Here is the link to the entire article,
http://www.openleft.com/diary/12800/nprs-planet-money-guys-feed-rachel-maddow-a-snow-job
And here is the opening gambit.:
NPR's "Planet Money" Guys Feed Rachel Maddow A Snow Job (+)
by: Paul Rosenberg
Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 13:45
[subscribe]
On Friday, Rachel Maddow was all set to tear further into the absurdity of GOP stimulus rejectionism, when she got sideswipped by a pair of NPR bozos, Adam Davidson and Alex, from NPR's Planet Money podcast (no link for these losers). A quick Google shows that Maddow had Blumberg as a radio show guest back on September 22, to discuss the then-three-page bailout plan, so there's at least some history there. But it's doubtful she had any idea what she was in for with these journalists, touted for explaining economics in terms "regular people" can understand--Gosh, and here I thought Paul Krugman, Dean Baker, and dozens, if not hundreds of other real economists already did that. I surely would have loved to had Krugman or Baker on with Maddow when these jokers were spouting their stupid speil, essentially laying down covering fire for SC Governor Stanfords complaint that "Going further into debt will not solve a problem that was created by too much debt."
Then there is this summary:
In a nutshell, here are the 3 big lies these guys are pushing:
(1)'The problem was caused by debt.'
(2) It's a multi-factor problem, so no one should be blamed.
(3) Deregulation in general, and repealing Glass-Spiegal in particular was not really a major factor.
If you read the whole article, and then read the comments, it is 1)curious how immediately dismissive Mr. Rosenberg is of the entire interview, and 2) how many angry commenters agree with the assessment. However….
“The problem was caused by debt” .Well, yes it was. Krugman, Reich, Galbraith and Greider all say so. It is a fact which is hard to ignore. The banks, investment banks and big guns like AIG, Goldman Sachs and Solomon Bros. et.al. kept borrowing money on borrowed money without the collateral required to bolster them. That is why the transactions were called “credit default swaps”. Everyone was betting on the fact that the credit arrangements would not go into default. But without reliable underpinnings, they were destined to crash, mostly because the billions in outstanding home mortgages were overblown, under-collateralized and sold at sub-prime to people who could not make the payments. Pile credit card debt on top of that (also without collateral backing) and then introduce unemployment, caused by a decrease in consumer demand and the debt load and obligations of big manufacturers like GM, and what follows is a big downward slump of gigantic proportions. These boys are right: in large part, this great reckoning WAS caused by debt and turning a blind eye to the monster it had become. Hell. If all else fails, borrow some more money. That of course raises the question of the wisdom of Geithner borrowing even more to solve the problem. Hmmmm…
It is a multi-factor problem so no one should be blamed. Well DUH!!!! Of course it is! But this was not expressed properly: in truth, everyone is to blame because everything is connected to everything else. Everybody piled on the bandwagon, everybody played the game and everybody made their own contribution by going deeper intodebt. The homeowners borrowed from the banks, the banks and mortgage companies borrowed from each other and the government borrowed from the rest of the world (mostly China). In the end, nobody had the cash to pay the bills and we are all suffering the consequences. As a group, Americans want to have one villain, one cause, one single source to blame, deride and hold accountable. It simply is not that simple. Everyone contributed to the stew we cooked up, and while some are more guilty than others (like the Wall St. greedy-monsters, Bernie Madoff, mortgage brokers, etc.), mom and pop with a $500,000 mortgage that they could only afford with two jobs (one of which they lost), three SUV’s and a personal debt load they could not support, and their kids in college carrying credit cards they had no business having, the Chinese bankers who loaned the money and the failure of the overseers to over see, all pitched in. Then the boat pitched over. These two guys pointed out, very clearly, that “lots of people, doing lots of thing independently, thinking they were doing the right thing at the time, taken together, added up to what we have now” (That is an approximate quote).
Deregulation…in general…was not a factor. While many people have laid much of the blame squarely at the feet of the repeal of Glass=Spiegal ( and well it should be), that one piece of legislation was only one cog in the gear of the great financial machine that got bound up when everyone’s assorted shoes got thrown into the machinery. We were already using an antiquated banking system, handed down to us by the Europeans and the Bank of London, and when we laid off or transferred regulators, followed the blind un-wisdom of trickle down economics, played games with tax formulations that saved us after the Great Depression and let the banks, finance companies and insurance companies co-mingle funds without oversight and safety nets, we were doomed to some eventual downfall. It does not take a genius to figure that one out.
This interview was not all that bad. These guys speak in relatively plain English and don’t make any attempts to spin or hype anything. They do, however, sport a genuine “transparency” that we were supposed to get from the Obama/Geithner gang, which has thus far been completely missing in action. Rachel let them go and left us to our own devices and conclusions. Would you rather listen to this discussion or to Newt Gingrich or Eric Cantor or Sarah Palin tell you what’s wrong with the economy? Here: have a tax cut. That will fix everything.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
Resurrection Blues
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-10/10-reasons-the-resurrection-really-happened/
Choke. Gag. Gasp. Turn Blue. Vomit. Wretch. Go into shock.
I thought that April Fool’s day and Easter were two different events.
Choke. Gag. Gasp. Turn Blue. Vomit. Wretch. Go into shock.
I thought that April Fool’s day and Easter were two different events.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
World's Largest Water Park?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/somalia/5130003/US-warship-arrives-at-site-of-pirate-kidnap.html
This on-going story has just up-ended my apple cart, or maybe dumped my canoe upside down in the river. Nuts.
For some time, now, I have been planning to write about our mis-use of “frames of reference”. That is, I was have been thinking about how we tend to plan and organize our current and future actions, based upon how we see our current situation through our visions of the past, or the “frames of reference” we commonly use to interpret where we have been and what we need to do now. This has most particularly with our military resources.
My biggest and best (I thought) example of using the wrong frame of reference was the DOD and the huge amounts of money they spend on the Navy. Consider this:
Civilizations have had navies as far back as we have had history chronologists to report them. Early on, the battling folks of Mesopotamia used the Mediterranean and the likes of the Nile as water parks to move troops around to conquer and bloody one another. This great tradition carried on most prominently with the Brits (Rule Brittania, and all that rot) , the French and the Spaniards…even the mostly landlocked Germans had grand battleships and U-boats, and today even Iran has a Navy (though I’m not sure why…will they use it to wipe Israel off the map?).
