.jpg)
Oh, the fun that comes out of Washington. Now we have one side wanting to make contraception use a statutory right, and the other side screaming that to do so will infringe on their First Amendment religious liberties. It was that claim, "Religious Liberties," that made me sit up and take notice.
Without going into the entire dust up (if you need more information use the damn internet for something other than tweeting) I keep wondering what would happen if the offended religion were one other than Catholic Christianity. You know, like Islam. Would the defenders of faith based scofflawism be just as outraged if the law in question was similar to the French law against wearing a Burka in public? Or what if the defendant in a murder case case claimed that "honor killings" are part of their religious beliefs? Would that be okay? Or even, as I heard from one talking head, that Quakers could object to their taxes being used to fight wars. How far do we what to push this?
As will be no surprise to anyone who has read this blog, I come down on the side of the common good of society being more important than the particular beliefs of any particular religion. That may seem extreme or even anti-religious, but when one considers that their are over 250 different Christian sects in the U.S.A., not to mention the non-Christian religions and of course the non-religious, it seems to me that any other position can only lead to arguments like we are having now.
This puts me in mind of a similar, although not nearly as important as contraception, place where the beliefs of the few are imposed on the many. I'm referring to the good old fashioned "Blue Laws." You know, the reason that you can't go out to breakfast on a Sunday in, say, North Carolina and order a Bloody Mary before noon. Or run into the grocery store to pick up a six pack Sunday morning in West Virginia. Most of these have been declared unconstitutional or are at least not enforced (much) but the buying booze on Sunday ones seem to have a lot of staying power.
I have been directly impacted by the NC version, and not because I'm a drunk looking to start early on a Sunday. No, The Queen of the Frontier and I owned a restaurant in the beach resort town of Kitty Hawk, NC and we were faced with this every Sunday morning. In comes a car load of happy tourists from some far away land, like New York, looking for a nice beach brunch with a morning cocktail and wham, I have to explain that "I'm sorry but I can't sell you $40 worth of drinks to go with your table full of Eggs Benedict because it's only 11:00 am." Trust me, that does not win friends and repeat customers.
My take on this was always that, if the preachers wanted to make sure that their flock didn't come to church drunk that they, the preachers, should have a chat with their wayward lambs. Why burden me, my staff and most importantly, my customers, with the problem. We don't see Rabbis marching outside of pork BBQ joints claiming that they should close their doors do we? Of course, this was not an argument that was going to go very far in the American south, but it does illuminate the problem.
If you, or your religion, doesn't like the use of birth control fine. Enforce that belief system on your believers. But leave the rest of us alone, please. Because any law that favors one belief system over another, like the blue laws, violates my First Amendment rights. And the great thing about our great country is, my rights are just as important as yours. Let's all defend them equally, shall we.
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Friday, February 17, 2012
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
THIS MIGHT WORK
In looking back over my growing list of postings I've spotted a scary trend: I've written more posts with the Money label than any other topic. This could be because we are deep into a national financial crisis, or because, just as one thinks a lot about the beach in the dead of winter, I think a lot about money because I don't have much. Whichever it is doesn't really matter. Here's yet another one.
If, as I and a whole bunch of actual experts believe, the country is in a demand crisis not a too high taxes and too much regulation crisis than we need ideas that help create demand for American products and services. The Obama administration is proposing an extension of the 2% reduction in the Payroll Tax passed last December as a way to put more money in the hands of consumers who will, most likely, spend the extra money. This is fine, but since it only extends something already in place it can't really help much more than it already has. It won't create any new spending. We need something more. We need to reform the Usury Laws at the Federal level.
In brief, Usury is the act of charging too high an interest rate on loans and borrowing. Most states have such laws, as does the Federal government. And you would be very surprised to find that the legal limits are far below what Pay Day lenders, sub-prime mortgage lenders and, most importantly for this idea, credit card companies, charge their customers. Why?
Without going all lawyer on you the simple answer is that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1978 case of MARQUETTE NATIONAL BANK OF MINNEAPOLIS v. FIRST OF OMAHA SERVICE CORP. ET AL. that National Banks can charge credit card interest based upon the Usury law of the state where the bank is located. They said basically that:
So here is my proposal: Congress should amend 12 U.S.C. 85 to allow national banks to charge on any loan interest at the rate allowed by the laws of the State where the borrower resides. That's pretty much it. Of course it would have to apply to all existing balances. The screams of the bankers will be heard throughout the land, but there certainly is precedent for making changes to the terms of a credit card contract after the fact, so to speak.
