we were told, when "Made in America" became too expensive and "Made in China" meant cheap products (and cheap quality). Outsourcing caught on. The welfare rolls increased. More Americans who could not move to the jobs worked for Walmart and MacDonalds than at skilled labor.
The free trade and free market philosophy was, we were told, the great equalizer, bringing world-wide labor wages in line and eventually letting the rest of the world catch up with developed countries. The market would "self regulate," Libertarians and Conservatives said, and prices would be affordable and products would improve. US companies could compete better, company CEOs and Republicans said. In Republican Administrations, regulations were overlooked or repealed by Republican congresses. Regulators turned their heads on their small, microcosm of influence or sent an occasional "advisory" letter to companies under their purview. It was, in effect, a great give-away to corporations and foreign countries. In effect, those behind the philosophy, Republicans, threw the baby out with the bath water. Some of it was good change, but the part that went wrong was devastating; the part that should have been regulated.
In fact, NAFTA was probably the precedent toward a larger objective; domination of global markets by global companies. A "Globalist's" vision. It is a macro vision, but not an American vision. It's a world with free unencumbered trade and global reach of corporations where there are no borders. Immigration law and policies mean nothing to Globalists. They see no borders. We've already seen cases when global corporations don't like national laws, they simply move their headquarters to countries that they like better. They evade the law and taxes in that manner. This global vision is not kind, nor can it be. At that level, where global profits mean that a smaller number of individuals will be able to own so much, you and I, American middle-class, give or take, don't matter much, if we are noticed at all. Usually, globalist don't know we exist.
How little we matter to a globalist reminds me of another story told in "Examined Lives" about the philosopher Diogenes, who was particularly obstinate and somewhat degenerate, but thought to be mediocre and not worthy of notice by other philosophers. When Alexander the Great saw that he was not among the philosophers, including Plato and Aristotle, who came to pay him homage and to congratulate him on his new kingship:
A messenger from Alexander [the Great] invited Diogenes to come see the king, but the philosopher refused, instructing the messenger to tell the king, "That which prevents you from coming to us is that which prevents us from coming to you."
The messenger imagined the king's response: "So what prevents me and what prevents you?" he asked.
"You are too powerful to need me - and I am too self-sufficient to need you."
Diogenes was apparently an indigent, owning only the clothes on his back, and he wanted it that way and he therefore did not need anything from Alexander and certainly Alexander didn't need anything from Diogenes. I don't think we want to be indigent, however, to be free of the ruling class. I believe that most people simply want a good and comfortable life; not a life of constant worry about the next policy that might ruin them financially or force them from one job to another simply to satisfy corporate mergers or global schemes. A vote for Republicans, regardless of what they promise in a campaign, is a vote for globalists, not you and me nor America.
We now know that NAFTA, at a macro level, was a disaster for job stability and creation in America, yet those that still support it are voted into office. Ron Paul, a free-market Libertarian, for example, said "the market will decide" when he was asked why he didn't buy "Made in America" t-shirts for his presidential campaign instead of "Made in Honduras" t-shirts through Fruit of the Loom, located in Bowling Green, KY and owned by Berkshire Hathaway. He is either a globalist or doesn't get it or he looks at the market from a micro perspective, concerned only with the limited scope he comes in contact with. So, no, the market didn't decide. If we evaluate the t-shirt production process, from the factory to the market, step by step, from the perspective of kindness, we can see that the market for a t-shirt is decided at the point of sale, i.e., on the retail shelf. A Fruit of the Looms t-shirt is not significantly cheaper on Macy's shelf than any other t-shirt on the same shelf and, in fact, profits from a t-shirt made in Honduras are outrageously high because of slave-labor wages paid to women and children who make the t-shirts in Honduras, labor that violates US child labor laws. We know that for a fact. That is the truth behind Ron Paul's "the market will decide." Violating child labor laws is acceptable under the Laissez-faire philosophy, a "let it be" philosophy. So, is it a kindness to buy from a company who exploits child labor in Honduras? Is it a kindness to allow corporations with global designs, such as Fruit of the Loom, to achieve market domination by using illegal child labor? Even if that company provides a wage to very impoverished children earning the wage? I would say no. It would be a kindness to force the company to comply with child labor laws and to pay a living wage to its factory workers wherever they are located. In fact, Fruit of the Loom is practicing non-competitive methods by undercutting their competitors through the unfair and illegal practice of using child labor. It cannot be a so-called "free market" if some of the competitors are subverting good or fair business practices. It is, in fact, a subsidized market.
Gibson County may be a microcosm to Walmart, but to a citizen living in Gibson County it is a macrocosm. Walmart has had a devastating effect on the county. I suspect that when the big box stores, Walmart, K-Mart, Rural King and Menards Home Improvement came to Princeton, everyone thought it was great. There would be jobs for everyone, they likely said. But, the fact is that every town in the county was devastated. Small grocery stores, hardware stores, pharmacies and novelty stores closed their doors. Two, three or four local jobs were lost for every job Walmart created. It was a net loss to every town in the county. Citizens of Owensville and Fort Branch must now travel to Princeton or Evansville for most of their daily needs. The choices are fewer and fewer. The elderly in Owensville depend more and more on the Dollar Store, the only store in town that carries a small number of grocery items. If it wasn't for a few churches, they would suffer more in spite of having money to buy what they need but are not able to travel to Princeton, only eleven miles away. Owensville seems to be a dying town, primarily because there will come a time when no businesses exists there. I think it is a sad day coming. It could have been different. A vote for Republicans is a vote for the business killing and jobs killing Walmarts in less populated areas.
What would have happened if those who were in political office in Gibson County back when Walmart and the others began the permit process to build their stores in Gibson County? What if they had evaluated the impact of Walmart on the local businesses from the perspective of kindness? Would they have chosen Walmart over the demise of local businesses or the added burden of traveling to Walmart? I doubt it. I think they would have seen a kindness in maintaining all of the smaller groceries and hardware stores over the larger big box stores, even if the smaller store priced things slightly higher. The big stores may have a cheaper price on the shelf, but that doesn't tell us how much effort or gas or car use or time away from family we have to spend to go get the item we need. Perhaps some families could have gotten by with one car instead of two simply because they didn't need to go to Princeton or Evansville so frequently. Would a macro-view of Walmart's impact on the county, on personal lives and on the total family cost of shopping there change things? I wish it would. Gibson County isn't populated enough for big box stores. They should run Walmart and the others out and restore business health to the county and towns.
I heard several other problems caused by "big government," some I agree with. I heard a lot of anger at the EPA, suggesting that the entire EPA should be dismantled. Regulating dust created by farming, for example, stirred up animosity at the entire EPA. I have no idea how regulating dust can be done. I suppose the farmer could buy a giant vacuum to follow the combine, but that's a ridiculous idea and a ridiculous regulation. But, it is still no reason to throw out the baby, the entire EPA, simply because a few bureaucrats got carried away. Nor can it be blamed on Obama. Instead, we should insist that Congress use its oversight authority to put a kibosh on that and any other "government creep" or "spending creep" that invariably grows from any organization. Overall, I believe government, and the EPA, is doing a credible job in most programs, better than a privatized program managed by a corporation can do. A vote for a Republican will privatize most government programs, including Medicare, Social Security, more of Defense than already is, Education, Energy and Housing. After that, corporations will dictate policy behind closed doors. It may be profitable for the company, since tax payers will pay the bill, but it won't be kind.
This line of thinking was prompted by a friend's comments during my Owensville visit. He said that our generation, my generation, probably had it best, and I would add for the past one hundred years, including the generation that lived through the Great Depression. He said we had good role models with good work ethics to follow in Owensville. He said that our children and grandchildren will not fare so well. I have to agree, we had it best and, like him, it breaks my heart that my children and grandchildren will not have the opportunity I had. In fact, I'm outraged about it. He also said that our education that we received in the first twelve grades in the 1950s and 60s was probably better than any time since. There have been any number of arguments and claims about our failing education and about improving it, with recent emphasis on charter schools, a Republican school privatization objective, but the education we received in public schools way back then was a good, well rounded education, taught by dedicated teachers. It was better than any generation has received since, including charter schools and home-taught children. Those days will never return, unfortunately, unless Republicans are voted out of office for as long as they insist that public education should be dismantled and privatized.
I see a number of politicians who appear to be honest and dedicated public servants. I also see those that are dishonest, greedy and self-aggrandizing. There are several characteristics of the latter dishonest ones that can be identified for easy recognition. A politician with a gift for gab, for example, is probably one who can come up with an answer whether he knows a good answer or not and who will more than likely bullshit us as not. A person who promises too much is another one who likely won't, or can't deliver. So, choosing who to vote for should be relatively easy if you can identify the general philosophy rather than anything a politicians says or promises. When the choice is not clear, we can count on the person we vote for following the caucus they belong to when they get to Washington. So, if you have to hold your nose to vote because all candidates stink to high heaven, vote for the most kind caucus. At the moment, the Republican caucus leads to trickle-down failure and more recession. They haven't changed their philosophy that got us in this mess.
I see a day coming when local and state politicians become more important to us than national politicians. Perhaps they were more important all along. It is the local and state governments who need to be strong enough to protect the citizens from corporate driven agendas and community killing policies and to save in good times and spend in bad times. Make sure you vote for kindness. A mean politician stuck in ideology will only break hearts, maybe your heart. Make your voice heard and speak for those who can't.
Dave
Friday, March 11, 2011
No Honor at the Top
I've just watched "Inside Job
," the Oscar winning documentary on who and what caused the global recession that we're in, and will be in for some time. I'm going to watch it again. It has a powerful message. If I were King for a Day, I would royally decree that everyone above the age of eighteen watch it - and test them on what they learned. Then I would lead a million people, or as many who can cram around Wall Street, Broadway, Nassau St., New St., Exchange Pl. and other New York City streets in that area and shout to high heaven for all of the criminals to come out of their buildings, something along the lines of what Micheal Moore did in his documentary, "Capitalism: A Love Story
." Mr. Moore's documentary also had a powerful message and right along with "Inside Job," it's another one that I'd force everyone to watch. And, if nobody came out of those buildings, as King I would order a swat team to drag them out. That's the problem with being a tyrant, as one with total power is inclined to become, I would likely condemn the innocent right along with the guilty. I'd like to think that there is at least one person in those buildings who is innocent or who "had a feeling" that what they were doing "wasn't right," or perhaps, and this is a stretch, refused to destroy their own company AND the global economy for the sake of their own wealth. I know. I know. The odds are against it.
