Contrary to some opinions, I have nothing against Republicans. In much the same way that Christianity isn't always best represented by people who call themselves "Christians", the Republican Party is a victim with many of those with whom it associates. As a result of allowing itself to become a merger of several large single issue public interest groups, the Republican Party is unable to contribute to the issues of the day in any meaningful way. The Republican Party can be best described as espousing these ideals:
1. All taxes are bad 2. Abortion should be illegal 3. No gun laws 4. Immigrants are bad 5. The Bible is the literal word of God 6. Government is bad, except for defense
These few issues leave very little room for policy debate. A Republican has to have the correct opinion on all of these issues or they are essentially purged from the party. A point of clarification should be made, however. Republicans who are just walking around on the street, the 21% of self-identified Republicans, can think whatever they want. No one really cares about them until election time. Elected officials, on the other hand, are held to a very high standard. Any deviation from orthodoxy will bring the full force of radio and cable talk show hosts and interest groups down upon the traitor.
I don't find this state of affairs to be good at all. The other "major" party in US politics is basically an extreme right right fringe group. The "leaders", such as they are, are loud, prone to nasty rhetoric, and have nothing to add to the major issues of the day, as would be expected from rigid ideologues. Without a major reorientation of the party in more moderate direction, the path back to "power" (which is all anyone cares about) is to convince a majority of the electorate that the issues of the day aren't issues at all. Then run a fear-based election focused on terrorism and hope for 51%. This should be a cause for concern because there is absolutely no indication that moderation is anywhere on the agenda.
The Democratic Party simply doesn't have all the best ideas. In an effective two party system, both parties would have something different and valid to offer. At times, Republican leadership may be more desirable. Or a divided government scenario might be the best course in some cases. At this point, the role of the Republican Party is being played by the more conservative Democrats, the Blue Dogs. Other Democrats are providing the balance.
At some point, it stands to reason that the Democrats will fall out of favor and independent voters will look to the Republicans. What they'll find will be truly frightening. They'll see a semi-populist, anti-government party that will use wedge issues to hide a very rigid political orthodoxy that won't become evident until they regain power.
We need a Republican Party that is once again the party of Eisenhower. However, even a return to the party of Reagan would be a big move in a favorable direction. The current Republican Party isn't close to either.
I haven't wavered much on the usefulness of pursuing the torture issue. I still think President Obama should stay away from it. Whatever happens, I don't have any interest in prosecutions. That said...
Why is the country debating torture? Does the debate we're having do us any good? Are we trying to figure which specific techniques constitute torture? Are we trying to figure out if torture produces good intelligence? Are we trying to decide whether to investigate the uses of torture? Are we trying to decide whether it's okay to torture at all? All of the above are part of the debate but there doesn't seem to be any purpose to it.
Part of the problem is that our national identity is at best fractured, and at worst non-existent. Debating our values is not new. However, we haven't set any parameters for this debate. As a country, we can't seem to decide whether torture is okay. If we can't be honest about that question, I don't see much use in discussing anything else. Hell, we don't even know what torture is, let alone whether it's an sensible policy.
The notion of "torture" is something we have, at times, rejected in theory. The Eighth Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments". However, to my knowledge this applies only to citizens, and not surprisingly there is disagreement over which punishments are "cruel and unusual". The United States has also ratified the Third Geneva Convention which prohibits torture or prisoners, among other humanitarian concerns. It follows then, that at least as of 1949, the United States prohibited torture. There are many ways to torture a person, and again, these techniques are not specifically outlined. Presumably, we know it when we see it. Alternatively, even though we may see it, without specific techniques being outlawed, it's possible to define a particular technique as not being torture. Or, we can create a new type of prisoner of war who is not a real prisoner of war, such as an "enemy combatant" on the account that they aren't uniformed military. Thus, we don't need the Geneva Conventions at all.
I believe that the means by which such determinations were made will eventually be revealed. The people who sanctioned torture will probably be held to account in some way, even if it only amounts to public shaming and historical disgrace. The problem as I see it, goes beyond these specific offenses and enters the realm of our values as a nation; our national identity. Regardless of whether any particular technique is torture, and the legal end-runs that were created to get around the Geneva Conventions, do we want the United States government to behave like this? Another way to put it is "Do we wish to behave like this?" Despite what some righties would have us believe, we ARE the government. When the CIA tortures, we torture. I may not be John Yoo, but he served the Presidential Administration of the country to which I belong. I didn't vote for Bush, but I didn't leave either. We're all in this together.