The credit card contracts themselves provide the answer. They can change pretty much whatever term of the agreement that they want to and we, the borrowers pretty much have to take it. Oh, you don't want to pay the new and improved rate of 26% on your existing balance? Well, just close the account. You can't charge any more on that card, but you do have to pay the balance owed under the original terms. In my proposal the States and the Federal government would be acting for the consumers as their representatives (imagine that) in the clearly unfair and unequal contractual agreements that now exist.
The immediate result would be lower payments on high interest rate cards and other consumer loans which puts more money in the hands of consumers just like the Payroll Tax reduction, but this would act as a new stimulus rather than a continuation of an already in place tax cut. And it really isn't such a big change in the law anyway. Most states have Usury laws and have had them from the beginning. Why, even the hard core of the GOP can't bitch too much. Usury is forbidden by the Bible [Exodus 22:25] [Leviticus 25:36] [Leviticus 25:37]!
If, as I and a whole bunch of actual experts believe, the country is in a demand crisis not a too high taxes and too much regulation crisis than we need ideas that help create demand for American products and services. The Obama administration is proposing an extension of the 2% reduction in the Payroll Tax passed last December as a way to put more money in the hands of consumers who will, most likely, spend the extra money. This is fine, but since it only extends something already in place it can't really help much more than it already has. It won't create any new spending. We need something more. We need to reform the Usury Laws at the Federal level.
In brief, Usury is the act of charging too high an interest rate on loans and borrowing. Most states have such laws, as does the Federal government. And you would be very surprised to find that the legal limits are far below what Pay Day lenders, sub-prime mortgage lenders and, most importantly for this idea, credit card companies, charge their customers. Why?
Without going all lawyer on you the simple answer is that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1978 case of MARQUETTE NATIONAL BANK OF MINNEAPOLIS v. FIRST OF OMAHA SERVICE CORP. ET AL. that National Banks can charge credit card interest based upon the Usury law of the state where the bank is located. They said basically that:
The National Bank Act provision codified as 12 U.S.C. 85, authorizes a national banking association "to charge on any loan" interest at the rate allowed by the laws of the State "where the bank is located,"Why does that matter, you ask? Just take a look at the address where you send payments to your credit card company. Delaware and South Dakota seem to predominate. These states, South Dakota in particular, took one look at the Marquette decision and realized that they could attract Credit Card companies who could then charge out of state borrowers based upon South Dakota's Usury rate. Of course, there is no usury limit in South Dakota. That's why so many credit card companies locate there.
So here is my proposal: Congress should amend 12 U.S.C. 85 to allow national banks to charge on any loan interest at the rate allowed by the laws of the State where the borrower resides. That's pretty much it. Of course it would have to apply to all existing balances. The screams of the bankers will be heard throughout the land, but there certainly is precedent for making changes to the terms of a credit card contract after the fact, so to speak.
The credit card contracts themselves provide the answer. They can change pretty much whatever term of the agreement that they want to and we, the borrowers pretty much have to take it. Oh, you don't want to pay the new and improved rate of 26% on your existing balance? Well, just close the account. You can't charge any more on that card, but you do have to pay the balance owed under the original terms. In my proposal the States and the Federal government would be acting for the consumers as their representatives (imagine that) in the clearly unfair and unequal contractual agreements that now exist.
The immediate result would be lower payments on high interest rate cards and other consumer loans which puts more money in the hands of consumers just like the Payroll Tax reduction, but this would act as a new stimulus rather than a continuation of an already in place tax cut. And it really isn't such a big change in the law anyway. Most states have Usury laws and have had them from the beginning. Why, even the hard core of the GOP can't bitch too much. Usury is forbidden by the Bible [Exodus 22:25] [Leviticus 25:36] [Leviticus 25:37]!
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
WHEN THE LOONIES RUN THE LOONY BIN
By now most of you have heard that the nutcase preacher down in Florida (whose name I won't mention so there's less chance of linking to his site) who had threatened to burn a Quran last September 11 has gone ahead and done so. His actions, which received almost no press in this country, appeared on his church's web site for the whole world to see. Islamic extremists in the Middle East saw, rioted and people died and are still dying. So, what can be done?
Let's first get out of the way that the guarantees of the First Amendment protect this dumb ass from being prosecuted for doing dumb ass things. And don't think that I'm about to argue why this clown and his actions should be exceptions. I'm an absolutist when it comes to the First Amendment, so as far as I'm concerned, there ain't no exceptions. But this case and other examples, like the riots after a Danish newspaper printed "offensive" cartoons of the Prophet, should raise a red flag or two. At least as this relates to our future dealings with the Middle East and their oil.
See, whether one agrees with the concept that Muslim extremists want to foment a religious war or not, the Quran burning and the reaction to it happened. I think that we may have to face the fact that the start of such a war is out of our hands. And by "our hands" I mean those of use who are rational!