Here's how much I think everyone should watch those documentaries: If I had the money, I would buy the rights to them and put them on YouTube for everyone to watch free of charge. I know. I know. The odds are against anyone watching the movies.
Here's why they should. Everyone I know... well, maybe not everyone. I know one person who doesn't have a pot, let alone a bank account, but as far as I know everyone else I know has at least a bank account. Most couldn't last a month if they lost their jobs, their paycheck, on the amount of money in their bank account. Some have a savings account. Some have a retirement account, and a few have investment accounts. All of them NEED to watch these movies. They NEED TO KNOW how close they are to losing those accounts. If they knew, maybe they can prevent it. And, the one who doesn't have a pot should watch it because they COULD HAVE a pot - after first extracting the head from the arse. Our cash in "their" bank gives them the capital to make loans.
A good, responsible bank keeps enough cash (capital) on hand (our cash) so it won't go bust if too many people don't pay off their loans. It's called a debt-to-capital ratio. When a good bank makes loans to people with good credit, it is very rare for 5% of the loans default. A bad, irresponsible bank goes broke when the debt-to-capital ratio is way out of whack, when it makes too many loans and it's taking way too much risk, such as Lehman Brothers had when it crashed. It had a 33 to 1 ratio, so if over a measly 3% of loans defaulted, and it did, the bank would run out of cash (our cash) to support itself. Actually, it was much worse than that for Lehman Brothers. It had as much as 20% loan default because it bought loans (Collateralized Debt Obligations) that banks had loaned to people who could not pay them off, subprime mortgages.
So, your (our) cash is used to make loans. When the loans are so bad and risky, all your/our cash can be lost. And, it was. When the banks are simply out of control, even the government may not be able to save your/our cash. In that case, the only people who wind up with the money (our money) are the big bankers. That's why you need to watch these movies. I know. I know. Odds are against it.
Out of all of the young people I know, only two have a chance of having a little bit more than the average person. If I count their mates, confirmed and apparent (assuming that current apparent fiancees makes the grade - I hope they do), that makes four people that I know who will "make it," or said better, who will get a bigger "piece of the pie." One is a prime candidate for one of those Wall Street, high-flying jobs, but the lifestyle there is dangerous (more later about that). All of the other young people I know are "comfortable" and at the whims of Wall Street; with perhaps some cash in the bank but they have no idea how risky it is there. It could, if they keep sleeping, come falling down on their heads again and again, and like the past few years, they will bitch and moan about the money they lost, and perhaps keep listening to Limbaugh, but have no idea what hit them nor ever learn what happened. At least they won't hear the truth from Limbaugh. And then, while they're "liking" this and that on Facebook, they'll go do the worst thing they could do - they'll vote. Crap!
I know. I know. The odds of everyone wising up, or even waking up, are extremely high. So, what was the message of both documentaries? The unadulterated greed. It was so thick you could taste it. And, it is difficult to believe that a person would destroy their own company, their own country, the United States, and the global economy for their own sake, to get more money than anyone else and to destroy billions of jobs worldwide without the slightest twinge of conscience, but that's what they did. This is not normal behavior. It is psychopathic behavior. Not only that. When the U.S. Government had to bail them out - not to save them, but to save trillions of dollars in ordinary people retirement and savings accounts - they took another trillion dollars from taxpayers without blinking an eye. The average American has no clue how much damage Wall Street did worldwide. And, the guys who did it picked up their suitcases of cash and walked away with it. Not a single one went to jail or had to give any of it back. And the ones who replaced the criminals are doing the same thing again. The derivatives, the investment instruments that Warren Buffet called "weapons of mass destruction," are still being bought and sold without the slightest regulation. Commodities, such as oil, corn, soybeans, pork bellies that set food prices worldwide are still being bought and sold without the slightest regulation. Enormous wealth is still being transferred from the poor to the rich. The gap between haves and have-nots is still getting wider. Sooner or later, there will be a revolt. Someone's going to die just like they are in Libya, except it will happen in the good ole U. S. of A. And, the primary reason that there is not one iota of regulation throttling Wall Street greed is the Republican Party. The GOP doesn't like regulations.
The Republican Party's philosophy, laissez faire, letting things take their own course in regards to markets and business, has become "normal" in our culture. Even economic professors teach it, especially since the 1970s. It's what all of us have been led to believe. Bootstrap living. Can't make it? Pull yourself up, or die, you lazy ass! The fact is that when greed rules, when it dominates the culture over the airwaves and in colleges and universities, someone is going to be left behind whether they're lazy or not and however hard they try to pull themselves up from their bootstraps. The fact is that if greed isn't controlled, governments fail, societies fail and everyone suffers. I have to agree with Studs Terkel. He said, "competition is the wrong idea. Cooperation in society is what we need for all to live a good life," or words to that effect. Laissez faire is the wrong idea. Allen Greenspan was wrong. Ben Bernanke is wrong. Larry Summers is wrong. Tim Geithner is wrong. And, since President Obama is surrounded by the same criminals who caused the meltdown, he is wrong by accepting their advice. The truth is more likely that he faced an ultimatum, follow them or be a one-term president. Washington D. C., including the Presidency, is owned, lock, stock and barrel, by Wall Street regardless of who is president. Still, any Democrat is a thousand times better than the worst Republican. At least a Democrat typically has the working people and general society in mind, even if they can't do anything about it.
Frankly, there is nothing right about laissez faire. The idea that businesses and corporations can do any thing they want and that a buyer, i. e., me, must beware of what we buy because it could be junk, a scam, illegal, a dupe, a fake or otherwise doesn't live up to its claimed use is preposterous. If I put my money in your bank, Mr. Banker, I expect you to use it wisely and to not risk it foolishly and pay me a good interest rate for the use of my money. And, if you are foolish and lose it, then I expect you, not the government, to pay it back, even if that means selling off all of your assets, including the shirt on your back. It's the same with anything else I spend money on. If I buy a $100,000 car, it damn well better give me an erotic massage every day. I had better feel GOOD about it. Otherwise, you don't deserve to be in business. There will always be a need for a consumer to be aware and educated of personal financial risk when buying goods, and to be thrifty with their money and to save always. But, there should never be a time when corporations and businesses can run roughshod over consumers just because they can.
I guess if you watch the movies, at least you may learn enough to ask your bank a few questions, such as how secure your money is. Perhaps you can find a clue about how your bank does its business and whether your money is at risk more than at other banks. Credit Unions seem to be safer. They are regulated better and are less risky. If you invest, you should at least think about how greedy the executives are who run the companies of the stocks you buy. Perhaps that will give you a clue on what stock to buy, when to buy it and when to sell it.
Here are some questions to ask your bank.
1. What is your debt-to-capital ratio?
2. Do you, your corporate headquarters or a subsidiary you own buy and/or sell Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) or any other derivative?
3. Do you, your corporate headquarters or a subsidiary you own buy Credit Default Swaps?
Here are good answers: If 2 and/or 3 are "Yes," get the hell out of that bank.
1. The correct answer is: Less than 10 to 1 debt-to-capital ratio. This means that your bank has $1.00 cash on hand for every $10 or less that it loans out, so it is 10% capitalized. It means that your bank can sustain its business (and your money) even if 10 percent or less of its loans default. Over 10% default rate is rare when all borrowers have good credit.
2. The correct answer is: NO. If it does, then more than a 10 percent default is possible and it's likely that the bank's borrowers don't have good credit, and the bank should have an even lower debt-to-capital ratio, say 5 to 1. Otherwise, you're money could be lost if not for the government guarantee, up to $200,000 (may have changed to $100,000).
2. The correct answer is: NO. If it is Yes, then your bank is gambling with no risk loans and likely loans to people who have bad to zilch credit ratings and can't pay the loan off. In fact, your bank may be counting on the person not paying off the loan; it's making more money from the Credit Default Swaps than if the person paid off the loan.
I guess you could ask one more question: Is your bank connected, in any way, with Wall Street trading, whether stocks, options, commodities or derivatives? If it is, then consider moving your money to another bank or credit union, preferably a locally owned one.
All exchanges, including the hidden derivative exchange, fluctuate based on recommendations of Wall Street analysts of one kind or another; stock analysts, commodities, options, credit ratings, derivatives, mortgages, corporate loans, and on and on. If there's something that can be traded, there is an analyst for it. Usually, investors buy and sell investments based on analysts' recommendations. Companies plan their sales, production and services on "meeting" analysts predictions. Derivatives are packaged based on analysts' best ratings. The price of oil, corn, soybeans and pig bellies are determined by how much caffeine an analyst has with his morning dose of cocaine, or how much the guy snorted the night before, or how tired he was after he paid for a $1,000 prostitute. They make a lot of money, live fast, drive the most expensive cars and use cocaine and any handy beautiful woman. They rub elbows with traders and bankers to make deals, sometimes fraudulent deals, and money. They're not interested in investors, customers, their company or the United States or its citizens.
I heard the most honest assessment of Wall Street analysts this morning that I've ever heard. In the midst of the Middle-East oil instability, a wishy-washy jobs report, increased unemployed claims, a Euro evaluation problem, and China's first time ever trade deficit, the news broadcaster said, "Wall Street analysts have no idea how markets will be affected." Well, they have never had any idea how markets will be affected.
See the documentaries, and if you want to know more, read "All the Devils are Here
."
I know. I know. Odds are against anyone watching the movies.
Dave
," the Oscar winning documentary on who and what caused the global recession that we're in, and will be in for some time. I'm going to watch it again. It has a powerful message. If I were King for a Day, I would royally decree that everyone above the age of eighteen watch it - and test them on what they learned. Then I would lead a million people, or as many who can cram around Wall Street, Broadway, Nassau St., New St., Exchange Pl. and other New York City streets in that area and shout to high heaven for all of the criminals to come out of their buildings, something along the lines of what Micheal Moore did in his documentary, "Capitalism: A Love Story." Mr. Moore's documentary also had a powerful message and right along with "Inside Job," it's another one that I'd force everyone to watch. And, if nobody came out of those buildings, as King I would order a swat team to drag them out. That's the problem with being a tyrant, as one with total power is inclined to become, I would likely condemn the innocent right along with the guilty. I'd like to think that there is at least one person in those buildings who is innocent or who "had a feeling" that what they were doing "wasn't right," or perhaps, and this is a stretch, refused to destroy their own company AND the global economy for the sake of their own wealth. I know. I know. The odds are against it.Here's how much I think everyone should watch those documentaries: If I had the money, I would buy the rights to them and put them on YouTube for everyone to watch free of charge. I know. I know. The odds are against anyone watching the movies.