Americans tend to believe that America is the "best country in the world", a phenomenon some have referred to as "exceptionalism", and trace back to our Puritan origins. If there are people who find comfort in the belief, then I'd like to know why they believe it to be so. Because of "freedom"? A lot of countries have freedom; even more freedom than us. Because we are a free market economy? Nope, plenty of those around. Because we care for the least of us? Hell, we don't even do that. Because God has placed us here? Because we can buy almost anything we want, often without having to pay for it? Because the second amendment allows us to keep nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles in our garages?
Human rights is rarely mentioned as a reason why America is "exceptional". Unfortunately, human rights has become code for "weakness" by those who believe America to be exceptional. If one group of people chooses to not talk about human rights because another group of people will say they are "wussies", then our moral bearing is clearly dysfunctional. Some will justify torture if it is deemed to keep us "safe". Others will condemn torture under any circumstance because it's morally wrong. Those most willing to condone torture also happen to be evangelicals. The teachings of Jesus are apparently to be applied only when it's convenient. Sadly, if ever there was a place where Biblical concepts should be considered, this is it. Jesus didn't waver on how his enemies were to be treated.
The most frequently used argument for torture has been that it can produce information which saves lives. This is dubious, but we all imagine ourselves holding some secret that we know we'd reveal under duress. Thus, torture must work. I'm not going to argue the efficacy of torture here. I'm merely questioning whether we wish to define ourselves in this manner? Is torturing people part of what America is about? If we consider torture to be okay (even some of the time), then the world of nations are certainly free to follow our example. When another country gets called on it, they can reply, "But America did it and they didn't get in trouble!" and they won't be asked whether they would also jump off a bridge.
President Obama quoted Winston Churchill in his press conference on April 29, 2009. Obama is obviously conflicted on the issue. He is stuck between wishing to do the right thing as a matter of national principle and accomplishing things that will help people in a tangible way right now (jobs, health care, etc...). Nonetheless, his reference of Churchill best explains the risk posed by our moral equivalency on the issue of torture:
I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day, talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, we don't torture -- when the entire British -- all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat. And the reason was that Churchill understood you start taking shortcuts, and over time that corrodes what's best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.
posted by Ant In A Hailstorm at
8:00 PM on Tuesday, April 28, 2009
0 Comments
Only Anger Holds Us Together
I happened to notice a small gathering of folks in my local burgh. A man was speaking in the rain, proclaiming that it was time to "get government out of our back pockets" and give the power back to "the people". He received moderate applause with this line and others like it. There were maybe a few hundred people standing around, mostly passersby at lunch. A bunch of others had some fantastic signs with messages such as "President Fail", "Honk If I'm Paying Your Mortgage", and "Obama Socialist Pig". Yes, I ran into a "Tea Party". My normal reaction to this sort of thing is untempered rage. However, I tried to take my hate hat off and put my political science hat on and think sensibly.
These tea party events are protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. It states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble". That goes for you and me. The Constitution is silent about the merits of assembling. The reason behind assembling doesn't have to be rational or intelligible or "smart". The assembled persons require no education. They can be ignorant in every way. Nothing stands in the way of the right of humans in the United States to assemble. I can't modify that right without dipping my toe in the water of despotism.
These people aren't completely without principle though. Regardless of what they say about "taxes" and "big government", their principle is "angry". In this sense, I'm not so different from the tea-baggers. We're all mad and we don't like what we see. No one likes to bailout banks and give their executives big bonuses. No one likes enormous debt. The tea-baggers and I are actually observing the same country, in peril. However, we are angry about fundamentally different things. I heard this little exchange on the radio:
Reporter: Why are you holding that sign? Tea-bagger: I think he's a fascist. Reporter: Why? Tea-bagger: Because he is.
That doesn't make me angry at all.