It now appears as if any nut case, or group of nut cases, can get a reaction from religious extremists half a world away with no more expense than a book, some lighter fuel, a match and a web cam. And there's not one thing we can do to stop them. What we maybe can do is try to defuse the reaction from the Muslim world. We could try and make clear that burning holy books is not the country's policy but the actions of a few. Of course, we could also get our troops out of their countries. And stop propping up dictators. And stop buying their oil.
Oh heck! I don't think we can stop it at all. So the question has to be, what group or groups in our country might want to start a world wide religious war? I'll deal with that soon.
Let's first get out of the way that the guarantees of the First Amendment protect this dumb ass from being prosecuted for doing dumb ass things. And don't think that I'm about to argue why this clown and his actions should be exceptions. I'm an absolutist when it comes to the First Amendment, so as far as I'm concerned, there ain't no exceptions. But this case and other examples, like the riots after a Danish newspaper printed "offensive" cartoons of the Prophet, should raise a red flag or two. At least as this relates to our future dealings with the Middle East and their oil.
See, whether one agrees with the concept that Muslim extremists want to foment a religious war or not, the Quran burning and the reaction to it happened. I think that we may have to face the fact that the start of such a war is out of our hands. And by "our hands" I mean those of use who are rational!
It now appears as if any nut case, or group of nut cases, can get a reaction from religious extremists half a world away with no more expense than a book, some lighter fuel, a match and a web cam. And there's not one thing we can do to stop them. What we maybe can do is try to defuse the reaction from the Muslim world. We could try and make clear that burning holy books is not the country's policy but the actions of a few. Of course, we could also get our troops out of their countries. And stop propping up dictators. And stop buying their oil.
Oh heck! I don't think we can stop it at all. So the question has to be, what group or groups in our country might want to start a world wide religious war? I'll deal with that soon.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
AFTER TUCSON
I won't go into all of the political charges and counter charges relating to the mass shooting in Arizona over the past weekend. Andrew Sullivan over at The Atlantic is, as usual, doing a great job of looking at both sides, so if you want an overview I suggest you go there. What concerns me is, I think, much bigger and much scarier.
I've mentioned before that I'm worried about the confluence of a presidential election in our current heated political environment with the increasing awareness of, and crazy ideas, centering on end of the world theories involving the year 2012. Briefly, you'll remember, the ancient Mayan calendar ends a long cycle of measurement on December 21, 2012. This seems to coincide with other predictions and prophecies made through history, as well as some astronomical events involving the alignments of the solar system and the planets. Couple this stuff, explained and examined over and over again by the History channel (among others), with the end times prophecies of Apocalyptic Christians, Jews and Muslims (also presented with graphic images of A-bombs exploding and Horsemen riding on cable channels) and you can see why some, including your Curmudgeon, worry.
The usual response to such worries is a chorus of, "It can't happen here," followed by the suggestion that the worrier may need to get a life. I think after Tucson that argument has lost most of its force. What has driven me to the keyboard now was hearing a cut from Glenn Beck's radio show after the shooting. In describing what Beck said was an exchange of emails with Sarah Palin, Mr. Beck mentioned that if, God forbid, Palin were shot the country would just explode. (Or words to that effect, since I can't locate the link to see exactly what he said) That pretty much raised my blood pressure, coming as it did in response to the shooting of a Democratic member of Congress whose district was targeted, by Palin, with gun sight cross hairs, in the last election. Talk about projection!
So, just what is my nightmare and what, if anything, can we do to prevent it from happening? My 2012 story goes like this:
After a highly charged primary race the Republicans nominate former half-term Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as their candidate for the Presidency. The campaign leading up to the election is both brutal and somewhat unconventional. Instead of debates between the candidates we are blistered by wave after wave of social media attack and counterattack. The rhetoric gets so bad that both Facebook and Twitter attempt to moderate postings. Bad idea! The cries of censorship flow from both camps and the rhetoric just gets hotter. Election night feels, to most, like the air pushed ahead of a really bad hurricane. Something awful is about to happen. And then the polls close and, as President Obama is declared the winner in his bid for reelection, all hell breaks out across the country with riots, shootings, fires and looting.