All this time, I have been thinking that we don’t really need a navy: we have aircraft to move themselves and personnel and now the drone wars are even delivering hellfire bombs without pilots. And these robots don’t even need an aircraft carrier in the neighborhood for support (aircraft carriers, to some, are just huge, floating, monstrously expensive floating city/airports that are gigantic sitting duck/missile targets on the ocean). We no longer need to float huge compliments of men and materiel from London to the Falklands, or from Madrid to Mexico, or Paris to Patagonia…well, wherever… to conquer and plunder and subdue undiscovered countries, battles at sea are no longer needed to gain territorial supremacy, the big boats (sorry, “ships”) cost unfathomable amounts of money, and their immediate value is no longer commensurate with what we spend on them. Just exactly who needs a “navy” anymore, anyway? (My apologies to Jimmy Carter).
But then comes this latest ‘water park” story: a merchant ship of the high seas is assaulted and nearly captured by an old “frame of reference”: pirates. Now I know that this is nothing new and that this has been going on for some time now, and I have been using the failure of anyone to do anything to stop these antique antics as another justification for “Why navies?”: they have not been able to help at all. But this story has a new twist. In the apparent spirit of American independence and defiance, the largely American crew overcame the pirates and took back the ship…almost. It seems like they lost the captain to a couple of pirates who made off with him in a life boat (I almost loved it: I thought for sure we maybe had made-for-TV movie in the works). And thence comes the Navy! The USS Bainbridge steams onto the scene and casts an entirely new pall on the situation. John Wayne has arrived.
For a short time I thought my entire premise about the irrelevance of the navy was ruined by the appearance of this destroyer. Perhaps suddenly a frame of reference has suddenly come back into vogue and was providing an overlooked and forgotten usefulness.
Well, almost. Maybe.
It turns out that as I write this, the escaped life boat is adrift off the hull of the merchant ship and out of fuel. Literally dead in the water. And the US Navy ship is a highly sophisticated “missile” ship. What? Something smells like overkill, here.
Perhaps the Bainbridge has a small boat or two it can put in the water to attempt to overtake, over-power and capture the life boat and its occupants, free the Captain. But at the moment, the only offensive capabilities the ship seems to have are highly sophisticated, (presumably) laser guided missiles, designed to obliterate much larger military targets and kill people many hundreds of miles away. Methinks the lifeboat is hopelessly over-matched and outgunned. Even assuming that one of the missiles from the ship could be trained and fired upon the lifeboat, the end result would not even be splinters.
It remains to be seen what might happen next. In recent Iranian or Chinese speedboat fashion, perhaps the occupants of both the lifeboat and the Bainbridge could moon one another in an act of sophomoric defiance. Or perhaps the members of the little vessel and the big vessel can have a literal pissing contest: that would seem like an American thing to do: we are good at polluting oceans.
Meanwhile, I am back to my original question: what good is a navy today, anyway, out on this giant water park, and why do we insist of upon using a frame of reference that says we need to spend so much money on one?
My dad was in the Navy. He used to repeat, “Water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink.” Somehow that makes more sense to me, today.
This on-going story has just up-ended my apple cart, or maybe dumped my canoe upside down in the river. Nuts.
For some time, now, I have been planning to write about our mis-use of “frames of reference”. That is, I was have been thinking about how we tend to plan and organize our current and future actions, based upon how we see our current situation through our visions of the past, or the “frames of reference” we commonly use to interpret where we have been and what we need to do now. This has most particularly with our military resources.
My biggest and best (I thought) example of using the wrong frame of reference was the DOD and the huge amounts of money they spend on the Navy. Consider this:
Civilizations have had navies as far back as we have had history chronologists to report them. Early on, the battling folks of Mesopotamia used the Mediterranean and the likes of the Nile as water parks to move troops around to conquer and bloody one another. This great tradition carried on most prominently with the Brits (Rule Brittania, and all that rot) , the French and the Spaniards…even the mostly landlocked Germans had grand battleships and U-boats, and today even Iran has a Navy (though I’m not sure why…will they use it to wipe Israel off the map?).
All this time, I have been thinking that we don’t really need a navy: we have aircraft to move themselves and personnel and now the drone wars are even delivering hellfire bombs without pilots. And these robots don’t even need an aircraft carrier in the neighborhood for support (aircraft carriers, to some, are just huge, floating, monstrously expensive floating city/airports that are gigantic sitting duck/missile targets on the ocean). We no longer need to float huge compliments of men and materiel from London to the Falklands, or from Madrid to Mexico, or Paris to Patagonia…well, wherever… to conquer and plunder and subdue undiscovered countries, battles at sea are no longer needed to gain territorial supremacy, the big boats (sorry, “ships”) cost unfathomable amounts of money, and their immediate value is no longer commensurate with what we spend on them. Just exactly who needs a “navy” anymore, anyway? (My apologies to Jimmy Carter).
But then comes this latest ‘water park” story: a merchant ship of the high seas is assaulted and nearly captured by an old “frame of reference”: pirates. Now I know that this is nothing new and that this has been going on for some time now, and I have been using the failure of anyone to do anything to stop these antique antics as another justification for “Why navies?”: they have not been able to help at all. But this story has a new twist. In the apparent spirit of American independence and defiance, the largely American crew overcame the pirates and took back the ship…almost. It seems like they lost the captain to a couple of pirates who made off with him in a life boat (I almost loved it: I thought for sure we maybe had made-for-TV movie in the works). And thence comes the Navy! The USS Bainbridge steams onto the scene and casts an entirely new pall on the situation. John Wayne has arrived.
For a short time I thought my entire premise about the irrelevance of the navy was ruined by the appearance of this destroyer. Perhaps suddenly a frame of reference has suddenly come back into vogue and was providing an overlooked and forgotten usefulness.
Well, almost. Maybe.
It turns out that as I write this, the escaped life boat is adrift off the hull of the merchant ship and out of fuel. Literally dead in the water. And the US Navy ship is a highly sophisticated “missile” ship. What? Something smells like overkill, here.
Perhaps the Bainbridge has a small boat or two it can put in the water to attempt to overtake, over-power and capture the life boat and its occupants, free the Captain. But at the moment, the only offensive capabilities the ship seems to have are highly sophisticated, (presumably) laser guided missiles, designed to obliterate much larger military targets and kill people many hundreds of miles away. Methinks the lifeboat is hopelessly over-matched and outgunned. Even assuming that one of the missiles from the ship could be trained and fired upon the lifeboat, the end result would not even be splinters.