The man with that "fascist" Obama sign didn't know what fascism was. He knew the word, and that it meant something bad, and that was good enough for him. The funny thing about all of this is that I think I now understand how all those righties felt after 9/11. Sometime around, say the next day, many persons of my political leanings were back to normal. Meanwhile all I kept hearing was "nothing will ever be the same". Everything was the same for me on 9/12. I thought the war on terror was stupid because we could never win a war against a tactic. I felt no urge to "strike back". I thought going into Afghanistan was a disaster waiting to happen. Unsurprisingly, I was against Iraq altogether. The NSA surveillance programs, harsh interrogation, and re-interpreting the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of prisoners of war were abominations to me. I didn't think there was a threat after 9/11. There was a fairly significant threat on 9/10, but 9/12? Not so much. I wasn't the only person who thought these things. My like was referred to as "traitor" and "unpatriotic" by many on the right who were seemingly confounded that the Bush Administration was criticized.
Now, I look at the situation with the economy and it confounds me that those right wingers don't take it seriously. Unemployment is higher than it's been in 30 years. Our financial system nearly broke entirely. If the banks had all crashed it would have hit everyone. Yet, the tea-baggers don't think there is a crisis. They don't believe it. They think the crisis is a hoax so that liberals can institute "socialism" or "communism" or "fascism", etc... I think we're in the midst of one of the largest national emergencies this county has ever faced, but my right-leaning fellow countrymen are cheesed off about taxes, even though a tax cut was just enacted.
These views are diametrically opposed. We're all angry, but our sense about what is important is completely different. It's not a matter of one side being right or wrong. It doesn't matter because everyone is allowed to be heard (and vote), if they choose. Again, there aren't any requirements to do those things. They are "rights". What is sort of alarming is that we see the world in such different ways. I don't care that much about terrorism. Tea-baggers don't care about losing their health care. That is a core psychological difference. I don't know how we'll survive as a country when our differences are so vast. My guess is that only anger is holding us together.
posted by Ant In A Hailstorm at
1:00 PM on Wednesday, April 15, 2009
2 Comments
CONFESSIONS OF A BUSH HATER
I'm not sure I'm actually a real "Bush Hater". First, the terminology is suspect at best. It's a Republican Party partisan epithet that has been in use since the inception of the Bush Administration. Tagging an individual or group as "Bush Haters" is/was meant to marginalize them as inherently irrational. It doesn't matter what irrational people think. They might as well be crazy. However, for the purpose of this editorial, I will allow myself to temporarily don the label in order to explain my revulsion of the Bush Administration.
While I never put it this bluntly, I wanted George W. Bush to fail. More specifically, I wanted his administration to fail with regards to certain policies. However, I also realized that if he really "failed" on the big things, the country would be in big trouble. George Bush was elected by the American people (slightly less than half of all voters). This is the system of government under which we live. If "we" choose someone to represent all of us, then on a very basic level, we must wish that he be successful, even if we'd prefer that specific policies don't get enacted.
My initial feelings about George W. Bush could have been characterized as somewhere between indifferent and cautiously optimistic. I didn't feel good about him, but I was open-minded. Following the slash and burn South Carolina primary, the campaign, and then the post campaign debacle of Florida, my opinion of Bush changed a great deal. I didn't like the way he spoke. I found his lack of knowledge on basic issues to be distressing. What I perceived as arrogance was all the more frustrating given his lack of knowledge.
Nonetheless, I wanted to believe his characterization of himself as a "compassionate conservative", which before it became a joke appeared to be repudiation of the more radical Conservative ideology of the previous two decades. Further, I felt a sense of reassurance that Bush might be a decent president because of his father's foreign policy realism. I imagined the new Bush leaning heavily on people like Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell. I also thought he'd try to "heal" the divided nation by governing, at least initially, as more or less a moderate.
It's hard to separate my feelings about Bush from 9/11. Prior to 9/11, I thought he was likely to be an accidental president. Bush's response to 9/11 terrified me. I didn't think he had any idea what he was doing. It then followed that I didn't think he would have meaningful input to what his advisers were suggesting. My fears were confirmed when he announced that we were in a "war on terror". That was ridiculous to me. A war on jealousy would have better chances of success. A war on "terror" can't be won. There will always be terror. Further, that's the nature of "terrorism". Declaring a war seemed designed to keep people scared all the time and into perpetuity, which is exactly what the tactic of "terrorism" seeks to achieve. The Bush administration's response to the attacks struck me as naive. We were in a war with Al-Qaeda, and we were in that war prior to 9/11.