Now, as a nation we have faced these kind of things before, most recently in race related actions like the Rodney King riots in L.A. But this time it's different. It's not just one city or even one region, it's all across the nation. And it doesn't burn itself out in a few days because, unlike in previous periods of our history, a large chunk of popular media in the form of Fox News and talk radio not only doesn't push for restraint but actually fans the flames with anti Obama rhetoric. Obama sends the National Guard to, say, Memphis to quell the rioting there and the troops are fired upon by packs of citizen soldiers trying to protect their families from the naked provocation of this "Illegitimate President." The rioting gets worse. Armed attacks are made against the President, and somewhat surprisingly, against the Vice-President. A brief dip into the talk radio cesspool reveals that the Tea Party types have finally realized that a Republican, Speaker of the House John Boehner, is now second in line for the Presidency and Twitter and the blogs are aflame with talk of the idea that he, after assuming the office, can then appoint the defeated Sarah Palin to be his VP. Then, just weeks away from the dreaded date of December 21, 2012, the end of the world types add their own fuel to the fires. If the world is going to come to an end anyway, they think, why should I follow any laws enforced by "those" people in charge. And besides, the religious among them reason, only through the Apocalypse can we reach the golden era promised by the Prophets. After national martial law is declared on December 19th things go from bad to worse. New Years Day 2013 finds us at war with ourselves. The American experiment has come to an end.
Mighty bleak, ain't it? Now, I don't claim to be any kind of prophet nor do I have a crystal ball. What I do have is a rich understanding of sociology and the real power of both mass media and the new social media to influence people. So, what can be done?
Let's all at least try to get both sides of each and every issue presented to the public. If some friend or family member forwards to you a link or an email that sounds, well, crazy, call them on it. Or at least ask them for their source. Oh ya, and I'd suggest stocking up on bottled water and toilet paper starting around the end of October 2012. Just to be safe.
I've mentioned before that I'm worried about the confluence of a presidential election in our current heated political environment with the increasing awareness of, and crazy ideas, centering on end of the world theories involving the year 2012. Briefly, you'll remember, the ancient Mayan calendar ends a long cycle of measurement on December 21, 2012. This seems to coincide with other predictions and prophecies made through history, as well as some astronomical events involving the alignments of the solar system and the planets. Couple this stuff, explained and examined over and over again by the History channel (among others), with the end times prophecies of Apocalyptic Christians, Jews and Muslims (also presented with graphic images of A-bombs exploding and Horsemen riding on cable channels) and you can see why some, including your Curmudgeon, worry.
The usual response to such worries is a chorus of, "It can't happen here," followed by the suggestion that the worrier may need to get a life. I think after Tucson that argument has lost most of its force. What has driven me to the keyboard now was hearing a cut from Glenn Beck's radio show after the shooting. In describing what Beck said was an exchange of emails with Sarah Palin, Mr. Beck mentioned that if, God forbid, Palin were shot the country would just explode. (Or words to that effect, since I can't locate the link to see exactly what he said) That pretty much raised my blood pressure, coming as it did in response to the shooting of a Democratic member of Congress whose district was targeted, by Palin, with gun sight cross hairs, in the last election. Talk about projection!
So, just what is my nightmare and what, if anything, can we do to prevent it from happening? My 2012 story goes like this:
After a highly charged primary race the Republicans nominate former half-term Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as their candidate for the Presidency. The campaign leading up to the election is both brutal and somewhat unconventional. Instead of debates between the candidates we are blistered by wave after wave of social media attack and counterattack. The rhetoric gets so bad that both Facebook and Twitter attempt to moderate postings. Bad idea! The cries of censorship flow from both camps and the rhetoric just gets hotter. Election night feels, to most, like the air pushed ahead of a really bad hurricane. Something awful is about to happen. And then the polls close and, as President Obama is declared the winner in his bid for reelection, all hell breaks out across the country with riots, shootings, fires and looting.
Now, as a nation we have faced these kind of things before, most recently in race related actions like the Rodney King riots in L.A. But this time it's different. It's not just one city or even one region, it's all across the nation. And it doesn't burn itself out in a few days because, unlike in previous periods of our history, a large chunk of popular media in the form of Fox News and talk radio not only doesn't push for restraint but actually fans the flames with anti Obama rhetoric. Obama sends the National Guard to, say, Memphis to quell the rioting there and the troops are fired upon by packs of citizen soldiers trying to protect their families from the naked provocation of this "Illegitimate President." The rioting gets worse. Armed attacks are made against the President, and somewhat surprisingly, against the Vice-President. A brief dip into the talk radio cesspool reveals that the Tea Party types have finally realized that a Republican, Speaker of the House John Boehner, is now second in line for the Presidency and Twitter and the blogs are aflame with talk of the idea that he, after assuming the office, can then appoint the defeated Sarah Palin to be his VP. Then, just weeks away from the dreaded date of December 21, 2012, the end of the world types add their own fuel to the fires. If the world is going to come to an end anyway, they think, why should I follow any laws enforced by "those" people in charge. And besides, the religious among them reason, only through the Apocalypse can we reach the golden era promised by the Prophets. After national martial law is declared on December 19th things go from bad to worse. New Years Day 2013 finds us at war with ourselves. The American experiment has come to an end.