Here's why they should. Everyone I know... well, maybe not everyone. I know one person who doesn't have a pot, let alone a bank account, but as far as I know everyone else I know has at least a bank account. Most couldn't last a month if they lost their jobs, their paycheck, on the amount of money in their bank account. Some have a savings account. Some have a retirement account, and a few have investment accounts. All of them NEED to watch these movies. They NEED TO KNOW how close they are to losing those accounts. If they knew, maybe they can prevent it. And, the one who doesn't have a pot should watch it because they COULD HAVE a pot - after first extracting the head from the arse. Our cash in "their" bank gives them the capital to make loans.
A good, responsible bank keeps enough cash (capital) on hand (our cash) so it won't go bust if too many people don't pay off their loans. It's called a debt-to-capital ratio. When a good bank makes loans to people with good credit, it is very rare for 5% of the loans default. A bad, irresponsible bank goes broke when the debt-to-capital ratio is way out of whack, when it makes too many loans and it's taking way too much risk, such as Lehman Brothers had when it crashed. It had a 33 to 1 ratio, so if over a measly 3% of loans defaulted, and it did, the bank would run out of cash (our cash) to support itself. Actually, it was much worse than that for Lehman Brothers. It had as much as 20% loan default because it bought loans (Collateralized Debt Obligations) that banks had loaned to people who could not pay them off, subprime mortgages.
So, your (our) cash is used to make loans. When the loans are so bad and risky, all your/our cash can be lost. And, it was. When the banks are simply out of control, even the government may not be able to save your/our cash. In that case, the only people who wind up with the money (our money) are the big bankers. That's why you need to watch these movies. I know. I know. Odds are against it.
Out of all of the young people I know, only two have a chance of having a little bit more than the average person. If I count their mates, confirmed and apparent (assuming that current apparent fiancees makes the grade - I hope they do), that makes four people that I know who will "make it," or said better, who will get a bigger "piece of the pie." One is a prime candidate for one of those Wall Street, high-flying jobs, but the lifestyle there is dangerous (more later about that). All of the other young people I know are "comfortable" and at the whims of Wall Street; with perhaps some cash in the bank but they have no idea how risky it is there. It could, if they keep sleeping, come falling down on their heads again and again, and like the past few years, they will bitch and moan about the money they lost, and perhaps keep listening to Limbaugh, but have no idea what hit them nor ever learn what happened. At least they won't hear the truth from Limbaugh. And then, while they're "liking" this and that on Facebook, they'll go do the worst thing they could do - they'll vote. Crap!
I know. I know. The odds of everyone wising up, or even waking up, are extremely high. So, what was the message of both documentaries? The unadulterated greed. It was so thick you could taste it. And, it is difficult to believe that a person would destroy their own company, their own country, the United States, and the global economy for their own sake, to get more money than anyone else and to destroy billions of jobs worldwide without the slightest twinge of conscience, but that's what they did. This is not normal behavior. It is psychopathic behavior. Not only that. When the U.S. Government had to bail them out - not to save them, but to save trillions of dollars in ordinary people retirement and savings accounts - they took another trillion dollars from taxpayers without blinking an eye. The average American has no clue how much damage Wall Street did worldwide. And, the guys who did it picked up their suitcases of cash and walked away with it. Not a single one went to jail or had to give any of it back. And the ones who replaced the criminals are doing the same thing again. The derivatives, the investment instruments that Warren Buffet called "weapons of mass destruction," are still being bought and sold without the slightest regulation. Commodities, such as oil, corn, soybeans, pork bellies that set food prices worldwide are still being bought and sold without the slightest regulation. Enormous wealth is still being transferred from the poor to the rich. The gap between haves and have-nots is still getting wider. Sooner or later, there will be a revolt. Someone's going to die just like they are in Libya, except it will happen in the good ole U. S. of A. And, the primary reason that there is not one iota of regulation throttling Wall Street greed is the Republican Party. The GOP doesn't like regulations.
The Republican Party's philosophy, laissez faire, letting things take their own course in regards to markets and business, has become "normal" in our culture. Even economic professors teach it, especially since the 1970s. It's what all of us have been led to believe. Bootstrap living. Can't make it? Pull yourself up, or die, you lazy ass! The fact is that when greed rules, when it dominates the culture over the airwaves and in colleges and universities, someone is going to be left behind whether they're lazy or not and however hard they try to pull themselves up from their bootstraps. The fact is that if greed isn't controlled, governments fail, societies fail and everyone suffers. I have to agree with Studs Terkel. He said, "competition is the wrong idea. Cooperation in society is what we need for all to live a good life," or words to that effect. Laissez faire is the wrong idea. Allen Greenspan was wrong. Ben Bernanke is wrong. Larry Summers is wrong. Tim Geithner is wrong. And, since President Obama is surrounded by the same criminals who caused the meltdown, he is wrong by accepting their advice. The truth is more likely that he faced an ultimatum, follow them or be a one-term president. Washington D. C., including the Presidency, is owned, lock, stock and barrel, by Wall Street regardless of who is president. Still, any Democrat is a thousand times better than the worst Republican. At least a Democrat typically has the working people and general society in mind, even if they can't do anything about it.
Frankly, there is nothing right about laissez faire. The idea that businesses and corporations can do any thing they want and that a buyer, i. e., me, must beware of what we buy because it could be junk, a scam, illegal, a dupe, a fake or otherwise doesn't live up to its claimed use is preposterous. If I put my money in your bank, Mr. Banker, I expect you to use it wisely and to not risk it foolishly and pay me a good interest rate for the use of my money. And, if you are foolish and lose it, then I expect you, not the government, to pay it back, even if that means selling off all of your assets, including the shirt on your back. It's the same with anything else I spend money on. If I buy a $100,000 car, it damn well better give me an erotic massage every day. I had better feel GOOD about it. Otherwise, you don't deserve to be in business. There will always be a need for a consumer to be aware and educated of personal financial risk when buying goods, and to be thrifty with their money and to save always. But, there should never be a time when corporations and businesses can run roughshod over consumers just because they can.
I guess if you watch the movies, at least you may learn enough to ask your bank a few questions, such as how secure your money is. Perhaps you can find a clue about how your bank does its business and whether your money is at risk more than at other banks. Credit Unions seem to be safer. They are regulated better and are less risky. If you invest, you should at least think about how greedy the executives are who run the companies of the stocks you buy. Perhaps that will give you a clue on what stock to buy, when to buy it and when to sell it.
Here are some questions to ask your bank.
1. What is your debt-to-capital ratio?
2. Do you, your corporate headquarters or a subsidiary you own buy and/or sell Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) or any other derivative?
3. Do you, your corporate headquarters or a subsidiary you own buy Credit Default Swaps?
Here are good answers: If 2 and/or 3 are "Yes," get the hell out of that bank.
1. The correct answer is: Less than 10 to 1 debt-to-capital ratio. This means that your bank has $1.00 cash on hand for every $10 or less that it loans out, so it is 10% capitalized. It means that your bank can sustain its business (and your money) even if 10 percent or less of its loans default. Over 10% default rate is rare when all borrowers have good credit.
2. The correct answer is: NO. If it does, then more than a 10 percent default is possible and it's likely that the bank's borrowers don't have good credit, and the bank should have an even lower debt-to-capital ratio, say 5 to 1. Otherwise, you're money could be lost if not for the government guarantee, up to $200,000 (may have changed to $100,000).
2. The correct answer is: NO. If it is Yes, then your bank is gambling with no risk loans and likely loans to people who have bad to zilch credit ratings and can't pay the loan off. In fact, your bank may be counting on the person not paying off the loan; it's making more money from the Credit Default Swaps than if the person paid off the loan.
I guess you could ask one more question: Is your bank connected, in any way, with Wall Street trading, whether stocks, options, commodities or derivatives? If it is, then consider moving your money to another bank or credit union, preferably a locally owned one.
All exchanges, including the hidden derivative exchange, fluctuate based on recommendations of Wall Street analysts of one kind or another; stock analysts, commodities, options, credit ratings, derivatives, mortgages, corporate loans, and on and on. If there's something that can be traded, there is an analyst for it. Usually, investors buy and sell investments based on analysts' recommendations. Companies plan their sales, production and services on "meeting" analysts predictions. Derivatives are packaged based on analysts' best ratings. The price of oil, corn, soybeans and pig bellies are determined by how much caffeine an analyst has with his morning dose of cocaine, or how much the guy snorted the night before, or how tired he was after he paid for a $1,000 prostitute. They make a lot of money, live fast, drive the most expensive cars and use cocaine and any handy beautiful woman. They rub elbows with traders and bankers to make deals, sometimes fraudulent deals, and money. They're not interested in investors, customers, their company or the United States or its citizens.
I heard the most honest assessment of Wall Street analysts this morning that I've ever heard. In the midst of the Middle-East oil instability, a wishy-washy jobs report, increased unemployed claims, a Euro evaluation problem, and China's first time ever trade deficit, the news broadcaster said, "Wall Street analysts have no idea how markets will be affected." Well, they have never had any idea how markets will be affected.
See the documentaries, and if you want to know more, read "All the Devils are Here
."I know. I know. Odds are against anyone watching the movies.
Dave
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Social Democrat
I think I'm becoming a Social Democrat along the lines of Vermont's Senator Bernie Sanders. I think the thing that finally convinced me to become a Social Democrat is that I watched Micheal Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story yesterday, and I became angry all over again. Everyone should watch that movie. I don't know why they don't. But, if you ask most people why they don't, they'll say that they "can't stand" Micheal Moore. But, I really have to wonder where that feeling comes from. Do they know him personally? Or have they been sold on the idea that he is bad and, therefore, should be hated?