Regarding Iraq, reasonable people questioned the existence of WMD. I tended to think it was unlikely that Iraq had WMD, but I didn't know of course. I think the selling of the war was a low point in American politics. The "smoking gun that comes in the form of a mushroom cloud" was hyperbole of such an order that it was hard to know how to respond. Once the war was underway, the issue of whether there was WMD in Iraq became academic. Perhaps the administration lied, or misled, or overstated the case, but regardless, we had launched a war against another country. In that context, I certainly didn't want failure. Failure in Iraq was, and still is, an unacceptable outcome. No, we shouldn't have been there in the first place, but it was too late for that. I firmly believed that my anger over how we got in had to be separated from my opinion of what to do in the present.
I was conflicted regarding Iraq. I didn't want Bush to be successful, yet I wanted Iraq to turn out alright. I wasn't in favor of any sort of pull out until that place had been brought under control. I believe that we destroyed Iraq. I have to include myself in that "we" because I live in America and continue to freely choose to do stay. I think the human toll exacted on the Iraqis was devastating and I believe there is a moral obligation to make Iraq as right as possible. Failure means more suffering, more harm to Americans, and a further destabilized Middle East. In the end, I concluded that I wanted the best possible outcome for Iraq, but I didn't want the Bush Administration to be able to claim any credit for it. I wasn't on the line for a decision, and I wasn't accountable, so I could live with this equivocal stance.
Regarding the financial crisis, I was in pretty much the same position. I considered the Bush Administration, or to be more specific, the administration's oversight of the financial system, to be largely responsible for the crisis. Yet, how could I wish for failure once the crisis had happened. Bush responded about as well as I think he could. I give him credit for not being an ideologue in a time of crisis.
I have no idea how many people ended up in this place. I found the anti-war movement to be ignorant. And they were the loudest. Certainly, anger was driving the response to everything Bush did, regardless of the outcome. There were more considered opinions out there, but they weren't loud. Plus, nuance always whispers, while simplicity shouts.
Oddly enough, Bush actually failed. From the response to 9/11, Iraq, Katrina, and the financial crisis, the administration failed. This isn't a cause for celebration. Bush's failures have caused untold harm. Sure, now I have a guy that I like in the White House, but was it worth the cost? Certainly not to me. Worldwide havoc is what happens when a presidential administration fails. It happened on Bush's watch, and it will happen to President Obama if he fails.
posted by Ant In A Hailstorm at
1:00 PM on Saturday, March 28, 2009
1 Comments
Start Digging The Graves... Big Oil's Propaganda
Big Oil is terminally ill. You wouldn't know it by their profits, but the walking dead frequently appear just fine until you know about the disease. No one except those who own and/or work for Big Oil likes oil. It's now considered a necessary evil. When the product contains the word "evil" anywhere, you know the fat lady is about to sing. No one wants oil anymore. Everyone wants a cleaner, cheaper alternative. These companies see the end coming, but they are still on deck with their buckets, furiously trying to empty the water from the Titanic. How do we know? Their completely absurd self-promoting advertising is the giveaway. Big Oil is now pouring millions of dollars into advertisements to convince consumers that they aren't dying, and in fact, are actually integral to the future and are ideally positioned to take us forward into a world of non-oil-based energy. They are no different than the alcoholic ex-boyfriends that keeping promising that they've really changed this time. These metaphors are killing me! Now let us consider a few examples of their futility...
First lets deal with Exxon. This ad features an array of stooges posing as scientists (who presumably work for Exxon) telling us about all the ways they'll be improving our lives through with their innovative "technologies". They start by framing their concern as environmental in nature. It doesn't take five seconds before the nonsense starts. Does anyone seriously think that the company which posts the largest corporate profits in history, every year, would be doing ANY of this craziness if everyone hadn't started to freak out over gas prices and global warming? Why would they? Why should they change? Obviously, they have no problem making the largest corporate profits ever by selling us good old fashioned oil. Yet, they are so audacious as to think they can drop millions of dollars telling us that they are actually concerned about consumers and we'll all go along with it. No doubt, I trust that Exxcon will lead the way. Did you see that? ExxCON???!