Mighty bleak, ain't it? Now, I don't claim to be any kind of prophet nor do I have a crystal ball. What I do have is a rich understanding of sociology and the real power of both mass media and the new social media to influence people. So, what can be done?
Let's all at least try to get both sides of each and every issue presented to the public. If some friend or family member forwards to you a link or an email that sounds, well, crazy, call them on it. Or at least ask them for their source. Oh ya, and I'd suggest stocking up on bottled water and toilet paper starting around the end of October 2012. Just to be safe.
Friday, August 27, 2010
THE GROUND ZERO MOSQUE
I'm fully aware that the Muslim Community Center proposed for Lower Manhattan isn't really an issue that folks outside of NYC (or DC) care all that much about. Therefor, I won't take too much of your time.
Did anyone else wonder why there have not been more court challenges to this project. Since zoning laws and such can be used to encourage or block just about any project it seemed strange to me that the opponents of this project had resorted to: " It may be their right, but it's just not right," type arguments. So I did a little research.
It turns out that in 2000 the then Republican Congress, at the urging of evangelical Christian groups, passed a bill, signed into law by President Clinton, to protect churches from being zoned out of neighborhoods. It's called The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The law is explained here.
So you see, those opposed can't win in court because of a law that they, themselves, championed. Ain't Karma great!
Did anyone else wonder why there have not been more court challenges to this project. Since zoning laws and such can be used to encourage or block just about any project it seemed strange to me that the opponents of this project had resorted to: " It may be their right, but it's just not right," type arguments. So I did a little research.
It turns out that in 2000 the then Republican Congress, at the urging of evangelical Christian groups, passed a bill, signed into law by President Clinton, to protect churches from being zoned out of neighborhoods. It's called The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The law is explained here.
So you see, those opposed can't win in court because of a law that they, themselves, championed. Ain't Karma great!
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
SOME RAMDOM THOUGHTS
There's so much going on in the world right now that it's difficult for me to land on a single topic. This could be a result of undiagnosed ADD or just that I'm busy and never seem to have the time to research and write a long post. Whatever. Here are some points to ponder. Some may get the full treatment later. Or not.
Does it bother anyone else that today's conservatives and the tea party bunch seem to hold the following ideas simultaneously:
1.The United States of America is the greatest nation now or ever on the face of the Earth and we are, in a word, Exceptional!
2. We are a government of the people and by the people. The people are the government and that government must remain subservient to the will of the people. And,
3. The U.S. government can't do anything right!
So, lets review: we're incredibly exceptional, but we can't do anything right!?
Along that same road: did you ever notice that the "government is the problem" crowd never fixes it when they are in power? They just seem to screw things up even more, get defeated at the polls, then grouse about the other side's attempts to expand government in order to fix, or at least address, the problems that they created until they throw those bums out and start over. Lather, rinse, repeat.
I, for one, am sick and tired of news talkers who act as if what they are reading is a complete surprise to them, and by extension, to their audience, even when it's something very common. For example, I remember a news story about a study that showed that a substantial number of adults, not just college kids, binge drink. The news reader was shocked, shocked I say, to discover this incredible nugget of new knowledge. Ya, like he or she never went to a wedding. Or a family reunion. Or never had an Uncle Harry or neighbor Don who drank a six-pack of beer every night, except weekends when he'd drink a case. The news readers have never seen this behavior before? If these folks are that far removed from real life, why do we listen to them at all? And don't even get me started on the breathless "Team Coverage" we get every time there's a thunderstorm. "Rain pounds the Valley...film at 11!" Spare me, please.
The real harm of the $700 billion Bush/Paulson financial bailout is that we the taxpayers replaced the banks "vapor wealth", that is, the gigantic sums that were bet on complex and convoluted derivative products by those high finance guys, with our "real" money.
Let me explain. All of the trading back and forth of derivatives and credit default swaps really just amounted to ledger entries. Stuff was put on the books at such and such a value. And the values kept getting higher. It's just like in the savings and loan crises of the 1980s. Then, real estate moguls were buying up commercial property, financed by friendly S & L loan officers, and then selling it to other moguls for more money, also financed by S & L loans. The value of the property didn't actually increase, it just looked that way on the books. Swap that property back and forth a few times and you've got property worth a whole lot of money. At least on the books. At some point a "real" appraisal will show that the prices have been inflated and that's what happened when that bubble burst.