It remains to be seen what might happen next. In recent Iranian or Chinese speedboat fashion, perhaps the occupants of both the lifeboat and the Bainbridge could moon one another in an act of sophomoric defiance. Or perhaps the members of the little vessel and the big vessel can have a literal pissing contest: that would seem like an American thing to do: we are good at polluting oceans.
Meanwhile, I am back to my original question: what good is a navy today, anyway, out on this giant water park, and why do we insist of upon using a frame of reference that says we need to spend so much money on one?
My dad was in the Navy. He used to repeat, “Water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink.” Somehow that makes more sense to me, today.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Too Much Stuff
I am simply overwhelmed this morning and have decided to “whelm” you as well. Every leaf I turn over today has a new tree sprouting under it, and I am just going to pass along the juiciest new shoots that popped up most recently. Here goes. Some are fun and some are not. And you won’t have time to read them all , but neither did I. You think you are special or sumpthin’?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/magazine/05wwln-medium-t.html?emc=eta1. Now here is a story about a lady who took a big leap forward in technology, only to have it backfire. She went backwards but is still light years ahead of anything I have available.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/workplace/135182. If you believe this hot air for even a minute, I’ll have Larry Summers send you part of his $5.2M he got from speeches to hedge funds and then I have a bridge to sell you. This is pure, unadulterated crap.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/sex/135094. I used to travel in Iowa. I am dumbfounded. Can Nebraska be next?
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/135155. When the forces at work in the above story and these folks collide, it should be great fun. Of course, Sarah is working on becoming a Scientologist, which should screw up everything. My recent blog about “Jesus is not alright with me” let me vent some about this.
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/135161. Bill Moyers continues to be a light in the darkness. If this makes you mad, then you should read the transcript of his interview with William Greider (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03272009/transcript2.html) . If you read both of these at the same time you read the Geithner story (above),you will need extra valium.
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/135162. Maybe this is the best for (almost) last. As usual, I am too smart, too late, and should have been reading his work sooner. Same biting edge as Fred on Everything, but far more eloquent. This of course means that I have another book to read. Rats.
Last but not least: I just finished reading The Tyranny of Dead Ideas, by Matt Miller. The reviews of this book vary greatly, but I think it is well worth the time. The thrust of the book is neatly summarized in a sentence on page 230: The sooner we clear out the cobwebs of our minds, the less jarring and disruptive the years ahead will be, and the less damage these old ways of thinking will inflict on the country. I have certainly spent far more time on less productive pursuits. Without saying so, explicitly, Miller cogently and concisely refutes the Republican notion that “tax cuts, tax cuts and tax cuts” will save the country and the economy. But there is much, much more.
Good luck with all this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/magazine/05wwln-medium-t.html?emc=eta1. Now here is a story about a lady who took a big leap forward in technology, only to have it backfire. She went backwards but is still light years ahead of anything I have available.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/workplace/135182. If you believe this hot air for even a minute, I’ll have Larry Summers send you part of his $5.2M he got from speeches to hedge funds and then I have a bridge to sell you. This is pure, unadulterated crap.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/sex/135094. I used to travel in Iowa. I am dumbfounded. Can Nebraska be next?
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/135155. When the forces at work in the above story and these folks collide, it should be great fun. Of course, Sarah is working on becoming a Scientologist, which should screw up everything. My recent blog about “Jesus is not alright with me” let me vent some about this.
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/135161. Bill Moyers continues to be a light in the darkness. If this makes you mad, then you should read the transcript of his interview with William Greider (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03272009/transcript2.html) . If you read both of these at the same time you read the Geithner story (above),you will need extra valium.
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/135162. Maybe this is the best for (almost) last. As usual, I am too smart, too late, and should have been reading his work sooner. Same biting edge as Fred on Everything, but far more eloquent. This of course means that I have another book to read. Rats.
Last but not least: I just finished reading The Tyranny of Dead Ideas, by Matt Miller. The reviews of this book vary greatly, but I think it is well worth the time. The thrust of the book is neatly summarized in a sentence on page 230: The sooner we clear out the cobwebs of our minds, the less jarring and disruptive the years ahead will be, and the less damage these old ways of thinking will inflict on the country. I have certainly spent far more time on less productive pursuits. Without saying so, explicitly, Miller cogently and concisely refutes the Republican notion that “tax cuts, tax cuts and tax cuts” will save the country and the economy. But there is much, much more.
Good luck with all this.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
We NeedTo Take This Seriously
I read this piece this morning and my heart just sank. I have been reading for weeks (ever since it became evident that Obama would be President) that the wing nuts were coming loose, and that ragged edges of the right side of the populace was becoming a mass of tattered flaps, blowing wildly in the breeze. The first lunacy I remember was learning that itinerant white, fundamentalist preachers in the rural south (TN, KY, WVA, AL,MS) were actually telling people that the first thing Obama would do, after taking office, would be "enslave" white men and rape all of their women. At first I laughed, and then I read it multiple times,along with murmurings about loss of firearms, absurd gun control hysteria from the NRA about the right to bear arms...and worse. I had no idea that being aMuslim was the moral equivalent to having an STD, but I soon learned that, as well.
This story on TP makes me newly aware that this wild-eyed weirdness is all too real and "in our face" and screams for some form of corrective action.
I am the first one to defend free speech, the free press and open public discourse, but the rantings (and the irrational behavior they generate) and dizzyingly idiotic proclaimations of Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter ( and that crazed Bachman creature from MN) cause me to stand up and loudly demand, as the say in txtng and twitter, "STFU!!!!!
The incitement to maniacal riot, civil unrest of such a destructionist nature, and the wanton taking and loss of human life, by people who have had their brains unfairly tampered with, needs to be brought under control. I cannot say that I have any immediate resolution or remedy or rectification, but perhaps calling the hate-mongers into account for the ramifications of their dangerous and pathologically corrosive speech, might well be in order.
This is the 21rst century. We have the scientific and medical resources to effect curative applications and treatments that will help prevent people from being driven to these acts of totally depraved and incoherent acts of murder and genocide. We have the ways and means to treat and care for people and not let them become so overwhelmed by their "percieved" yet non-existent villians and monsters that they are driven to run completely amok. But we need to pay attention to some of the causality, as well. Outright public lying is not a positive influence on society. (Of course, you can be the Governor of SC and refuse funds for effective public education,but that is another column).
The cadre of obscenely irritating hate-mongers of the airwaves and pulpits of America need to be put in check. It is time, perhaps, to identify a legal muzzle for this clearly detestible and insidious manipulation of people who are so easily molded and motivated to do the unthinkable. It might be arguable that there should be some form of punishment for creating such an unhealthy environment of agitation that it premeditates and promulgates horror. If hate speech prompts lunatic hate crimes and needless death, some corrective retribution may well be in order.