I think it's the latter. We've been sold on the idea that he's bad by the propaganda from Fox News, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Bill-o O'Rielly, Sean Hannity, etc., and, of course, our neighbors and friends. Most people couldn't possibly proclaim that they're becoming a Social Democrat, or that they like Micheal Moore, to their friends without fear of being ostracized, of getting "the face," or "the look." What? You like Micheal Moore? You must be nuts! But, if you watch the documentary, I think you'll see a reasonable explanation of how we got here; how capitalism is not the whole story and why we need controls on capitalism. The documentary shows how destructive capitalism is.
But, in fact, we've been sold on the idea that capitalism is so great that we now believe that capitalism is the soul of freedom in America. But, the fact is that Social Democracy would guarantee the American dream more so than capitalism. Social Democracy would provide the means for someone who has little to begin with to climb out of poverty to have more, even to own a business or to become wealthy, if that's the final goal, or to simply live a life with enough security and wealth to live happily. We've all been sold on the idea that only capitalism "will make our dreams come true," "that we can become rich like them," them being the rich fat cats. But, the odds are so high in a capitalistic system, that ninety-nine percent will never become "a fat cat." To become a fat cat, it takes privilege, the best education, access to the best schools, access to the best social network and connections to the richest families.
It is baffling to me that a great majority in America have become so enamored with capitalism, and I'm even more baffled that Christians are such staunch capitalists. In the documentary, Micheal interviews three Catholic priests, two priests of two different parishes and one Bishop who oversees those parishes. They all said that capitalism is one of the great evils of our time. They all said that capitalism is so unlike Christ that there can hardly be anything in capitalism that would agree with Christ's teachings. They said that the only reason Christians could believe in capitalism is that they've been convinced by the right-wing propaganda that capitalism is somehow agreeable with Christ's teachings. Nothing is farther from the truth.
Yesterday, President Obama signed the $800 billion tax cut extension bill passed by Congress. It is Wall Street's bill. Nearly one-third of it transferred huge amounts of tax payer dollars to the most wealthiest capitalists, and increased the national debt. President Obama is not a socialist. He is a capitalist, just like President Bush before him. He is not our man. He is not the man who will bring America back from being sold to Wall Street. In fact, Wall Street already owns America, lock, stock and barrel. It seems to me that only Social Democracy will wrench it back from the fat cats.
In almost every endeavor, America needs to rise up and refuse to participate in selling America to Wall Street. We need to reject capitalistic control. You may like the so-called small government or to have less government, but "something" is going to "govern" our lives, either the government or a corporation. Handing government programs over to corporations just changes the "governor." It doesn't eliminate the program, nor does it eliminate who pays for it. Tax payers will pay either the government, or the corporation that runs it. That's just another tax cut for the rich who runs the capitalistic corporation.
Capitalsim: A Love Story - it's a good documentary. If you subscribe to Netflix, you can watch it on your computer now.
Dave
I think it's the latter. We've been sold on the idea that he's bad by the propaganda from Fox News, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Bill-o O'Rielly, Sean Hannity, etc., and, of course, our neighbors and friends. Most people couldn't possibly proclaim that they're becoming a Social Democrat, or that they like Micheal Moore, to their friends without fear of being ostracized, of getting "the face," or "the look." What? You like Micheal Moore? You must be nuts! But, if you watch the documentary, I think you'll see a reasonable explanation of how we got here; how capitalism is not the whole story and why we need controls on capitalism. The documentary shows how destructive capitalism is.
But, in fact, we've been sold on the idea that capitalism is so great that we now believe that capitalism is the soul of freedom in America. But, the fact is that Social Democracy would guarantee the American dream more so than capitalism. Social Democracy would provide the means for someone who has little to begin with to climb out of poverty to have more, even to own a business or to become wealthy, if that's the final goal, or to simply live a life with enough security and wealth to live happily. We've all been sold on the idea that only capitalism "will make our dreams come true," "that we can become rich like them," them being the rich fat cats. But, the odds are so high in a capitalistic system, that ninety-nine percent will never become "a fat cat." To become a fat cat, it takes privilege, the best education, access to the best schools, access to the best social network and connections to the richest families.
It is baffling to me that a great majority in America have become so enamored with capitalism, and I'm even more baffled that Christians are such staunch capitalists. In the documentary, Micheal interviews three Catholic priests, two priests of two different parishes and one Bishop who oversees those parishes. They all said that capitalism is one of the great evils of our time. They all said that capitalism is so unlike Christ that there can hardly be anything in capitalism that would agree with Christ's teachings. They said that the only reason Christians could believe in capitalism is that they've been convinced by the right-wing propaganda that capitalism is somehow agreeable with Christ's teachings. Nothing is farther from the truth.
Yesterday, President Obama signed the $800 billion tax cut extension bill passed by Congress. It is Wall Street's bill. Nearly one-third of it transferred huge amounts of tax payer dollars to the most wealthiest capitalists, and increased the national debt. President Obama is not a socialist. He is a capitalist, just like President Bush before him. He is not our man. He is not the man who will bring America back from being sold to Wall Street. In fact, Wall Street already owns America, lock, stock and barrel. It seems to me that only Social Democracy will wrench it back from the fat cats.
In almost every endeavor, America needs to rise up and refuse to participate in selling America to Wall Street. We need to reject capitalistic control. You may like the so-called small government or to have less government, but "something" is going to "govern" our lives, either the government or a corporation. Handing government programs over to corporations just changes the "governor." It doesn't eliminate the program, nor does it eliminate who pays for it. Tax payers will pay either the government, or the corporation that runs it. That's just another tax cut for the rich who runs the capitalistic corporation.
Capitalsim: A Love Story - it's a good documentary. If you subscribe to Netflix, you can watch it on your computer now.
Dave
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Some People Will Believe Anything - A False Witness Even on a Nice Day
I usually wake up early and listen to the usual suspects on the radio to get the daily blather while I go through the New York Times and Washington Post headlines. Funny thing this morning - the radio was playing Christmas music, and I love Christmas music. Well, I thought, the usual host must be taking the day off, so I let it pass and enjoyed the music. But, when 5:00 A.M. passed and the music didn't turn into the morning news, it got my attention so I listened closer to learn what station I was listening to. Someone, apparently, changed the station to KOIT (Kay-Oh-Eye-Tee, as it says, RADIO - you have to sing it). KOIT always starts playing Christmas music in November and I usually listen to it, so I left the station tuned to KOIT. It's a nice way to start the day.
That didn't stop me from thinking, however, about yesterday's Ronn Owens KGO Talk Show. Owens is easy to figure out. Track any Republican talking point, no matter how outrageously delusional it is, from Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Right-Wing blogger or any Fox News personality and it will eventually make it to The Ronn Owens show, and Owens usually takes the Right Wingnut side. Owens is a neo-con, a so-called "New Conservative." He's a Leo Strauss guy, the political philosopher, in that it is okay to voluntarily "fabricate a myth and an illusion (or delusion)" to attain the desired results. In other words, it's just fine to lie, distort the truth or create a myth to get what you want. It is also okay to accept a lie as part of an argument about any issue. Like Strauss says, "it is human nature to accept and choose, and in fact desire, a myth or untruth over the hard facts of the truth," or words to that effect. We can't face the truth, Strauss says, and we like it that way. Strauss' conclusions came, he claims, from reading all the great philosophers from Socrates to Locke.
Well, I'm no philosopher and I don't claim to be, but I can read and understand English and I can usually think through the things I read, hear and observe enough to come to a reasonable conclusion. So, I have to ask: How can anyone make a good decision about anything if they are not willing to learn the factual truth, or as much as they possibly can about the truth? But, in today's world, I am apparently wrong. I don't remember a time when so many people are so willing to believe and pass on distortion of facts, outright lies, rumor and innuendo. I have to wonder what happened to that old Golden Rule about not being a "False Witness." It's forgotten, I guess.
The truth is that I can't stand Owens' show because of his willingness to distort the truth and to continue myth. He is a false witness. I listen until I have to get up from the chair and turn him off, usually long enough to tell what the morning subjects are, where his conversation is going in his first hour and what his point of view is. Long enough to hear that what he has to say is the usual rubbish. But, yesterday, I listened a little longer because I found the position he took intriguing. I thought, until yesterday, that Owens knew his own political philosophy, that he identified himself as Right-Wing, a neo-con and a wingnut. But, after yesterday's show, I don't think he knows. He is just as deluded by his own blather as most Right-Wingnuts are and he thinks he's a moderate and he's gaming his listeners. His sole agenda is to be controversial, to compete with those other Right-Wing talk-show hosts for the sole purpose of gaining listeners, to improve his ratings. He's a con-artist and it's probably intentional KGO policy. He may not have an honest personal opinion about anything and he's not interested in the truth.
Yesterday's show was about Obama spending $200 million a day on his Asian trip. $200 million a day? Any normal person who has a brain should know from the outset that a statement like that is hogwash. But, the Drudge Report, the usual suspect, picked it up from some "anonymous" source in India and Minnesota's Congresswoman Michele Nutcake Bachmann repeated it on CNN with Anderson Cooper. Cooper checked into it and debunked it the next day and Thomas Friedman, New York Times columnist, patted Cooper on the back for debunking the myth. Actually, I'd like to see more lie debunking by the mainstream media, but didn't we know that it was hogwash when we heard it? Do we actually believe that it cost $200 million a day for a Presidential trip? The story said that thirty-four U.S. warships were "standing off the coast of India" to protect the President. Are you kidding? I spent twenty years in the Navy and not once did we EVER send a single ship to protect a President, and they visited areas where we were close enough to do that. The FACT IS, our admiral would have laughed in the President's face if he got a request like that. THE NAVY'S MISSION IS NOT TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT - IT IS TO PROTECT AMERICA!! In fact, a Pentagon spokesman said just that, "it's laughable." The Secret Service protects the President.