Jump to 2008 and you see the same thing only this time with derivatives. But this time, thanks to George W. Bush and Hank (the sky is falling) Paulson we, the taxpayers, bought this junk with real money and at the inflated value. So the taxpayers paid actual money for what was really only bookkeeping entries. Vapor wealth!
If you listen (in small doses for safeties sake) to the tea party folks you'll begin to notice a theme. It's the same theme that runs through the GOP of today. They're always right! They convey opinions and spout positions, but underlying it is the absolute certainty that they, and their opinions, are now, and have always been, the correct ones. No doubt. No hesitation. No small hint of hoping that they have gotten it right. They know they have.
I see this as having a firm connection to the fact that this group is, in the main, not just Christians, but evangelical Christians. Since they know that everything they believe is, well, true. it's very easy for them to carry that same belief structure into the realm of politics and governance. The only problem for the rest of us is the same problem one has trying to argue about religion. You can't get anywhere. They know they're right and you're wrong so there really isn't anything to discuss. I think this is why we are unable to find any common ground. This assumption of rightness overpowers any argument one chooses to make. And, by extension, anyone else with the same position must also be right so it becomes very easy to listen to the ranting of the birthers and Rush and Beck and the like. "They're just like me, so they must be right," becomes the the glue that sticks this bunch together.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled web surfing. Thanks for stopping by.
Does it bother anyone else that today's conservatives and the tea party bunch seem to hold the following ideas simultaneously:
1.The United States of America is the greatest nation now or ever on the face of the Earth and we are, in a word, Exceptional!
2. We are a government of the people and by the people. The people are the government and that government must remain subservient to the will of the people. And,
3. The U.S. government can't do anything right!
So, lets review: we're incredibly exceptional, but we can't do anything right!?
Along that same road: did you ever notice that the "government is the problem" crowd never fixes it when they are in power? They just seem to screw things up even more, get defeated at the polls, then grouse about the other side's attempts to expand government in order to fix, or at least address, the problems that they created until they throw those bums out and start over. Lather, rinse, repeat.
I, for one, am sick and tired of news talkers who act as if what they are reading is a complete surprise to them, and by extension, to their audience, even when it's something very common. For example, I remember a news story about a study that showed that a substantial number of adults, not just college kids, binge drink. The news reader was shocked, shocked I say, to discover this incredible nugget of new knowledge. Ya, like he or she never went to a wedding. Or a family reunion. Or never had an Uncle Harry or neighbor Don who drank a six-pack of beer every night, except weekends when he'd drink a case. The news readers have never seen this behavior before? If these folks are that far removed from real life, why do we listen to them at all? And don't even get me started on the breathless "Team Coverage" we get every time there's a thunderstorm. "Rain pounds the Valley...film at 11!" Spare me, please.
The real harm of the $700 billion Bush/Paulson financial bailout is that we the taxpayers replaced the banks "vapor wealth", that is, the gigantic sums that were bet on complex and convoluted derivative products by those high finance guys, with our "real" money.
Let me explain. All of the trading back and forth of derivatives and credit default swaps really just amounted to ledger entries. Stuff was put on the books at such and such a value. And the values kept getting higher. It's just like in the savings and loan crises of the 1980s. Then, real estate moguls were buying up commercial property, financed by friendly S & L loan officers, and then selling it to other moguls for more money, also financed by S & L loans. The value of the property didn't actually increase, it just looked that way on the books. Swap that property back and forth a few times and you've got property worth a whole lot of money. At least on the books. At some point a "real" appraisal will show that the prices have been inflated and that's what happened when that bubble burst.
Jump to 2008 and you see the same thing only this time with derivatives. But this time, thanks to George W. Bush and Hank (the sky is falling) Paulson we, the taxpayers, bought this junk with real money and at the inflated value. So the taxpayers paid actual money for what was really only bookkeeping entries. Vapor wealth!
If you listen (in small doses for safeties sake) to the tea party folks you'll begin to notice a theme. It's the same theme that runs through the GOP of today. They're always right! They convey opinions and spout positions, but underlying it is the absolute certainty that they, and their opinions, are now, and have always been, the correct ones. No doubt. No hesitation. No small hint of hoping that they have gotten it right. They know they have.