We let W, Cheney, Gonzalez, Ashcroft, et.al., get away with this sort of despicable rationalization for hate crimes around the world for years. They told us it was "for our own good" and that terror would overtake us if we did not act so viciously. Now the terror is all coming home "home to roost" in our own backyards, when the guy next door grabs a shotgun or an uzi and blows away portions of the nieghborhood, because some malicious blowhard on the radio tells him or her that it is "for his own good". We are supposed to be more civilized than this.
Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 8:16 AM
Subject: Think Progress: "Right-wing's false claims that Obama will take away guns 'has helped fuel the panic buying of firearms.'"
> Check out this post on Think Progress: > > http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/04/right-wing-guns-claim/> > "Right-wing's false claims that Obama will take away guns 'has helped fuel the panic buying of firearms.'"> >
This story on TP makes me newly aware that this wild-eyed weirdness is all too real and "in our face" and screams for some form of corrective action.
I am the first one to defend free speech, the free press and open public discourse, but the rantings (and the irrational behavior they generate) and dizzyingly idiotic proclaimations of Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter ( and that crazed Bachman creature from MN) cause me to stand up and loudly demand, as the say in txtng and twitter, "STFU!!!!!
The incitement to maniacal riot, civil unrest of such a destructionist nature, and the wanton taking and loss of human life, by people who have had their brains unfairly tampered with, needs to be brought under control. I cannot say that I have any immediate resolution or remedy or rectification, but perhaps calling the hate-mongers into account for the ramifications of their dangerous and pathologically corrosive speech, might well be in order.
This is the 21rst century. We have the scientific and medical resources to effect curative applications and treatments that will help prevent people from being driven to these acts of totally depraved and incoherent acts of murder and genocide. We have the ways and means to treat and care for people and not let them become so overwhelmed by their "percieved" yet non-existent villians and monsters that they are driven to run completely amok. But we need to pay attention to some of the causality, as well. Outright public lying is not a positive influence on society. (Of course, you can be the Governor of SC and refuse funds for effective public education,but that is another column).
The cadre of obscenely irritating hate-mongers of the airwaves and pulpits of America need to be put in check. It is time, perhaps, to identify a legal muzzle for this clearly detestible and insidious manipulation of people who are so easily molded and motivated to do the unthinkable. It might be arguable that there should be some form of punishment for creating such an unhealthy environment of agitation that it premeditates and promulgates horror. If hate speech prompts lunatic hate crimes and needless death, some corrective retribution may well be in order.
We let W, Cheney, Gonzalez, Ashcroft, et.al., get away with this sort of despicable rationalization for hate crimes around the world for years. They told us it was "for our own good" and that terror would overtake us if we did not act so viciously. Now the terror is all coming home "home to roost" in our own backyards, when the guy next door grabs a shotgun or an uzi and blows away portions of the nieghborhood, because some malicious blowhard on the radio tells him or her that it is "for his own good". We are supposed to be more civilized than this.
Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 8:16 AM
Subject: Think Progress: "Right-wing's false claims that Obama will take away guns 'has helped fuel the panic buying of firearms.'"
> Check out this post on Think Progress: > > http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/04/right-wing-guns-claim/> > "Right-wing's false claims that Obama will take away guns 'has helped fuel the panic buying of firearms.'"> >
Monday, March 23, 2009
Jesus is not alright with me.
This is not about AIG, Prop 8, HR645 (coming to an empty field near you), gay rights, Geithner, Michelle Obama’s arms, Iraq, Ruwanda, the octo-mom, Cheney or any of that. It is about GOD, dammit.
We used to enjoy four seasons in the cycle of life: spring, summer, fall and winter (even when it was one of discontent), but now we seem to have five. Just as cyclical and predictable as the other four, the silly season of pre-occupation with “God” shows up, regularly now. Alternet had these two, just this morning:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/132781/zombie_newt_gingrich_wants_more_brains%2C_er_religion/
and
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/132775/this_week_in_god%3A_religion_costs_counties_cash%2C_%27i_believe%27_license_plates%2C_and_evolution/
Over the past few months, OpEdNews has posted “articles”, written by noted authorities like Brian Wisenheimer-Schmutz, on the importance of “God” in society, why and how religion is “subtly” re-shaping the world and why, without faith, the world will end next Tuesday afternoon. Many of these have threatened to be a “series” of articles (God help us), and when OEN runs the good ideological narcissists off, they pop up elsewhere, threatening their serial abominations, there. After many others beside me have (presumably) protested and objected, the threats and the extended, vapid and pointless diatribes mysteriously disappear (thank God).
Cyclical and periodic episodes and outbreaks such as these always prompted a flood of comments, many of them from self-proclaimed atheists, whose use of space and waste of literary oxygen are as pointless as the ones the God-people offer, these last only a day or three, and then inevitably re-surface shortly thereafter, seemingly unable to resist uninvited repeat performances. I guess pointless misery loves pointless company. The crux of my complaint and criticism is that these writings mention nothing about ethics and never address the pragmatic issues of our world. They prattle on about faith and belief and then pass the collection plate.
Born Again Crustaceans (they have the shelf-life of a shell fish), proponents of Jesusology (which has nothing to do with Christianity), adherents of Mariology and the like (which are the antithesis of any substantive theology) and the ravings of condemn-mental-ists ( who preach that anyone who is black, Muslim, Hindu, gay or not willing to swear that Jesus is lord and at least acknowledge anemic Presbyterianism, are driving me NUTS. God. Dammit.
We have a financial crisis (largely brought on by a collapse of morals and ethics), war and starvation in places like Darfur, homeless crowds, empty food pantries, no reasonable health care programs for the common man, racial and sociological iniquities and battered stem cell research programs, and yet…
We have huge numbers of people with nothing better to do, and insist upon attempting to distract everyone with palaver-like talk of the “God machine” (unintelligent design), the vengeful deity of something-or-other and meaningless gobbledygook about faith and silly thoughts of rescued fetuses flying upward towards heaven, right after the abortion doctor is murdered and his family left to pick up the pieces.