The story had other, just as outrageous, lies; such as 800 hotel rooms booked for the entourage in hotels that only had 200 or so rooms, nearly an entire air force following in tow, and other such innuendo to disparage Obama. Owens asked, "Where does this stuff come from?" acting incredulous. "This comes from the Right Wing," he said, as if the "Right Wing" wasn't his wing. He seemed genuinely unaware of what Fox News, Drudge, Limbaugh say on a daily basis, even when he eventually, in a few days or a week, picks up on the same subjects and the same points of views they discuss and spews it from his show. The "Muslim Mosque" that he was "sensitive to" and against and he completely ignored the Constitution, the "Koran book burning" "that he understood," the "two Presidents" that he thought "might work," "the British compulsory work plan for the lazy unemployed" he "supported" and the Sarah Palin "Presidency" that he thinks "might work" are all Right-Wing sponsored rubbish. I'm sure that he'll say, "I didn't say that" or "that's not the impression I gave," but he did. He pretends to be moderate, "looking at both sides of an issue," while he spreads the Right-Wing propaganda to his legions with a "soft touch." Of course all the while he's claiming "freedom of speech" for anything and everything he says. It's ironic that we've distorted the concept of freedom of speech so much that it now includes our right to knowingly and willingly lie.
I heard the $200 million a day story two weeks ago. I wrote a blog post about it on November 5th. I'm surprised that Owens picked up on it so late or that he picked up on it at all. Well, he reads the New York Times, so he picked it up. It's controversial, so he picked it up. And, since Anderson Cooper debunked it, Owens had no choice except to agree with Cooper. I wonder what train of thought he would have pursued if Cooper hadn't led the way to the truth to start with. But, Owens is not alone. It is a trendy thing to spread untrue hype, especially by email. I've managed to stop many of those rumor and innuendo, disparaging stories of false witness from reaching me by sending them back to the sender with links or references to where the sender can find the truth. I find it curious that those emails stop coming when the lie is debunked. That's not to say, however, that the person stops sending them to other people. I've noticed that those people that I once received those emails from are still sending them to other people, but not to me. Isn't that highly irrational? You'd think that once a viral email is debunked and the truth laid bare, that that simple fact would cause a person to pause before sending it on to others.
I also find it curious on who sends those emails. These are seemingly intelligent, educated people in positions of responsibility; teachers, lawyers, judges, doctors, investigative reporters. The last email disparaging President Obama I received, only a few weeks ago, was about "Subject: REAL ESTATE SALES TAX TO GO INTO EFFECT 2013 (Part of HC Bill) -- Did you know that if you sell your house after 2012 you will pay a 3.8% sales tax on it? That’s $3,800 on a $100,000 home etc. When did this happen? It’s in the healthcare bill. Just thought you should know..." Actually, the truth is entirely different, and it can be found here. I sent the email back to everyone it went to, including the teacher who sent it to the person who sent it to me. I debunked the myth in my return email. And, of course, the other part of the healthcare bill story is that it wasn't Obama that wrote the health bill anyway. It was Congress, and if you're really interested in how the insurance industry manipulated the Senate process and the Senators who sold us out, here is the Frontline report on how Obama was backed into a corner on the healthcare bill. The story is called "Obama's Deal," but what I noticed is how much he didn't like the medicine that he was forced to take. It should piss you off at the corrupt Senators who sold out and the insurance companies who bribed them, not Obama.
The funny thing is that I haven't received an email from "that" person since. I did receive another from the "teacher," showing a small boy with a t-shirt that read "The mess in my pants is nothing compared to the mess the Democrats will make in this country if they win Nov. 2." That's funny... and delusional. The facts are that there is overwhelming evidence that Reagan's Supply-Side, voodoo, free market economic ideology led the way to our financial destruction by what our so-called leaders, including President Reagan who started the ball rolling, have been doing for the past 40 years. And, there appear to be only a few in Congress and government who understand the true cause, including President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Congressman Barney Frank and Senators Carl Levin and Christopher Dodd, yet these are among the most hated people in the United States; hated because of hyped Right-Wing propaganda. Hated because of Ronn Owens and the wingnuts he follows and their nonsense he spreads. Republicans, as a whole, are more than willing to exploit ignorance of the masses, as is Owens. And, Republicans, as a whole, believe in the ideology, from A to Z, that got us into the mess we're in.
Another, and equally surprising point is that here we have a teacher, teaching our kids at his high school, who sends these lies to everyone when he hasn't a clue about the historical facts of the recession or the truth of allegations he sends in emails. Rather than find and spread the truth, which we might expect from a teacher, he would rather be a false witness. How's that for a teacher? It troubles me. Does it trouble you? I'm not surprised that our children continue to be more ignorant as each year passes in spite of paying more for education. I'm not surprised that the Tea Party leaders were able to exploit the ignorant in this country. It has been happening for years. They don't know any better. And, it is obvious that for the teacher, and those who are mislead, further self-education has stopped, perhaps on graduating from high school or college. Even recreational reading has stopped, apparently, otherwise, it is logical to assume that people at least would educate themselves on current events and would know better. In that regard, Fox News keeps them misinformed.
The scary thing is that we could very easily end up with President Sarah Palin, who said yesterday that she believes she can defeat President Obama. The fact that we had two terms of President Bush is proof enough that voters in this country can be misled over and over again. We too easily believe hype and lies and we elect those who tell them. Before we get to Palin's run for President, I'd like to see Britain's law passed in our country; if you lie to get elected, then you get kicked out immediately. But then, we wouldn't have a single person in office if we did that!
I guess if I had to make up a Christmas list, these items would be on it.
1. If you're going to vote, please, please learn about the person you're voting for. It's not about the person. It's about his or her ideology. Please don't vote for the same ideology that nearly destroyed us. You won't get anything you're voting for if you put those people in power.
2. If you're going to send me an email, make sure you're an honest witness to the truth. Do the research and tell the truth. Don't be a false witness or you will get the email back debunked to the best of my ability.
3. Be honest enough to tell the truth to those who send you distorted truth or lies the truth. Debunk the lies yourself and send them back to sender.
4. Be honest with yourself. If you're following the Right-Wing hype, find out if they're telling you the truth. Research their claims. Figure out, the bottom line, about why you are following it.
5. Read a book or see a documentary that gives a good account of how and why we came to be in the condition we're in, for example, All the Devils are Here, is about the economic collapse and who caused it. The Documentary "Inside Job" is also about the mega-bank crash, who did what, and is also good reporting. Learn about the wars we're in, and what's right and wrong about them and what the obstacles are.
And, on a personal note:
6. Don't buy me "stuff." My closet, drawers, bed-side table, bed-side chair, desk, garage and utility closet are full. I have no place to put the stuff you buy, not even space for a Christmas card. Send me a "Merry Christmas" email or text or call instead.
7. Use the time you were going to spend on shopping for me to take a nap - on me. You'll be refreshed.
8. Use the money you planned for my gift to buy yourself something, like a dinner for two - on me.
9. Have a Merry Christmas. Listen to some Christmas music.
Dave
That didn't stop me from thinking, however, about yesterday's Ronn Owens KGO Talk Show. Owens is easy to figure out. Track any Republican talking point, no matter how outrageously delusional it is, from Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Right-Wing blogger or any Fox News personality and it will eventually make it to The Ronn Owens show, and Owens usually takes the Right Wingnut side. Owens is a neo-con, a so-called "New Conservative." He's a Leo Strauss guy, the political philosopher, in that it is okay to voluntarily "fabricate a myth and an illusion (or delusion)" to attain the desired results. In other words, it's just fine to lie, distort the truth or create a myth to get what you want. It is also okay to accept a lie as part of an argument about any issue. Like Strauss says, "it is human nature to accept and choose, and in fact desire, a myth or untruth over the hard facts of the truth," or words to that effect. We can't face the truth, Strauss says, and we like it that way. Strauss' conclusions came, he claims, from reading all the great philosophers from Socrates to Locke.
Well, I'm no philosopher and I don't claim to be, but I can read and understand English and I can usually think through the things I read, hear and observe enough to come to a reasonable conclusion. So, I have to ask: How can anyone make a good decision about anything if they are not willing to learn the factual truth, or as much as they possibly can about the truth? But, in today's world, I am apparently wrong. I don't remember a time when so many people are so willing to believe and pass on distortion of facts, outright lies, rumor and innuendo. I have to wonder what happened to that old Golden Rule about not being a "False Witness." It's forgotten, I guess.
The truth is that I can't stand Owens' show because of his willingness to distort the truth and to continue myth. He is a false witness. I listen until I have to get up from the chair and turn him off, usually long enough to tell what the morning subjects are, where his conversation is going in his first hour and what his point of view is. Long enough to hear that what he has to say is the usual rubbish. But, yesterday, I listened a little longer because I found the position he took intriguing. I thought, until yesterday, that Owens knew his own political philosophy, that he identified himself as Right-Wing, a neo-con and a wingnut. But, after yesterday's show, I don't think he knows. He is just as deluded by his own blather as most Right-Wingnuts are and he thinks he's a moderate and he's gaming his listeners. His sole agenda is to be controversial, to compete with those other Right-Wing talk-show hosts for the sole purpose of gaining listeners, to improve his ratings. He's a con-artist and it's probably intentional KGO policy. He may not have an honest personal opinion about anything and he's not interested in the truth.
Yesterday's show was about Obama spending $200 million a day on his Asian trip. $200 million a day? Any normal person who has a brain should know from the outset that a statement like that is hogwash. But, the Drudge Report, the usual suspect, picked it up from some "anonymous" source in India and Minnesota's Congresswoman Michele Nutcake Bachmann repeated it on CNN with Anderson Cooper. Cooper checked into it and debunked it the next day and Thomas Friedman, New York Times columnist, patted Cooper on the back for debunking the myth. Actually, I'd like to see more lie debunking by the mainstream media, but didn't we know that it was hogwash when we heard it? Do we actually believe that it cost $200 million a day for a Presidential trip? The story said that thirty-four U.S. warships were "standing off the coast of India" to protect the President. Are you kidding? I spent twenty years in the Navy and not once did we EVER send a single ship to protect a President, and they visited areas where we were close enough to do that. The FACT IS, our admiral would have laughed in the President's face if he got a request like that. THE NAVY'S MISSION IS NOT TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT - IT IS TO PROTECT AMERICA!! In fact, a Pentagon spokesman said just that, "it's laughable." The Secret Service protects the President.