I see this as having a firm connection to the fact that this group is, in the main, not just Christians, but evangelical Christians. Since they know that everything they believe is, well, true. it's very easy for them to carry that same belief structure into the realm of politics and governance. The only problem for the rest of us is the same problem one has trying to argue about religion. You can't get anywhere. They know they're right and you're wrong so there really isn't anything to discuss. I think this is why we are unable to find any common ground. This assumption of rightness overpowers any argument one chooses to make. And, by extension, anyone else with the same position must also be right so it becomes very easy to listen to the ranting of the birthers and Rush and Beck and the like. "They're just like me, so they must be right," becomes the the glue that sticks this bunch together.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled web surfing. Thanks for stopping by.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING
We have entered what I am afraid will turn into a very uncomfortable time. We have entered the time of "No Authority." Now, I don't mean by this that the anarchists are at the gate. Only that there appear to be no voices in our society that we can point to as being correct. No one from whom we know we will get the truth.
We have politicians calling other politicians names. We have cable networks putting up false pictures of events and characterizing our leaders as Commies and Nazis (ya, they don't care much for intellectual consistency) while the so called Main Stream Media chases after the latest sex scandal involving either a politician or a sports figure. We have U.S Senators standing up in front of the cameras and just plain lying about what is contained in a bill.
So then we must look to that beacon of moral certainty, the Church. Oops, maybe not the best choice, what with the Pope involved in moving pedophile priests around. And there's always Pat Robertson blaming the latest natural disaster on The Wrath of God! I guess that Pat hasn't seen an earthquake or flood that he can't use. To bad about the people, but they got what they deserved, don't ya know.
If anyone offers an opinion in the public arena these days you can bet that the counter opinion will be tweeted, posted and announced within minutes. Who can we trust? Who?
We have politicians calling other politicians names. We have cable networks putting up false pictures of events and characterizing our leaders as Commies and Nazis (ya, they don't care much for intellectual consistency) while the so called Main Stream Media chases after the latest sex scandal involving either a politician or a sports figure. We have U.S Senators standing up in front of the cameras and just plain lying about what is contained in a bill.
So then we must look to that beacon of moral certainty, the Church. Oops, maybe not the best choice, what with the Pope involved in moving pedophile priests around. And there's always Pat Robertson blaming the latest natural disaster on The Wrath of God! I guess that Pat hasn't seen an earthquake or flood that he can't use. To bad about the people, but they got what they deserved, don't ya know.
If anyone offers an opinion in the public arena these days you can bet that the counter opinion will be tweeted, posted and announced within minutes. Who can we trust? Who?
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
IT REALLY IS A HOLY WAR
The neocon reaction to the recent tragedy of the Fort Hood killings and to the administrations decision to bring Gitmo detainees to NYC for trial opens a window to the thinking (if any) of the pundits on that side of the debate. The view is not pretty.
On the trials we are greeted with the litany of:
As you might imagine, I take a different position. I'm old school on this. I think a war should be declared, by congress, against another sovereign state. No declaration, no war. No sovereign state, same result. As has been said before, the War on Terror is a war against a tactic. Let's have a War on Land Mines. How about a War on Flanking Maneuvers. Ya, it sounds pretty silly doesn't it. If, on the other hand, we take the criminal approach we can clearly see that action can be taken against those who committed, planned or supported criminal acts. This approach can be applied to large acts, like 9/11, as well as small acts, like the "shoe bomber". This neither diminishes the horror of 9/11 nor elevates Richard Reids attempt to light his shoes at 30,000 feet. A crime is a crime and should be prosecuted as such.
Which brings us to Nidal Hasen and Fort Hood. The neocon right is screaming that Hasen's actions are terrorism, and he must be treated as a terrorist and, I suppose, be shipped off to Gitmo and a water-boarding session or two (or 183, you never know).
But wait a minute! If Hasen is a terrorist and our response to terrorist attacks is based upon the War on Terror model, who, pray tell, should we now invade? With whom should we start war number 3? Hasen wasn't, as far as we know, a part of any al-Qaeda sleeper cell. He didn't train at an Afghanistan "monkey bars" training camp. He wasn't bin Laden's driver, or go-fer, or anything. He is a Palestinian by birth so maybe we should invade Palestine. Oh wait, there's no such country as Palestine. OK, maybe we should invade the West Bank. Or Gaza. See the problem in dealing with Hasen as a terrorist actor in the War on Terror.
To my mind this blows up (sorry) the whole idea of the War on Terror as anything other than a holy war against Islam. That 800 pound gorilla is the only connection between Hasen and al-Qaeda. In fact, Islam is the only real connection between the many far flung Islamic terrorist groups around the globe from Asia to Africa to Europe. If Hasen must be treated as a terrorist it must be because he is a Muslim. There is no other logical reason.
Nidal Hasen is a murderer for whatever reason he himself used as motivation. Likewise, those who planned and executed 9/11 are murderers. We know full well in this country how to deal with murderers. By labeling him, and them, anything else leads to endless war in countries with little or no connection to the acts committed. I, for one, have more and better faith in our justice system then those on the right it seems. What ever happened to American Exceptionalism?