But wait! Exxon isn't the only oil company in the game. Don't forget British Petroleum, or BP, or "Beyond Petroleum" (I just love those marketing wizards!). They start their ad with a slightly different premise than Exxon. BP begins by assuming that we already think they have a role in new energy. Exxon seems desperate to convince us, so they have to bring in a bunch of scientist-looking folks of different ethnic origins. BP doesn't bother with any of that. They go straight to the "man on the street" and ask "What would you ask an oil company?" As if it were any surprise, the actors/dupes they have cast wish to ask BP what they plan to do about air quality and alternatives to oil. That's the first thing I thought of. I didn't think "How dare you rape the planet for all it's worth, for as long as you could get away with it, then hold us hostage by offering us the Earth's natural resources for a ransom, while claiming you care!" Don't let the ingratiating "hopeful" sounding music at the end fool you either.
I've saved the best for last! Energy Tomorrow started putting out ads during the presidential primaries that featured a lady named Brooke Alexander. She used to act in soaps, so she was perfectly suited for this! She's still out there selling out whatever soul she has left to a promotion called "Energy Tomorrow" which is actually an ad campaign from the American Petroleum Institute (API), largest U.S trade association for the oil and natural gas industry. She starts by saying "Oil and natural gas powered the past". That's really interesting because on the American Petroleum Institute's webpage it says "API is the only national trade association that represents all aspects of America’s oil and natural gas industry". So is the API like... some sort of medieval guild? Our friend Brooke then tells us that a "growing world will need more" and proposes, unbelievably, a sixty year plan using "oil and natural gas resources right here". But, wait... didn't she just say...? Yes, she said "oil and natural gas powered the past" AND THEN that we have enough for the "next 60 years". Sixty years sounds pretty safe. But why not 500 years? Because then we'd think they were trying to trick us. So 60 years is a nice number that sounds safe and yet means absolutely nothing. She used the word alternative once, but didn't mention any actual alternatives, which isn't surprising since she represents the OIL AND NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY. There obviously is no alternative. Never mind that though. We'll all be gone in 60 years anyway, right? Or at least that old bag in the commercials will be gone.
Here's the thing to remember. We don't know the name of the company that will provide us with new sources of energy. Just like we didn't know what a "Microsoft" was in 1973. As far as I'm concerned, it's time to start digging the graves.
posted by Ant In A Hailstorm at
3:00 PM on Friday, March 27, 2009
0 Comments
AIG: In Bed With The Enemy
AIG executives plan to award themselves 165 million in bonuses and retention pay. These aren't the regular run-of-the-mill executives (although they're getting their share too). The largest share of the bonus money is headed toward the derivatives division, the people who brought us Credit Default Swaps.
Suddenly, everyone is surprised and shocked! In the world of income inequality, it's these people who comprise the very top. We find ourselves horrified only now, because 170 billion American tax dollars were given to AIG to prevent it from failing, and consequently destroying the world economy. Understand, this was perfectly fine last year. And the year before. And the year before that. It made complete sense that these people received millions of dollars in compensation. The justification for the high payouts is that those who receive them brought in billions of dollars. So, all considered, it's a good deal.
We believe that it is appropriate for individuals to generate billions of dollars in phoney (or to put it charitably "unsound") invenstments. Why isn't a $500,000 bonus sufficient? Why isn't a salary sufficient? Competition for the best talent of course. Our favorite financial corporate executives are the A-Rods of big money. And of course, we're also okay with baseball players receiving millions and millions of dollars. Seriously, why should we be surprised that these titans of industry would give themselves bonuses even when they have failed on the grandest scale in the history of civilization. And I do mean "civilization" because the mess created by AIG is the largest financial disaster ever. And the amount of money being thrown to AIG to keep it on life support is also the largest ever.
These are people in society that we accept. Some even admire them and wish to be one of them. Only now are they villains. No, they are doing what snakes do. We let them in our house and they are eating our children and now we're angry. The question we should be asking ourselves isn't "How could they take bonuses?!" It should be "Is this really the kind of world that I believe is right and just?". We're going to come out of this eventually. My guess is that business will go on as usual and the million dollar bonuses won't be front page news. If so, if we allow the system to be rebuilt much the same as it was prior to the crisis, then we shouldn't be surprised when get eaten again. That is the culture. Hasn't anyone seen the movie Wall Street?
In the meantime, President Obama spoke about AIG:
"This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed," Mr. Obama said ahead of announcing a plan to rescue small businesses through a raft of new lending options. "Under these circumstances, it's hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay. How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?"