The story had other, just as outrageous, lies; such as 800 hotel rooms booked for the entourage in hotels that only had 200 or so rooms, nearly an entire air force following in tow, and other such innuendo to disparage Obama. Owens asked, "Where does this stuff come from?" acting incredulous. "This comes from the Right Wing," he said, as if the "Right Wing" wasn't his wing. He seemed genuinely unaware of what Fox News, Drudge, Limbaugh say on a daily basis, even when he eventually, in a few days or a week, picks up on the same subjects and the same points of views they discuss and spews it from his show. The "Muslim Mosque" that he was "sensitive to" and against and he completely ignored the Constitution, the "Koran book burning" "that he understood," the "two Presidents" that he thought "might work," "the British compulsory work plan for the lazy unemployed" he "supported" and the Sarah Palin "Presidency" that he thinks "might work" are all Right-Wing sponsored rubbish. I'm sure that he'll say, "I didn't say that" or "that's not the impression I gave," but he did. He pretends to be moderate, "looking at both sides of an issue," while he spreads the Right-Wing propaganda to his legions with a "soft touch." Of course all the while he's claiming "freedom of speech" for anything and everything he says. It's ironic that we've distorted the concept of freedom of speech so much that it now includes our right to knowingly and willingly lie.
I heard the $200 million a day story two weeks ago. I wrote a blog post about it on November 5th. I'm surprised that Owens picked up on it so late or that he picked up on it at all. Well, he reads the New York Times, so he picked it up. It's controversial, so he picked it up. And, since Anderson Cooper debunked it, Owens had no choice except to agree with Cooper. I wonder what train of thought he would have pursued if Cooper hadn't led the way to the truth to start with. But, Owens is not alone. It is a trendy thing to spread untrue hype, especially by email. I've managed to stop many of those rumor and innuendo, disparaging stories of false witness from reaching me by sending them back to the sender with links or references to where the sender can find the truth. I find it curious that those emails stop coming when the lie is debunked. That's not to say, however, that the person stops sending them to other people. I've noticed that those people that I once received those emails from are still sending them to other people, but not to me. Isn't that highly irrational? You'd think that once a viral email is debunked and the truth laid bare, that that simple fact would cause a person to pause before sending it on to others.
I also find it curious on who sends those emails. These are seemingly intelligent, educated people in positions of responsibility; teachers, lawyers, judges, doctors, investigative reporters. The last email disparaging President Obama I received, only a few weeks ago, was about "Subject: REAL ESTATE SALES TAX TO GO INTO EFFECT 2013 (Part of HC Bill) -- Did you know that if you sell your house after 2012 you will pay a 3.8% sales tax on it? That’s $3,800 on a $100,000 home etc. When did this happen? It’s in the healthcare bill. Just thought you should know..." Actually, the truth is entirely different, and it can be found here. I sent the email back to everyone it went to, including the teacher who sent it to the person who sent it to me. I debunked the myth in my return email. And, of course, the other part of the healthcare bill story is that it wasn't Obama that wrote the health bill anyway. It was Congress, and if you're really interested in how the insurance industry manipulated the Senate process and the Senators who sold us out, here is the Frontline report on how Obama was backed into a corner on the healthcare bill. The story is called "Obama's Deal," but what I noticed is how much he didn't like the medicine that he was forced to take. It should piss you off at the corrupt Senators who sold out and the insurance companies who bribed them, not Obama.
The funny thing is that I haven't received an email from "that" person since. I did receive another from the "teacher," showing a small boy with a t-shirt that read "The mess in my pants is nothing compared to the mess the Democrats will make in this country if they win Nov. 2." That's funny... and delusional. The facts are that there is overwhelming evidence that Reagan's Supply-Side, voodoo, free market economic ideology led the way to our financial destruction by what our so-called leaders, including President Reagan who started the ball rolling, have been doing for the past 40 years. And, there appear to be only a few in Congress and government who understand the true cause, including President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Congressman Barney Frank and Senators Carl Levin and Christopher Dodd, yet these are among the most hated people in the United States; hated because of hyped Right-Wing propaganda. Hated because of Ronn Owens and the wingnuts he follows and their nonsense he spreads. Republicans, as a whole, are more than willing to exploit ignorance of the masses, as is Owens. And, Republicans, as a whole, believe in the ideology, from A to Z, that got us into the mess we're in.
Another, and equally surprising point is that here we have a teacher, teaching our kids at his high school, who sends these lies to everyone when he hasn't a clue about the historical facts of the recession or the truth of allegations he sends in emails. Rather than find and spread the truth, which we might expect from a teacher, he would rather be a false witness. How's that for a teacher? It troubles me. Does it trouble you? I'm not surprised that our children continue to be more ignorant as each year passes in spite of paying more for education. I'm not surprised that the Tea Party leaders were able to exploit the ignorant in this country. It has been happening for years. They don't know any better. And, it is obvious that for the teacher, and those who are mislead, further self-education has stopped, perhaps on graduating from high school or college. Even recreational reading has stopped, apparently, otherwise, it is logical to assume that people at least would educate themselves on current events and would know better. In that regard, Fox News keeps them misinformed.
The scary thing is that we could very easily end up with President Sarah Palin, who said yesterday that she believes she can defeat President Obama. The fact that we had two terms of President Bush is proof enough that voters in this country can be misled over and over again. We too easily believe hype and lies and we elect those who tell them. Before we get to Palin's run for President, I'd like to see Britain's law passed in our country; if you lie to get elected, then you get kicked out immediately. But then, we wouldn't have a single person in office if we did that!
I guess if I had to make up a Christmas list, these items would be on it.
1. If you're going to vote, please, please learn about the person you're voting for. It's not about the person. It's about his or her ideology. Please don't vote for the same ideology that nearly destroyed us. You won't get anything you're voting for if you put those people in power.
2. If you're going to send me an email, make sure you're an honest witness to the truth. Do the research and tell the truth. Don't be a false witness or you will get the email back debunked to the best of my ability.
3. Be honest enough to tell the truth to those who send you distorted truth or lies the truth. Debunk the lies yourself and send them back to sender.
4. Be honest with yourself. If you're following the Right-Wing hype, find out if they're telling you the truth. Research their claims. Figure out, the bottom line, about why you are following it.
5. Read a book or see a documentary that gives a good account of how and why we came to be in the condition we're in, for example, All the Devils are Here
, is about the economic collapse and who caused it. The Documentary "Inside Job" is also about the mega-bank crash, who did what, and is also good reporting. Learn about the wars we're in, and what's right and wrong about them and what the obstacles are.And, on a personal note:
6. Don't buy me "stuff." My closet, drawers, bed-side table, bed-side chair, desk, garage and utility closet are full. I have no place to put the stuff you buy, not even space for a Christmas card. Send me a "Merry Christmas" email or text or call instead.
7. Use the time you were going to spend on shopping for me to take a nap - on me. You'll be refreshed.
8. Use the money you planned for my gift to buy yourself something, like a dinner for two - on me.
9. Have a Merry Christmas. Listen to some Christmas music.
Dave
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Fracked
Boy, those were the good old days, back in 2005 when Republicans were in control. Don't you think so? Those were the days before the Democrat 2006 takeover when Republicans could get just about anything they wanted through the House and Senate. And, indeed they did. Take the 2005 Energy Policy Act, enacted under Dubya, Cheney and the Republican Congress. That act had a big intentional loophole, known as the Halliburton Loophole. In fact, there is enough information about that loophole to suggest that the only reason the act was passed and signed at all was because the oil and natural gas corporations wanted that loophole. In fact, I would bet my social security check that the loophole was specifically requested in that secret Cheney-Energy Corporation meeting that Cheney refused to disclose. Remember that meeting? Ah, yea, those were the good old days. The loophole exempts oil production companies from having to comply with environmental safety laws when drilling for oil and natural gas.
Well, natural gas is a big deal and it has been the latest buzz since President Obama began running for president way back in 2007. "Drill-baby-drill," they said. T Boone Pickens made all of those ads to stop paying Saudi Arabia $700 billion a year by converting all long-haul semi trucks from diesel to natural gas. The United States, it turned out, had a super abundance of natural gas. A HUGE NATURAL GAS RESERVE! In fact, he sold me on the deal, too. I was ready and willing to be his spokesman. "Yeah! Stop paying Saudi Arabia for oil. Use our own natural gas!" Even Obama got on that band wagon. Ha! I should have known that there was a catch. There is always a Republican catch.
It was also back in the good old days that President Bush had those signing statements. Remember those? It turned out that even though Congress passed a law, that a President could just attach a little signing statement to his signature saying how the President "interpreted" the law, and Bush did. He instructed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to overlook and rubber stamp many oil and gas company drilling requests. But, the U.S. Minerals Management Service, by a Bush order, was already looking the other way and the signing statement just reinforced what it was already doing. And so, we got the BP Gulf oil disaster, which, by the way, isn't over yet - since it was discovered only a few days ago that a large area of ocean floor coral has died. We don't know everything, yet, it turns out.
But, back to natural gas and that Halliburton Loophole that exempts oil and gas companies from EPA rules. They can drill for natural gas anyplace, anytime. It turns out all of those natural gas reserves that we have is mostly contained in solid plates of shale rock. And, it turns out that to get the natural gas out of the shale, the shale must be broken up, or fractured into cracks and crevasses to release the gas. And, it turns out that "they," especially Halliburton, have developed a technique called Hydraulic Fracturing, "Fracking" for short, that breaks up the shale that releases the gas. Fracking involves injecting millions of gallons of fresh water into the shale under tons of pressure to fracture the shale.
Whoops. Here we are again. The "usual" suspects are at it again. It turns out that Fracking uses millions of gallons of your very valuable drinking and irrigation water and when that water recycles back into the ground water supply, through those underground seeps back to your city's water supply or your well water or your livestock watering trough, such as into those artesian wells for Owensville, Indiana or into the Wabash or Ohio rivers ground water system that supplies your personal drinking well, (I have friends and family I care for in that area - so I always mention it) it will contain highly toxic minerals and methane. The water cannot be used for drinking anymore. It will kill you. And, it will burn!
Well, according to this New York Times article, the gas companies are not "convinced" that they are the problem. "The jury is not in," they say. But, I guess if you had water suitable for drinking one day, and the next day your water burned and tasted like crap; looked foggy, yellow or muddy; and tests showed that it was full of toxic chemicals, and the only thing that could have caused it was a Fracking drilling rig within ten or twenty miles, then I guess that would be proof enough. In fact, the article says that many people are REALLY ANGRY about being fracked.