This all needs to stop. Freedom of thought and speech is one thing; ideological abuse and the routine torture of logic is another. We cannot afford to be diverted from the real agonies of the day, distracted from the urgent realities of abject poverty, murderous dictators and despots, armies that use rape as weapon (in lieu of bullets),the insipid and dangerous thinking of homophobes and racists and selfish, narrow-minded bigots who attempt to routinely deny the basic rights of life to anyone who does not fit their vision of nirvana. Anyone, that is, who does not fit comfortably behind their mysterious shields of theistically –inspired ignorance or a completely warped picture of salvation, which is manifested in a saccharine-like portrait of a Jesus figure, with (absurdly) blonde hair and blue eyes.
This is the 21rst century and we should have long-since outgrown this pseudo-mysticism by now. We should be beyond any allegiance to a papal figure or uber-ministerial, Billy Graham-like ideologue, either or both of whom may have the gall to absolve holocaust deniers, blame aids on condom use or dictate moral principles to a world they do not understand (if you don’t follow my reasoning, here, ask Sarah Palin’s daughter about abstinence). Primitive Baptist churches are primitive only in their stunted brain development, Mormon-esque restrictive thinking is a form of intellectual and spiritual slavery (human belittlement), the selling of indulgences should be as illegal as selling heroine to kids on the street and pointless anti-philosophical theosophical meanderings (done in order to bolster one’s hapless ego) should be forced to go before a jury of rational thinkers before the words are unleashed on an innocent general public, already at risk for spiritual and humanitarian starvation. Preying on the weary to pray is a really cheap shot.
To add insult to injurious behavior, the Huffington Post reports today that there is an emerging relationship between Sarah Palin (and hubby) and the scientologists. Apparently, “Jesus is just alright with me”, until you find another God machine mode which is better suited to your lifestyle and temporal convictions. This is to say that loyalty among the God-people is subject to modifications and contortions.
Ah. There’s the word I’ve been missing in all of this: Integrity. I guess that one is not in the God machine dictionary.
Stop wasting my time, god. Dammit.
We used to enjoy four seasons in the cycle of life: spring, summer, fall and winter (even when it was one of discontent), but now we seem to have five. Just as cyclical and predictable as the other four, the silly season of pre-occupation with “God” shows up, regularly now. Alternet had these two, just this morning:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/132781/zombie_newt_gingrich_wants_more_brains%2C_er_religion/
and
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/132775/this_week_in_god%3A_religion_costs_counties_cash%2C_%27i_believe%27_license_plates%2C_and_evolution/
Over the past few months, OpEdNews has posted “articles”, written by noted authorities like Brian Wisenheimer-Schmutz, on the importance of “God” in society, why and how religion is “subtly” re-shaping the world and why, without faith, the world will end next Tuesday afternoon. Many of these have threatened to be a “series” of articles (God help us), and when OEN runs the good ideological narcissists off, they pop up elsewhere, threatening their serial abominations, there. After many others beside me have (presumably) protested and objected, the threats and the extended, vapid and pointless diatribes mysteriously disappear (thank God).
Cyclical and periodic episodes and outbreaks such as these always prompted a flood of comments, many of them from self-proclaimed atheists, whose use of space and waste of literary oxygen are as pointless as the ones the God-people offer, these last only a day or three, and then inevitably re-surface shortly thereafter, seemingly unable to resist uninvited repeat performances. I guess pointless misery loves pointless company. The crux of my complaint and criticism is that these writings mention nothing about ethics and never address the pragmatic issues of our world. They prattle on about faith and belief and then pass the collection plate.
Born Again Crustaceans (they have the shelf-life of a shell fish), proponents of Jesusology (which has nothing to do with Christianity), adherents of Mariology and the like (which are the antithesis of any substantive theology) and the ravings of condemn-mental-ists ( who preach that anyone who is black, Muslim, Hindu, gay or not willing to swear that Jesus is lord and at least acknowledge anemic Presbyterianism, are driving me NUTS. God. Dammit.
We have a financial crisis (largely brought on by a collapse of morals and ethics), war and starvation in places like Darfur, homeless crowds, empty food pantries, no reasonable health care programs for the common man, racial and sociological iniquities and battered stem cell research programs, and yet…
We have huge numbers of people with nothing better to do, and insist upon attempting to distract everyone with palaver-like talk of the “God machine” (unintelligent design), the vengeful deity of something-or-other and meaningless gobbledygook about faith and silly thoughts of rescued fetuses flying upward towards heaven, right after the abortion doctor is murdered and his family left to pick up the pieces.
This all needs to stop. Freedom of thought and speech is one thing; ideological abuse and the routine torture of logic is another. We cannot afford to be diverted from the real agonies of the day, distracted from the urgent realities of abject poverty, murderous dictators and despots, armies that use rape as weapon (in lieu of bullets),the insipid and dangerous thinking of homophobes and racists and selfish, narrow-minded bigots who attempt to routinely deny the basic rights of life to anyone who does not fit their vision of nirvana. Anyone, that is, who does not fit comfortably behind their mysterious shields of theistically –inspired ignorance or a completely warped picture of salvation, which is manifested in a saccharine-like portrait of a Jesus figure, with (absurdly) blonde hair and blue eyes.
This is the 21rst century and we should have long-since outgrown this pseudo-mysticism by now. We should be beyond any allegiance to a papal figure or uber-ministerial, Billy Graham-like ideologue, either or both of whom may have the gall to absolve holocaust deniers, blame aids on condom use or dictate moral principles to a world they do not understand (if you don’t follow my reasoning, here, ask Sarah Palin’s daughter about abstinence). Primitive Baptist churches are primitive only in their stunted brain development, Mormon-esque restrictive thinking is a form of intellectual and spiritual slavery (human belittlement), the selling of indulgences should be as illegal as selling heroine to kids on the street and pointless anti-philosophical theosophical meanderings (done in order to bolster one’s hapless ego) should be forced to go before a jury of rational thinkers before the words are unleashed on an innocent general public, already at risk for spiritual and humanitarian starvation. Preying on the weary to pray is a really cheap shot.
To add insult to injurious behavior, the Huffington Post reports today that there is an emerging relationship between Sarah Palin (and hubby) and the scientologists. Apparently, “Jesus is just alright with me”, until you find another God machine mode which is better suited to your lifestyle and temporal convictions. This is to say that loyalty among the God-people is subject to modifications and contortions.
Ah. There’s the word I’ve been missing in all of this: Integrity. I guess that one is not in the God machine dictionary.
Stop wasting my time, god. Dammit.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Excuse Me While I Stay Confused
My friend, Ron, said to me yesterday, “I read Mr. XX, and then Mr. XXX, and then Mr. XXXX, and then I read the NYT and then I read the WSJ: who am I supposed to believe? Who can I trust?”You’re asking ME?