I think that's all fine and well, and I hope those bonuses are stopped. However, as AIG has pointed out, they are obligated to pay out the bonuses because it's a contractual obligation. Do you see where this is going? AIG is too big fail. Therefore, we give AIG billions of dollars. Then AIG continues to do what it has always done because they believe they have us by the balls. They know we can't let them fail, so why not pay out those bonuses? Plus, it's in the contract. And beyond that, if they fail to pay those bonuses, then they might lose some of their gifted employees to other firms. Then what would happen?! I think that's a load of crap, but I'll go into it some other time.
So to finish, AIG will get their money. And we will let them do it now, and we'll let them do it again. It's time to read more books and newspapers, and spend less time worrying about gay marriage, prostitution scandals, abortion, missing pretty girls, etc... That's the connection. While the country was following the Natalie Holloway story, the disaster of AIG's greedy decisions was just starting to materialize. And we never saw it coming.
posted by Ant In A Hailstorm at
1:34 PM on Monday, March 16, 2009
0 Comments
We Are Not The Problem
This has been getting on my nerves for the past few weeks so I'm going to address it here. Don't let anyone tell you that "we" are responsible for the economic crisis. Don't let anyone tell you that "everyone" has to share in the blame. This is blatant establishment propaganda.
"Establishment Propaganda": What the hell is this socialist crap?! I'll tell you what it is. It's the reason why the existing of order of things is never seriously challenged by a significant number of people. It's meant to prevent social unrest. This is no conspiracy. There isn't a group of guys sitting around a table somewhere deciding to dupe everyone. It's simply self-interest. It doesn't matter who it is. It could be Fox or MSNBC. It could be Rush Limbaugh or Rachel Maddow. It doesn't matter because they all do it. No one with a leadership role in public life wishes to see it challenged. It's non-ideological.
"We" are being told that "we" should share some blame for the financial crisis. How much responsibility we are assigned varies. Some will say it's all "our" fault. Some will divide the responsibility among banks, mortgage lenders, political leaders, etc... The main point is that we are made to understand that responsibility does not solely lie with our institutions; that is, our government, our financial system, and the specific individuals who set economic policy.
Step back for a moment and think about your own situation. What changed for you? Were you doing anything different in 2007 when the subprime mortgage market began to crash, than you were in 2002 when subprime was booming? Were you doing anything different in March 2008 or September 2008 when Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers collapsed, Wachovia and Washington Mutual failed, and AIG, Merrill Lynch, and Citigroup required "bailout" money in order to prevent complete economic devastation? Perhaps you had a car loan, house loan, and some credit card debt. Most people continued to work and meet their obligations. Nothing changed except that the system upon which we all depend started to shake underneath our feet.
Buying an iPod, plasma tv, or Wii did not cause the problem. It wasn't you. It wasn't even those who took bad mortgages, but that's a different topic for a different post.
Believing it is partly "our" fault makes us complacent and helpless. It strips away any possible curiosity about why all of a sudden we fear for our jobs and the value of our 401k's have been cut in half. It was partially "our" fault. The nice thing about this belief is that it means that the same people that got us into this mess will not only maintain their position, but will be paid to fix the mess. When the economy eventually recovers (and it will) we'll all be so relieved that our leaders and institutions got us out of this crisis we created. In the end, the system will look much the same as it did prior to the crisis. The main difference will be that there will be some provisions put in place to try to prevent the same thing from happening again. Otherwise, the system will benefit the few at the expense of the many. Profit will be capitalized, while risk will be socialized.
I'm not suggesting that we should take to the street and burn down our local television affiliates and our local government offices. It won't do any good. The thing to remember is that while this crisis unfolds, it should not be forgotten that you aren't responsible. If you find yourself in a position to do something, then do it. For most of us that will be in November 2010, the next congressional election.
There is a terrifying statistic out there that the "blame everyone" crowd has been using to build it's case. It's the fact that total household debt exceeds the nation's total GDP. Household debt burdens are too high, but the debt to GDP ratio is not a factor in our current problem. Read here for more: Debt-To-GDP Chart "Wrong".