All of this, of course, goes back to philosophy, or more precisely, Republican philosophy. I guess if you believe the "drill-baby-drill" philosophy and be damned to any environmental impact, then the Republican philosophy is right up your alley. But, I guess if your water is burning, maybe you will change your mind. I wonder if you'll change your mind if your neighbor's water is burning? Or if your neighboring state's water is burning? Would you vote Republican in your state, say California, if you knew that your vote could cause water to burn in Lafayette or Owensville, Indiana or Gainesville, Georgia? (I have loved ones there too) Actually, it's too late to change your mind after your or your loved ones' water is burning. You've been Fracked!
Dave
Well, natural gas is a big deal and it has been the latest buzz since President Obama began running for president way back in 2007. "Drill-baby-drill," they said. T Boone Pickens made all of those ads to stop paying Saudi Arabia $700 billion a year by converting all long-haul semi trucks from diesel to natural gas. The United States, it turned out, had a super abundance of natural gas. A HUGE NATURAL GAS RESERVE! In fact, he sold me on the deal, too. I was ready and willing to be his spokesman. "Yeah! Stop paying Saudi Arabia for oil. Use our own natural gas!" Even Obama got on that band wagon. Ha! I should have known that there was a catch. There is always a Republican catch.
It was also back in the good old days that President Bush had those signing statements. Remember those? It turned out that even though Congress passed a law, that a President could just attach a little signing statement to his signature saying how the President "interpreted" the law, and Bush did. He instructed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to overlook and rubber stamp many oil and gas company drilling requests. But, the U.S. Minerals Management Service, by a Bush order, was already looking the other way and the signing statement just reinforced what it was already doing. And so, we got the BP Gulf oil disaster, which, by the way, isn't over yet - since it was discovered only a few days ago that a large area of ocean floor coral has died. We don't know everything, yet, it turns out.
But, back to natural gas and that Halliburton Loophole that exempts oil and gas companies from EPA rules. They can drill for natural gas anyplace, anytime. It turns out all of those natural gas reserves that we have is mostly contained in solid plates of shale rock. And, it turns out that to get the natural gas out of the shale, the shale must be broken up, or fractured into cracks and crevasses to release the gas. And, it turns out that "they," especially Halliburton, have developed a technique called Hydraulic Fracturing, "Fracking" for short, that breaks up the shale that releases the gas. Fracking involves injecting millions of gallons of fresh water into the shale under tons of pressure to fracture the shale.
Whoops. Here we are again. The "usual" suspects are at it again. It turns out that Fracking uses millions of gallons of your very valuable drinking and irrigation water and when that water recycles back into the ground water supply, through those underground seeps back to your city's water supply or your well water or your livestock watering trough, such as into those artesian wells for Owensville, Indiana or into the Wabash or Ohio rivers ground water system that supplies your personal drinking well, (I have friends and family I care for in that area - so I always mention it) it will contain highly toxic minerals and methane. The water cannot be used for drinking anymore. It will kill you. And, it will burn!
Well, according to this New York Times article, the gas companies are not "convinced" that they are the problem. "The jury is not in," they say. But, I guess if you had water suitable for drinking one day, and the next day your water burned and tasted like crap; looked foggy, yellow or muddy; and tests showed that it was full of toxic chemicals, and the only thing that could have caused it was a Fracking drilling rig within ten or twenty miles, then I guess that would be proof enough. In fact, the article says that many people are REALLY ANGRY about being fracked.
All of this, of course, goes back to philosophy, or more precisely, Republican philosophy. I guess if you believe the "drill-baby-drill" philosophy and be damned to any environmental impact, then the Republican philosophy is right up your alley. But, I guess if your water is burning, maybe you will change your mind. I wonder if you'll change your mind if your neighbor's water is burning? Or if your neighboring state's water is burning? Would you vote Republican in your state, say California, if you knew that your vote could cause water to burn in Lafayette or Owensville, Indiana or Gainesville, Georgia? (I have loved ones there too) Actually, it's too late to change your mind after your or your loved ones' water is burning. You've been Fracked!
Dave
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Dismantling the Government
It seems to me that two reports are a bit late. Perhaps if they had come out a little earlier in the election, the election would have turned out different. Or, at least I would have hoped that. Maybe not. The first report was the "Jobs Report," which said that 159,000 new jobs were created last month, October. Under the circumstances, that was good. The second report, Recap of Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Results, from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), says the deficit turned a corner in 2010; the deficit in 2010 was actually less than 2009. What caught my eye was this sentence: "The large deficits in 2009 and 2010 reflect a combination of factors: an imbalance between revenues and spending that predates the recent recession,..." lower revenues (taxes) and more spending "...associated with...economic conditions,..." and government the cost of federal policies responding to economic conditions.
The phrase that stood out was "predates the recent recession." In other words, it was President Bush's tax cut, wars and his non-negotiable Pharmaceutical Drug Plan that caused the imbalance of revenues and spending; i.e., taxes were too low and his spending was too high. A chart in the report, "Receipts and Outlays as a Percent of GDP," clearly shows that starting about 1992 and through 2000, while President Clinton was in office, spending was going down and revenues were up. We had a surplus. The fact that spending was going down indicates that government was getting smaller, the very thing that the Tea Party wants. That same chart shows that around 2002, just after President Bush took office, this trend was reversed; spending started up and revenues started down. In other words, government started getting bigger and taxes were cut. Well, Bush said, "it's the peoples' money, and they should have it instead of the government..." In hindsight, now we know that we could have used the surplus to defeat the recession. But, as Bush says in his book about the last few months in office, "...he felt like he was on a ship with nobody at the helm..." No kidding! In fact, the chart shows that nobody was at the helm through his entire presidency since "deficits didn't matter," as Vice President Cheney said. Ha. I guess they do matter!
There were other things that happened in the 1990s that hurt America, however. NAFTA was passed that released the flood gates for jobs to go to Mexico and other countries. Some companies moved manufacturing to Mexico before the ink was dry on Clinton's signature. This agreement was actually started under and promoted by President G. H. Bush (Bush I), and signed by President Clinton in 1994 after Newt Gingrich led the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress. But, there was a long history behind NAFTA; a long period of teaching a philosophy that was being sold to everyone, so it's no surprise that Clinton signed it. He had been sold on the philosophy as everyone else had, including me. Basically, the philosophy was "free trade, open markets and self-regulated markets would provide economic equality to the world." It is a Libertarian idea. It is an "economically liberal" idea. It's funny that an individual can be a Libertarian in favor of "free, unrestrained capitalism" and be an "economic liberal," which is to say that on economic and market matters, they are in favor of benevolent favoritism to corporations. They are, in fact, in favor of "bailouts" because bailouts prop up corporations and markets. Bailouts are the same as "subsidies" to oil companies and banks; always supported by Republicans. Deregulation is the same as a "bailout," since deregulation is a form of subsidy for an industry. Deregulation in in fact a "gift" that says you can do anything you want with your corporation including scam the public and take advantage of consumers. There are no limits and there is no consumer protection in deregulation.
Practically all financial and economic experts who have advised or held offices under Presidents or served in some form or another in the Federal Reserve Banking System for the past 30-40 years are libertarian and Republican leaning, including Timothy Geithner (Fed Reserve Bank, NY under Bush II and Obama's Treasury), Robert Rubin (Clinton's Treasury), Larry Summers (Reagan and Obama advisor), Ben Bernanke (Fed Chair Bush II and Obama) and Alan Greenspan (Advisor to Nixon, Ford and Reagan, Fed Chairman under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II). It is these guys who helped sell us the idea that markets should be unrestrained, without regulation and without consumer protections and, in fact, these guys have hurt America by selling us those ideas. Ironically, it is these very same ideas that the Tea Party/Republican movement believes in and the same ideas that most of those that were elected in the Republican 2010 takeover believe in. So, you may have voted against President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, or whoever, in the 2010 election, but you really voted for the same experts that we've always had, so in effect, nothing has changed from the time President Reagan was in office.
In the 1990s while Alan Greenspan was the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mexico had a significant economic crisis that threatened the world economy. Greenspan, Rubin and others convinced President Clinton to bail out Mexico by giving it $20 billion dollars. What this says is that the people who claim to believe in self-regulation don't believe it when the crap hits the fan, but they'll let the problem grow until it cannot be controlled except by bailout. It was also in the 1990s that the Dot-Com bubble began to rise and the Federal Reserve had a chance to "temper" what Alan Greenspan called "irrational exuberance." But, he didn't. He didn't do anything because he believed that the market would self regulate. It did self regulate in 2000 when a small market crash happened when President Bush took office. But, that 2000 crash didn't threaten the world economy so it was allowed to happen without a bailout. While that small crash was happening, another bubble was already forming that took over the market; the monetary, banking bubble. While jobs were being lost in the tech sector, banks were hiring. The banking bubble started in 1998, when Senator Phil Gramm, a Republican, led a successful effort to deregulate the banks that unleashed the Banking Dogs. All banks were free to gamble in the markets after that and they were picking up steam by 2000. Everything was hunky-dory to you and me, since all of this was hidden to you and me. We really didn't see much of a change from the outside looking in. People like Paul Krugman probably saw it, as did those above. Paul Krugman is probably a rare exception to the normal economist. He's an admitted liberal. He says "do something about uncontrolled markets." He says "they're dangerous!" He agrees with a lot of what I've been reading over the past 10-15 years, since Gingrich's time, when I began to take an interest in the radical movement in America.
Another thing the chart shows is how wrong the Republicans are about Dubya. They now claim that he really wasn't a Reagan "small government" President. They are disappointed in him. In fact, the chart shows that he was a Reagan President. He kept the same deficit levels that Reagan and his dad did. Neither Reagan, Bush I or Bush II really believed in small governments, and neither does the Republican Party of today. It was only President Clinton who actually did something about deficits and made government smaller. Ironically, it is President Obama and those others the Republicans like to hate, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who are headed in the same direction as President Clinton did. It is Obama, Pelosi and Reid who have the ideas that people say the believe, but vote against.
Well, we've got what we have. Like Alan Greenspan, who finally saw the light when he testified to Congress that he "was mistaken" about market self-regulation in 2008, Ben Bernanke, also saw the light in 2008 and is trying to control deflation, inflation and the market and he is now under attack. Ron Paul, famous for his Libertarian beliefs, is going to be Chairman of the Monetary Policy Sub-committee, and he says, "I think they're way too independent. They just shouldn't have this power. Up until recently it has been modest but now it's totally out of control." Paul is going to change The Fed! I am afraid of him doing that. The funny thing is that "Up until recently" was when President Bush and Alan Greenspan were in control, when the housing bubble was allowed to happen and deficits were okay. Now that Bernanke is trying to put some controls on the market, to bring it back to its senses, the Fed is suddenly "totally out of control!" Like father, like son, Rand Paul, Republican Representative from Kentucky and voted into office by the Tea Party, believes the same thing his father does; let the market dogs lose.