Bill Maher asks, “Why can’t we just admit that we just don’t f@#*king know?”
Barbara and I watched a talented lawyer explain, on television, about the legality or potential illegality of AIG bonus contracts, then turned and looked at me, and asked, “Can you explain that to me?”
To which I said, “Huh?”
It is very apparent that we are all consumed by AIG and the economy, right now. (Some people are so consumed that they are sending death threats to AIG executives: ouch). Ron (see the guy above) said yesterday that he thinks we are all looking for the “next big bubble” to make everything OK, again. I think most of us are looking for a nice, simple, single answer to both a simple explanation and solution to a very complex mess.
Here is what Paul Krugman had to say this morning:
March 20, 2009, 9:05 am
AIG
Preliminary thoughts on the tax bill:
1. It’s not the way you should make policy — it’s clumsy, and it will punish some innocent parties while letting the most guilty off scot-free
2. But — there wasn’t much alternative at this point. And for that I blame the Obama people.
I’ll leave to others the question of who knew or should have known that the bonus firestorm was coming; but its part of a pattern. At every stage, Geithner et al have made it clear that they still have faith in the people who created the financial crisis — that they believe that all we have is a liquidity crisis that can be undone with a bit of financial engineering, that “governments do a bad job of running banks” (as opposed, presumably, to the wonderful job the private bankers have done), that financial bailouts and guarantees should come with no strings attached.
This was bad analysis, bad policy, and terrible politics. This administration, elected on the promise of change, has already managed, in an astonishingly short time, to create the impression that it’s owned by the wheeler-dealers. And that leaves it with no ability to counter crude populism.
Then there is this, from James Galbraith, who is NOT a populist economist:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Economy--No-Return-to-by-the-web-090319-85.html
I think we should listen more closely to him and less to many others???
Or try this one:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-I-G--A-National-Embarr-by-James-Raider-090318-537.html
I keep searching for a better word than embarrassment, but I cannot find one. Obscene, maybe?
Or maybe this observation:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090319_the_geithner_problem/
This article raises the question, “What did he know and when did he know it?” Last night, on CNN, Geithner said he knew about some “things”, a few days before the bonuses became public knowledge. These “things” sound very much like the “strings” the Governor of Texas says are attached to the unemployment funds for his state in the stimulus bill. He says these strings prevent him from accepting them, but he can’t seem to say what the ‘string things” are, exactly.
Meanwhile, Governor Palin (AK…remember her?) is declining funds as well. But in her case, she is threatening to decline those ‘earmarked” only for education: she says those “strings” in the legislation that require Alaska to “grow its’ government”. I would suppose that not educating the populace is one good way to guarantee that Alaska will not grow. And Governor Sanford (SC) has asked to use the education portion of that states’ share of the stimulus to pay down debt, thereby neglecting education and laying off 7000 teachers. I think he and Gov. Palin are just stringing us along. Or perhaps they knew “things” before Geithner did? (I just heard three political pundits call for Geithner’s head and two more explain the actions of Palin and Sanford as preparatory actions for elections in 2012. I fail to see the connections, but I’m confused.
Eric Cantor (OH) has been very resolute about being the voice of “no” about almost everything having to do with TARP, TALP and AIG, but when actually pressed on MSNBC about how he would vote about the bonus legislation, would not say. Later, in order to stay center stage but ideologically impure, he went Republican-Lite and voted for the anti-bonus actions. This is something like Senator Chris Dodd saying he did not put language into the AIG-related legislation right before he said he did. This is also something like John Kerry saying he was for something before he was against it, or Mrs. Clinton being against Barack Obama for President before she was for it as soon as she was named to be the SOS.
Are you confused yet? Are you feeling just a little like an Orwellian pig? Did you bring your lipstick? Are you tempted to fly? Or at least fly off the handle? Well, add this to your plate of imponderables:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/18/AR2009031802283.html?wpisrc=newsletter
The headline here is: “Fed to pump $1.2 trillion Into Markets”. This is, of course, another mind-boggling amount of money, coming right after a grandfatherly Bernanke told 60 Minutes that “we will not let the banks fail”. The next day the market rallied (Barbara said it was the Bernanke factor; I think it was because it was Monday and stocks [Geithnerian things] were cheap). Steven Pearlstein (WaPo) on MSNBC is just now telling me that it is obvious that “the depression is much worse than they thought” (they being the government?) and that we should be braced for much higher deficits. And the other “thing” I liked about the morning stories was this:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090319_a_government_of_men_not_laws/, wherein David Sirota sounds somewhat like Galbraith.
But this should make you uneasy as well:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/19/cnbc-rich-wall-street/. I really like this one. We are still some of us, anyway) hanging onto the notion that only the rich and greedy can manage money. But given the give-aways and short-sightedness that allowed us to give away billions of TARP funds (and now TALP…rhymes with SCALP) funds without accountability, I don’t think letting the government manage our money is such a hot idea, either. Would you give your money to Barney Frank? My father would call all of this rationalization of the rich being in charge “bass-ackwards thinking”. For once, I agree with him.
This next story is both confusing and transparent:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/19/financial-roundtable-lobbyists/. Having failed to engineer profits from attempting the defeat the stimulus bill, the lobby folks are trying to carve money out of the budget for special interests. We have no shame. Or integrity. Or logic.
All of which brings me to the congressional antics and how they all contribute to my confusion…and yours.
Over the last decade, the lasting effects of the great “uniter” have only added to our great “division” and bifurcation. The chasm between right and left, conservative and liberal, has just been growing. Beginning most recently (and openly) with the complete and total rejection of any Republican votes for the stimulus bill, and moving on from there, the most important issue being kept alive in Congress right now is NOT the welfare of the country, but whether or not you are a Democrat or a Republican and how loudly you can proclaim your allegiance.
Last week, the Republicans stated flatly, that their goal was to “bring down Democratic numbers”. Ideological purity has completely superseded the national economic welfare as the rule of the day.
Except when such ideological purity runs counter to your personal agenda (Google Maxine Waters and the President “keeping his facts straight”), your wallet or your political ambitions. Take, for example, the small group of “blue dog” democrats, deciding this week to establish a “secret” society, having joined forces to form a small sub-group in the Congress that would work closer with Republicans to thwart the economic policies of their own President and party. I wonder if they have a secret handshake? Do they understand the nature of “splinter groups”? Do they understand that splinters can get infected? This dedication to obstructive obstinacy seems endemic to, and symptomatic of, our nationally confused awareness of misplaced priorities.