posted by Ant In A Hailstorm at
8:08 PM on Saturday, March 14, 2009
0 Comments
Chris Matthews Doesn't Care
I find Chris Matthews alternately frustrating and fascinating. He was positively ignorant last week while trying to express his frustration with the progress of the Obama Administration's response to the bank crisis. On the other hand, tonight he went after Ari Fleischer without mercy. This is the kind of interview one gives when they don't care if their guest never returns. Fleischer handles himself well enough. He didn't fold. Regardless, it was nice to hear the questions in a public forum. Anyone who spends a little time watching these shows quickly catches on that both guest and host have a mutually beneficially arrangement. Neither wants to make the other look bad. The host wants to look like an insider. The guest wants to get the message out. So day after day we get boring interviews and no one really gets grilled. Even though Matthews thanks Fleischer for appearing on his show, adding "I really mean it", my guess is that Matthews plans on retiring sooner than he thinks he'll need Fleischer on his show again.
posted by Ant In A Hailstorm at
7:49 PM on Wednesday, March 11, 2009
0 Comments
Want To Fix The Economy? Start By Shutting Up
The first of probably a few commentaries on the destruction of everything we know and everything we do and why I'm scared to death.
No one knows what's going to happen. Most people want retribution against those who cause this crisis. Some express righteous indignation at the notion of "bailing out" banks. Everyone is wrong. There is no other way to say it. Perhaps an analogy will help. The global financial system is like God. Ordinary people cannot understand, and therefore should not question it's actions. We have neither the capacity to understand, nor the power to fight back. We are at it's mercy. Don't question God. It can only get us in trouble.
There really are certain things of which people should have no opinions. Monetary policy and the world of high finance are certainly two of those things. Consider your own background. If you are like me, you went to high school, then college, then got some job. How much education did we get about financial policy along the way? Possibly we took an economics class because we had to. Some may say that they took a lot of these courses. Okay, then as long as you've been paying attention to current events, and also have read up on the history of monetary policy for the past 80 years, then go ahead and have your opinion.
Everyone else needs to shut up. There ARE people in the world who can understand this stuff. The Chairman of The Federal Reserve Bank is one of them. The current and past Treasury Secretaries are two more. Trained economists of either a liberal or conservative persuasion who have been in the business for a couple decades count as well. The rest of us may as well be questioning how to put a man on the moon, or hear a person's voice in a device held to the ear, how a light bulb works. We are doing more harm than good with our opinions. God help us if we are called to answer questions in a poll.
That is what it has come to. Of course, it's always been like this, only it mattered far less when all we had to do was wrap our brains around what Monica Lewinsky did or whether that girl in Aruba was "asking for it". It's time to leave this problem to the grownups. So everyone, when you hear words like "nationalization", "bailout", "socialism", "Keynes", "Vienna School", "CDO", "liquidity", "Sweden", "Mortgage Backed Securities", "Derivatives", "Securitization", "Re-capitalize", "Japan's lost decade", "Depression", and sadly, even "asset", "liability", and "equity"... turn the channel to a cartoon or some other fun thing. The more the general public tries to insert itself into this mess, the worse it's going to get.
Why would this be, you may ask?
There are two political parties in the American system, and we are more or less a representative democracy (less, but that's another topic). Neither party is in the position to take the most reasonable steps towards solving this problem because their so-called "supporters" have opinions that make it impossible. Would letting the banks fail be a good idea? Word on the street compels our politicians to blow up the banks. No one likes banks these days except bankers, so letting the banks fail is like yummy chocolate. Surely nothing bad could come of that since we've all been paying our mortgages and have nothing to do with investment banking. Should the government get more involved, perhaps even temporarily nationalize the banks? Can't do that, because then the conservatives will scream and call everyone else a "socialist". Plus, everyone knows that nationalization won't work because Citibank has a branch in Mexico. Oops.
No good can come from ignorant folks who vote putting pressure on political leaders to do something stupid because that's the general level of understanding out here. Hell, if I had it my way, I'd appoint a Dictator Of Finance, and be done with it. Everyone will be mad and no one will be able to do anything about it. That's what it will take to fix the economy.
I happened to notice a small gathering of folks in my local burgh. A man was speaking in the rain, proclaiming that it was time to "get government out of our back pockets" and give the power back to "the people". He received moderate applause with this line and others like it. There were maybe a few hundred people standing around, mostly passersby at lunch. A bunch of others had some fantastic signs with messages such as "President Fail", "Honk If I'm Paying Your Mortgage", and "Obama Socialist Pig". Yes, I ran into a "Tea Party". My normal reaction to this sort of thing is untempered rage. However, I tried to take my hate hat off and put my political science hat on and think sensibly. 