I do not know if Ben Bernanke is right in his latest move to inject a lot of money into the market by buying government bonds. It seems very complicated to me. From what I've read, it could be dangerous especially if "fiscal policy" doesn't follow, meaning that if the government doesn't also stimulate the economy by helping businesses and consumers, Bernanke's move could backfire. But, I would still rather have highly educated economists and financial experts running the Federal Reserve than Ron Paul, a medical doctor from Texas. I doubt that he knows anything about the economy. I have a problem with any politician running anything that requires a doctorate level education in a field of specialization. I can read a chart, however, and I can see the effects of bad ideology, and if there's anything the chart in the report says, it says that Reagan, Bush I and Bush II had bad ideas on running the government. And, we are getting the same bad ideas again with the Republican takeover. And, from what they say, they intend to take over the Presidency and the Senate. Their results won't be any different than the last time they were in control.
There is no doubt in my mind that voters voted against their own best interest on November 2nd. They want the deficit to go down, but Republicans can't do that with the ideology they believe. They want the healthcare reform repealed, but that reform reduces the deficit, especially the pharmacy drug plan paid by the government. We will go back to Bush's very expensive pharmacy plan and Bush's deficit. In fact, it seems the only reason for the Republican takeover was the dislike for Obama and Pelosi, and for no other reason, in spite of the fact that they are doing what the voters say they want. Dick Army led the revolt for corporations and the Tea Party bought it. Tea Party members were really not voting for what they thought they were. Sadly, the Republicans will take aim at a number of programs, such as Social Security, and may win the battle of once and for all in killing them. They seem intent on doing that. I don't believe anyone will be happy with what they kill. They seem intent of dismantling the government.
I don't think I have revised history too much. I primarily depended on my memory of what I've read and learned over the past years. I did not attempt to verify anything by referring back to articles or books that I've read.
Dave
The phrase that stood out was "predates the recent recession." In other words, it was President Bush's tax cut, wars and his non-negotiable Pharmaceutical Drug Plan that caused the imbalance of revenues and spending; i.e., taxes were too low and his spending was too high. A chart in the report, "Receipts and Outlays as a Percent of GDP," clearly shows that starting about 1992 and through 2000, while President Clinton was in office, spending was going down and revenues were up. We had a surplus. The fact that spending was going down indicates that government was getting smaller, the very thing that the Tea Party wants. That same chart shows that around 2002, just after President Bush took office, this trend was reversed; spending started up and revenues started down. In other words, government started getting bigger and taxes were cut. Well, Bush said, "it's the peoples' money, and they should have it instead of the government..." In hindsight, now we know that we could have used the surplus to defeat the recession. But, as Bush says in his book about the last few months in office, "...he felt like he was on a ship with nobody at the helm..." No kidding! In fact, the chart shows that nobody was at the helm through his entire presidency since "deficits didn't matter," as Vice President Cheney said. Ha. I guess they do matter!
There were other things that happened in the 1990s that hurt America, however. NAFTA was passed that released the flood gates for jobs to go to Mexico and other countries. Some companies moved manufacturing to Mexico before the ink was dry on Clinton's signature. This agreement was actually started under and promoted by President G. H. Bush (Bush I), and signed by President Clinton in 1994 after Newt Gingrich led the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress. But, there was a long history behind NAFTA; a long period of teaching a philosophy that was being sold to everyone, so it's no surprise that Clinton signed it. He had been sold on the philosophy as everyone else had, including me. Basically, the philosophy was "free trade, open markets and self-regulated markets would provide economic equality to the world." It is a Libertarian idea. It is an "economically liberal" idea. It's funny that an individual can be a Libertarian in favor of "free, unrestrained capitalism" and be an "economic liberal," which is to say that on economic and market matters, they are in favor of benevolent favoritism to corporations. They are, in fact, in favor of "bailouts" because bailouts prop up corporations and markets. Bailouts are the same as "subsidies" to oil companies and banks; always supported by Republicans. Deregulation is the same as a "bailout," since deregulation is a form of subsidy for an industry. Deregulation in in fact a "gift" that says you can do anything you want with your corporation including scam the public and take advantage of consumers. There are no limits and there is no consumer protection in deregulation.
Practically all financial and economic experts who have advised or held offices under Presidents or served in some form or another in the Federal Reserve Banking System for the past 30-40 years are libertarian and Republican leaning, including Timothy Geithner (Fed Reserve Bank, NY under Bush II and Obama's Treasury), Robert Rubin (Clinton's Treasury), Larry Summers (Reagan and Obama advisor), Ben Bernanke (Fed Chair Bush II and Obama) and Alan Greenspan (Advisor to Nixon, Ford and Reagan, Fed Chairman under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II). It is these guys who helped sell us the idea that markets should be unrestrained, without regulation and without consumer protections and, in fact, these guys have hurt America by selling us those ideas. Ironically, it is these very same ideas that the Tea Party/Republican movement believes in and the same ideas that most of those that were elected in the Republican 2010 takeover believe in. So, you may have voted against President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, or whoever, in the 2010 election, but you really voted for the same experts that we've always had, so in effect, nothing has changed from the time President Reagan was in office.
In the 1990s while Alan Greenspan was the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mexico had a significant economic crisis that threatened the world economy. Greenspan, Rubin and others convinced President Clinton to bail out Mexico by giving it $20 billion dollars. What this says is that the people who claim to believe in self-regulation don't believe it when the crap hits the fan, but they'll let the problem grow until it cannot be controlled except by bailout. It was also in the 1990s that the Dot-Com bubble began to rise and the Federal Reserve had a chance to "temper" what Alan Greenspan called "irrational exuberance." But, he didn't. He didn't do anything because he believed that the market would self regulate. It did self regulate in 2000 when a small market crash happened when President Bush took office. But, that 2000 crash didn't threaten the world economy so it was allowed to happen without a bailout. While that small crash was happening, another bubble was already forming that took over the market; the monetary, banking bubble. While jobs were being lost in the tech sector, banks were hiring. The banking bubble started in 1998, when Senator Phil Gramm, a Republican, led a successful effort to deregulate the banks that unleashed the Banking Dogs. All banks were free to gamble in the markets after that and they were picking up steam by 2000. Everything was hunky-dory to you and me, since all of this was hidden to you and me. We really didn't see much of a change from the outside looking in. People like Paul Krugman probably saw it, as did those above. Paul Krugman is probably a rare exception to the normal economist. He's an admitted liberal. He says "do something about uncontrolled markets." He says "they're dangerous!" He agrees with a lot of what I've been reading over the past 10-15 years, since Gingrich's time, when I began to take an interest in the radical movement in America.
Another thing the chart shows is how wrong the Republicans are about Dubya. They now claim that he really wasn't a Reagan "small government" President. They are disappointed in him. In fact, the chart shows that he was a Reagan President. He kept the same deficit levels that Reagan and his dad did. Neither Reagan, Bush I or Bush II really believed in small governments, and neither does the Republican Party of today. It was only President Clinton who actually did something about deficits and made government smaller. Ironically, it is President Obama and those others the Republicans like to hate, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who are headed in the same direction as President Clinton did. It is Obama, Pelosi and Reid who have the ideas that people say the believe, but vote against.
Well, we've got what we have. Like Alan Greenspan, who finally saw the light when he testified to Congress that he "was mistaken" about market self-regulation in 2008, Ben Bernanke, also saw the light in 2008 and is trying to control deflation, inflation and the market and he is now under attack. Ron Paul, famous for his Libertarian beliefs, is going to be Chairman of the Monetary Policy Sub-committee, and he says, "I think they're way too independent. They just shouldn't have this power. Up until recently it has been modest but now it's totally out of control." Paul is going to change The Fed! I am afraid of him doing that. The funny thing is that "Up until recently" was when President Bush and Alan Greenspan were in control, when the housing bubble was allowed to happen and deficits were okay. Now that Bernanke is trying to put some controls on the market, to bring it back to its senses, the Fed is suddenly "totally out of control!" Like father, like son, Rand Paul, Republican Representative from Kentucky and voted into office by the Tea Party, believes the same thing his father does; let the market dogs lose.
I do not know if Ben Bernanke is right in his latest move to inject a lot of money into the market by buying government bonds. It seems very complicated to me. From what I've read, it could be dangerous especially if "fiscal policy" doesn't follow, meaning that if the government doesn't also stimulate the economy by helping businesses and consumers, Bernanke's move could backfire. But, I would still rather have highly educated economists and financial experts running the Federal Reserve than Ron Paul, a medical doctor from Texas. I doubt that he knows anything about the economy. I have a problem with any politician running anything that requires a doctorate level education in a field of specialization. I can read a chart, however, and I can see the effects of bad ideology, and if there's anything the chart in the report says, it says that Reagan, Bush I and Bush II had bad ideas on running the government. And, we are getting the same bad ideas again with the Republican takeover. And, from what they say, they intend to take over the Presidency and the Senate. Their results won't be any different than the last time they were in control.
There is no doubt in my mind that voters voted against their own best interest on November 2nd. They want the deficit to go down, but Republicans can't do that with the ideology they believe. They want the healthcare reform repealed, but that reform reduces the deficit, especially the pharmacy drug plan paid by the government. We will go back to Bush's very expensive pharmacy plan and Bush's deficit. In fact, it seems the only reason for the Republican takeover was the dislike for Obama and Pelosi, and for no other reason, in spite of the fact that they are doing what the voters say they want. Dick Army led the revolt for corporations and the Tea Party bought it. Tea Party members were really not voting for what they thought they were. Sadly, the Republicans will take aim at a number of programs, such as Social Security, and may win the battle of once and for all in killing them. They seem intent on doing that. I don't believe anyone will be happy with what they kill. They seem intent of dismantling the government.
I don't think I have revised history too much. I primarily depended on my memory of what I've read and learned over the past years. I did not attempt to verify anything by referring back to articles or books that I've read.
Dave
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)