(Former staffers of the Bush administration, perhaps 70% of them, have either abandoned ideological purity to write profitable tell-all books or have been unable to find jobs because of their prior devotion to that former Rovian moral ”high ground”. I can’t help but wonder if they are re-thinking their allegiances)
And then we have Sen. John McCain and other Republicans are opposing the appointment of Chris Hill to represent the U.S. in Afghanistan. General Petraeus thinks this is a good choice. Despite continued Republican calls to listen to the “generals on the ground”, because Hill is not “their boy” and not a staunch Republican, this group is opposing the appointment. This is silly and counter-productive, to say nothing of being hypocritical and not of much help in advancing the cause of peace in the region. But is all stubbornly ideologically pure. And no one in Congress seemed to care about the AIG and bank bonuses until the public got wind of it. Then, suddenly each side said it was the fault of the other (or of Bush and Paulson, or of Obama and Geithner), making a national economic crisis a political football. Then the House passed a bill (with sudden Republican participation) to eliminate, prevent or tax the bonuses. I will give them this: they finally displayed real transparency: were able to see right through their phony concern. Now that bill is off to the Senate, and I am hearing that the bill is potentially illegal, to the point of being unconstitutional. This means it may be scrapped, altogether. What a waste of time. I have called the recent behavior of Congress to be theater; Mr. Raider (in the earlier article) calls it “circus grandstanding”. In either case it has all been duplicitous or perhaps much ado about much of nothing. Except for the damn crisis.
Let’s confuse the issue, a little more:
The Congress is thinking about giving the corpse of Chryslers several more billions of dollars. Why?
Gordon E. Liddy, the AIG boss guy, is working for one dollar a year (really?) and is volunteering to sit before congress and be grilled, saying that the bonuses are distasteful but obligatory. He also says Bernanke and the Federal Reserve approved the bonus package long ago. (Geithner’s staff says the same thing).
Venerable General Electric Corp. is in trouble, having just lowered their annual dividend to pennies, to raise cash. They have also disclosed that their biggest portfolio item is the GE Capital group. And that that group has invested heavily in questionable real estate. Why? (And most of what they manufacture, they do so off-shore…except for the missile guidance systems for the DOD)
Crown Books is advancing $7M to George W Bush for a book of memoirs we don’t need or want to read. Why? (Maybe the folks in Calgary know “things” we don’t.)
J.P. Morgan and other banks, along with General Motors, is either declining further bail out monies or returning them, citing too many “strings”. After the last cash infusion, they are suddenly profitable (it makes you wonder whence came the crisis?), with Citibank claiming profits in the billions (and remodeling their executive offices).
And Michael Steele is, well…Michael Steele. Explain that one. He has even Rush stumped.
Oh, yes: Mr. Cheney, is that an assassination squad in your pocket or are you just happy to kill people?
I know full well that I have co-mingled TARP, TALP, stimulus funds, education, unemployment, economic advisors, political expediency and poor domestic policy, but I am confused. In the time it has taken to write this, I have found five or six more articles that I could have cited or quoted or referenced. But they have all been muddled and contradictory of each other. I had to turn off MSNBC. I was just getting more confused. If you think you can say all of this better, please do. I no longer know whether I should change my hopes or change my mind. I do know that a few more words of wisdom from the wise and I may lose my mind. I need a nap.
Bill Maher asks, “Why can’t we just admit that we just don’t f@#*king know?”
Barbara and I watched a talented lawyer explain, on television, about the legality or potential illegality of AIG bonus contracts, then turned and looked at me, and asked, “Can you explain that to me?”
To which I said, “Huh?”
It is very apparent that we are all consumed by AIG and the economy, right now. (Some people are so consumed that they are sending death threats to AIG executives: ouch). Ron (see the guy above) said yesterday that he thinks we are all looking for the “next big bubble” to make everything OK, again. I think most of us are looking for a nice, simple, single answer to both a simple explanation and solution to a very complex mess.
Here is what Paul Krugman had to say this morning:
March 20, 2009, 9:05 am
AIG
Preliminary thoughts on the tax bill:
1. It’s not the way you should make policy — it’s clumsy, and it will punish some innocent parties while letting the most guilty off scot-free
2. But — there wasn’t much alternative at this point. And for that I blame the Obama people.
I’ll leave to others the question of who knew or should have known that the bonus firestorm was coming; but its part of a pattern. At every stage, Geithner et al have made it clear that they still have faith in the people who created the financial crisis — that they believe that all we have is a liquidity crisis that can be undone with a bit of financial engineering, that “governments do a bad job of running banks” (as opposed, presumably, to the wonderful job the private bankers have done), that financial bailouts and guarantees should come with no strings attached.
This was bad analysis, bad policy, and terrible politics. This administration, elected on the promise of change, has already managed, in an astonishingly short time, to create the impression that it’s owned by the wheeler-dealers. And that leaves it with no ability to counter crude populism.
Then there is this, from James Galbraith, who is NOT a populist economist:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Economy--No-Return-to-by-the-web-090319-85.html
I think we should listen more closely to him and less to many others???
Or try this one:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-I-G--A-National-Embarr-by-James-Raider-090318-537.html
I keep searching for a better word than embarrassment, but I cannot find one. Obscene, maybe?
Or maybe this observation:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090319_the_geithner_problem/
This article raises the question, “What did he know and when did he know it?” Last night, on CNN, Geithner said he knew about some “things”, a few days before the bonuses became public knowledge. These “things” sound very much like the “strings” the Governor of Texas says are attached to the unemployment funds for his state in the stimulus bill. He says these strings prevent him from accepting them, but he can’t seem to say what the ‘string things” are, exactly.
Meanwhile, Governor Palin (AK…remember her?) is declining funds as well. But in her case, she is threatening to decline those ‘earmarked” only for education: she says those “strings” in the legislation that require Alaska to “grow its’ government”. I would suppose that not educating the populace is one good way to guarantee that Alaska will not grow. And Governor Sanford (SC) has asked to use the education portion of that states’ share of the stimulus to pay down debt, thereby neglecting education and laying off 7000 teachers. I think he and Gov. Palin are just stringing us along. Or perhaps they knew “things” before Geithner did? (I just heard three political pundits call for Geithner’s head and two more explain the actions of Palin and Sanford as preparatory actions for elections in 2012. I fail to see the connections, but I’m confused.