On the trials we are greeted with the litany of:
- They were captured in a war so they must be tried by military commission.
- This will only invite more attacks.
- What if they get off?
- This is war, not crime.
- Repeat (endlessly it seems).
As you might imagine, I take a different position. I'm old school on this. I think a war should be declared, by congress, against another sovereign state. No declaration, no war. No sovereign state, same result. As has been said before, the War on Terror is a war against a tactic. Let's have a War on Land Mines. How about a War on Flanking Maneuvers. Ya, it sounds pretty silly doesn't it. If, on the other hand, we take the criminal approach we can clearly see that action can be taken against those who committed, planned or supported criminal acts. This approach can be applied to large acts, like 9/11, as well as small acts, like the "shoe bomber". This neither diminishes the horror of 9/11 nor elevates Richard Reids attempt to light his shoes at 30,000 feet. A crime is a crime and should be prosecuted as such.
Which brings us to Nidal Hasen and Fort Hood. The neocon right is screaming that Hasen's actions are terrorism, and he must be treated as a terrorist and, I suppose, be shipped off to Gitmo and a water-boarding session or two (or 183, you never know).
But wait a minute! If Hasen is a terrorist and our response to terrorist attacks is based upon the War on Terror model, who, pray tell, should we now invade? With whom should we start war number 3? Hasen wasn't, as far as we know, a part of any al-Qaeda sleeper cell. He didn't train at an Afghanistan "monkey bars" training camp. He wasn't bin Laden's driver, or go-fer, or anything. He is a Palestinian by birth so maybe we should invade Palestine. Oh wait, there's no such country as Palestine. OK, maybe we should invade the West Bank. Or Gaza. See the problem in dealing with Hasen as a terrorist actor in the War on Terror.
To my mind this blows up (sorry) the whole idea of the War on Terror as anything other than a holy war against Islam. That 800 pound gorilla is the only connection between Hasen and al-Qaeda. In fact, Islam is the only real connection between the many far flung Islamic terrorist groups around the globe from Asia to Africa to Europe. If Hasen must be treated as a terrorist it must be because he is a Muslim. There is no other logical reason.
Nidal Hasen is a murderer for whatever reason he himself used as motivation. Likewise, those who planned and executed 9/11 are murderers. We know full well in this country how to deal with murderers. By labeling him, and them, anything else leads to endless war in countries with little or no connection to the acts committed. I, for one, have more and better faith in our justice system then those on the right it seems. What ever happened to American Exceptionalism?
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
ARE THERE MANY BUSH HOLDOVERS
The recent 747 New York photo flyover mess makes me wonder, are there still Bush era hires in place in the Obama administration? I mean, it has only been a little over 100 days since the new administration took office. Have they had time to replace everyone on down the bureaucracy?
I suppose it really doesn't matter, but the flyover was just so stupid that it put me in mind of the incompetence parade of the past eight years. What didn't get a lot of attention in the Bush years was that many of their interns and hires came from that bastion of higher learning, Patrick Henry Collage.
Good old PHC. A Liberal Arts institution founded in 1998 and opened in 2000, PHC was finally accredited in 2007. Wait, it gets better. The founder, and president, is one Michael Farris who is also the founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association. The HSLDA is now headquartered at PHC. The express intent of the college is to offer a place for Christian home schooled students to attend college.
Yes, I'm being a bit snarky. Rather than proceed with what will seem to be a biased interpretation of the facts, I will simply link the reader to a very well researched Wikipedia entry and to a 2004 article. You can be the judge of whether the hiring of this particular school's students and graduates contributed to the most incompetent administration in our countries history, or not.
Me, I just hope that the Obama administration gets all of their hiring done soon.
I suppose it really doesn't matter, but the flyover was just so stupid that it put me in mind of the incompetence parade of the past eight years. What didn't get a lot of attention in the Bush years was that many of their interns and hires came from that bastion of higher learning, Patrick Henry Collage.
Good old PHC. A Liberal Arts institution founded in 1998 and opened in 2000, PHC was finally accredited in 2007. Wait, it gets better. The founder, and president, is one Michael Farris who is also the founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association. The HSLDA is now headquartered at PHC. The express intent of the college is to offer a place for Christian home schooled students to attend college.
Yes, I'm being a bit snarky. Rather than proceed with what will seem to be a biased interpretation of the facts, I will simply link the reader to a very well researched Wikipedia entry and to a 2004 article. You can be the judge of whether the hiring of this particular school's students and graduates contributed to the most incompetent administration in our countries history, or not.
Me, I just hope that the Obama administration gets all of their hiring done soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)