Eric Cantor (OH) has been very resolute about being the voice of “no” about almost everything having to do with TARP, TALP and AIG, but when actually pressed on MSNBC about how he would vote about the bonus legislation, would not say. Later, in order to stay center stage but ideologically impure, he went Republican-Lite and voted for the anti-bonus actions. This is something like Senator Chris Dodd saying he did not put language into the AIG-related legislation right before he said he did. This is also something like John Kerry saying he was for something before he was against it, or Mrs. Clinton being against Barack Obama for President before she was for it as soon as she was named to be the SOS.
Are you confused yet? Are you feeling just a little like an Orwellian pig? Did you bring your lipstick? Are you tempted to fly? Or at least fly off the handle? Well, add this to your plate of imponderables:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/18/AR2009031802283.html?wpisrc=newsletter
The headline here is: “Fed to pump $1.2 trillion Into Markets”. This is, of course, another mind-boggling amount of money, coming right after a grandfatherly Bernanke told 60 Minutes that “we will not let the banks fail”. The next day the market rallied (Barbara said it was the Bernanke factor; I think it was because it was Monday and stocks [Geithnerian things] were cheap). Steven Pearlstein (WaPo) on MSNBC is just now telling me that it is obvious that “the depression is much worse than they thought” (they being the government?) and that we should be braced for much higher deficits. And the other “thing” I liked about the morning stories was this:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090319_a_government_of_men_not_laws/, wherein David Sirota sounds somewhat like Galbraith.
But this should make you uneasy as well:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/19/cnbc-rich-wall-street/. I really like this one. We are still some of us, anyway) hanging onto the notion that only the rich and greedy can manage money. But given the give-aways and short-sightedness that allowed us to give away billions of TARP funds (and now TALP…rhymes with SCALP) funds without accountability, I don’t think letting the government manage our money is such a hot idea, either. Would you give your money to Barney Frank? My father would call all of this rationalization of the rich being in charge “bass-ackwards thinking”. For once, I agree with him.
This next story is both confusing and transparent:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/19/financial-roundtable-lobbyists/. Having failed to engineer profits from attempting the defeat the stimulus bill, the lobby folks are trying to carve money out of the budget for special interests. We have no shame. Or integrity. Or logic.
All of which brings me to the congressional antics and how they all contribute to my confusion…and yours.
Over the last decade, the lasting effects of the great “uniter” have only added to our great “division” and bifurcation. The chasm between right and left, conservative and liberal, has just been growing. Beginning most recently (and openly) with the complete and total rejection of any Republican votes for the stimulus bill, and moving on from there, the most important issue being kept alive in Congress right now is NOT the welfare of the country, but whether or not you are a Democrat or a Republican and how loudly you can proclaim your allegiance.
Last week, the Republicans stated flatly, that their goal was to “bring down Democratic numbers”. Ideological purity has completely superseded the national economic welfare as the rule of the day.
Except when such ideological purity runs counter to your personal agenda (Google Maxine Waters and the President “keeping his facts straight”), your wallet or your political ambitions. Take, for example, the small group of “blue dog” democrats, deciding this week to establish a “secret” society, having joined forces to form a small sub-group in the Congress that would work closer with Republicans to thwart the economic policies of their own President and party. I wonder if they have a secret handshake? Do they understand the nature of “splinter groups”? Do they understand that splinters can get infected? This dedication to obstructive obstinacy seems endemic to, and symptomatic of, our nationally confused awareness of misplaced priorities.
(Former staffers of the Bush administration, perhaps 70% of them, have either abandoned ideological purity to write profitable tell-all books or have been unable to find jobs because of their prior devotion to that former Rovian moral ”high ground”. I can’t help but wonder if they are re-thinking their allegiances)
And then we have Sen. John McCain and other Republicans are opposing the appointment of Chris Hill to represent the U.S. in Afghanistan. General Petraeus thinks this is a good choice. Despite continued Republican calls to listen to the “generals on the ground”, because Hill is not “their boy” and not a staunch Republican, this group is opposing the appointment. This is silly and counter-productive, to say nothing of being hypocritical and not of much help in advancing the cause of peace in the region. But is all stubbornly ideologically pure. And no one in Congress seemed to care about the AIG and bank bonuses until the public got wind of it. Then, suddenly each side said it was the fault of the other (or of Bush and Paulson, or of Obama and Geithner), making a national economic crisis a political football. Then the House passed a bill (with sudden Republican participation) to eliminate, prevent or tax the bonuses. I will give them this: they finally displayed real transparency: were able to see right through their phony concern. Now that bill is off to the Senate, and I am hearing that the bill is potentially illegal, to the point of being unconstitutional. This means it may be scrapped, altogether. What a waste of time. I have called the recent behavior of Congress to be theater; Mr. Raider (in the earlier article) calls it “circus grandstanding”. In either case it has all been duplicitous or perhaps much ado about much of nothing. Except for the damn crisis.
Let’s confuse the issue, a little more:
The Congress is thinking about giving the corpse of Chryslers several more billions of dollars. Why?
Gordon E. Liddy, the AIG boss guy, is working for one dollar a year (really?) and is volunteering to sit before congress and be grilled, saying that the bonuses are distasteful but obligatory. He also says Bernanke and the Federal Reserve approved the bonus package long ago. (Geithner’s staff says the same thing).
Venerable General Electric Corp. is in trouble, having just lowered their annual dividend to pennies, to raise cash. They have also disclosed that their biggest portfolio item is the GE Capital group. And that that group has invested heavily in questionable real estate. Why? (And most of what they manufacture, they do so off-shore…except for the missile guidance systems for the DOD)
Crown Books is advancing $7M to George W Bush for a book of memoirs we don’t need or want to read. Why? (Maybe the folks in Calgary know “things” we don’t.)
J.P. Morgan and other banks, along with General Motors, is either declining further bail out monies or returning them, citing too many “strings”. After the last cash infusion, they are suddenly profitable (it makes you wonder whence came the crisis?), with Citibank claiming profits in the billions (and remodeling their executive offices).
And Michael Steele is, well…Michael Steele. Explain that one. He has even Rush stumped.
Oh, yes: Mr. Cheney, is that an assassination squad in your pocket or are you just happy to kill people?
I know full well that I have co-mingled TARP, TALP, stimulus funds, education, unemployment, economic advisors, political expediency and poor domestic policy, but I am confused. In the time it has taken to write this, I have found five or six more articles that I could have cited or quoted or referenced. But they have all been muddled and contradictory of each other. I had to turn off MSNBC. I was just getting more confused. If you think you can say all of this better, please do. I no longer know whether I should change my hopes or change my mind. I do know that a few more words of wisdom from the wise and I may lose my mind. I need a nap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
