A careful examination of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s recent remarks to Congress about proposals to stem the current epidemic of mortgage foreclosures illustrates the dark side of conservative ideology concerning ‘personal responsibility’ in the marketplace. On one hand, Secretary Paulson advocates against Congress taking action to shore up lower class homeowners struggling under the weight of adjustable rate mortgage payments they cannot afford when the mortgage rate re-adjusts. One the other hand, Paulson vehemently oppose regulations against the mortgage lenders to prohibit the very practices that created this housing fiasco in the first place. What are we to conclude then, but that conservative economic policy is to encourage the creation of an economic trap and then severely punish those who are ensnared in it?
From 2004 through 2006, the President touted what he called the drive towards an “ownership society”, creating an illusion that the American Dream was within the reach of any American willing to sign on the dotted line – and for a brief time, it was. Millions of people with no down payments were approved for mortgages with no reference to their ability to repay the debt they were assuming. In a vast number of other cases, borrowers were approved for adjustable rate loans they could afford when they borrowed the money, but were obviously not going to be able to afford when the loan rate re-adjusted. In both situations, massive foreclosures were more than foreseeable; they were assured to occur.
Now, at the day of reckoning, the very government that encouraged and facilitated this economic meltdown seeks to evade assuming its own ‘personal responsibility’. If that’s compassionate economic conservatism, I want no part of it!
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
The Missing Cheney E-Mails
Today is the Two Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety-Fifth day of the Dick Cheney Vice-Presidency, and during every one of those days, federal law required that all e-mail originating from the Office of the Vice-President were to be retained and archived.
Unfortunately, as we are being led to believe, e-mails from seven of those 2,595 days are missing. Nowhere to be found! Gone! Vanished into the thin air of cyberspace.
And those seven days just happened to be the very seven days, from September 30th, 2003 to October 6th, 2003, when the Justice Department started investigating the White House as the source of Bush Administration attempts to punish former Ambassador Joe Wilson by outing his wife as a CIA agent.
Wilson was the guy who went public and exposed the Bush Administration’s lies with respect to supposed efforts by Saddam Hussein to buy Uranium from Nigeria, a false claim used by the Administration to justify America’s invasion into Iraq. The White House exposed Wilson’s wife’s CIA covert agent status to punish Wilson for exposing the truth.
The country now knows that the original source of the leak was the White House itself, including the President and Vice-President, though mostly centered in the Office of the Vice-President, but the e-mail exchanges that might have proved organized White House efforts to obstruct the Justice Department’s 2003 investigation are now nowhere to be found.
Coincidence? I don't think so!
Unfortunately, as we are being led to believe, e-mails from seven of those 2,595 days are missing. Nowhere to be found! Gone! Vanished into the thin air of cyberspace.
And those seven days just happened to be the very seven days, from September 30th, 2003 to October 6th, 2003, when the Justice Department started investigating the White House as the source of Bush Administration attempts to punish former Ambassador Joe Wilson by outing his wife as a CIA agent.
Wilson was the guy who went public and exposed the Bush Administration’s lies with respect to supposed efforts by Saddam Hussein to buy Uranium from Nigeria, a false claim used by the Administration to justify America’s invasion into Iraq. The White House exposed Wilson’s wife’s CIA covert agent status to punish Wilson for exposing the truth.
The country now knows that the original source of the leak was the White House itself, including the President and Vice-President, though mostly centered in the Office of the Vice-President, but the e-mail exchanges that might have proved organized White House efforts to obstruct the Justice Department’s 2003 investigation are now nowhere to be found.
Coincidence? I don't think so!
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
A New Peddler of Hate Video
Ayman al-Zawahri, Al Qaeda’s second-in-command to Osama bin Laden, just released a new video wherein he bemoans a recent U.S. missile attack in Pakistan’s North Waziristan province that killed several of Al Qaeda’s top leaders. As is normal for videos released by the Al Qaeda leader, al-Zawahri lashed out in a diatribe against the United States and he promised more brutal and senseless violence in retaliation for U.S. efforts against his terrorist organization.
Of particular interest to me was the backdrop in al-Zawahri’s latest video, a loaded bookshelf like one would see in a huckster personal injury lawyer ad – designed to convey a sense of importance, but essentially a shelf full of knowledge and wisdom never consumed.
How appropriate that a purveyor of perversion and violence like al-Zawahri would expose himself as the huckster he is; a man whose character amounts to little more than a wretched old soul appearing before a fake backdrop.
There is no substance to al-Zawahri’s message, no wisdom in his words, no redeeming social value in his cause.
Hate and killing sow no crop worth reaping.
Of particular interest to me was the backdrop in al-Zawahri’s latest video, a loaded bookshelf like one would see in a huckster personal injury lawyer ad – designed to convey a sense of importance, but essentially a shelf full of knowledge and wisdom never consumed.
How appropriate that a purveyor of perversion and violence like al-Zawahri would expose himself as the huckster he is; a man whose character amounts to little more than a wretched old soul appearing before a fake backdrop.
There is no substance to al-Zawahri’s message, no wisdom in his words, no redeeming social value in his cause.
Hate and killing sow no crop worth reaping.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Scalia's Taste For Torture
You know the worlds gone mad when a United States Supreme Court Justice states publicly, with all the bluster of ancient Rome’s Caligula, that a country’s use of torture is justifiable in the name of national security. It’s hard to believe, given all we know about the atrocities committed by Germany’s Hitler, Rome’s Caligula and all those who perpetrated the Inquisitions of the Middle Ages, that some would still think that the depravity of torture could be excused, let alone encouraged, but that’s exactly what Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia suggested on BBC Radio several weeks ago.
As if that was not enough, Justice Scalia took the occasion to mock European criticism of the U.S. death penalty, calling Europe’s opposition to the American practice ‘self-righteous’ and ‘ridiculous’.
One could almost forgive Justice Scalia as being ignorant on both topics, as he’s never witnessed the atrocities that millions of Europeans did, but Scalia is routinely touted as one of the most brilliant thinkers on the Supreme Court. Thus, it can only be concluded that Scalia is perfectly happy with the use of torture and state-sponsored killing, as his comments suggest, which places him squarely in the company of such unworthy notables as Hitler and Rome’s Caligula.
You wouldn’t think that the bloodthirsty would achieve such high respect, but like I said, “The worlds gone mad”.
As if that was not enough, Justice Scalia took the occasion to mock European criticism of the U.S. death penalty, calling Europe’s opposition to the American practice ‘self-righteous’ and ‘ridiculous’.
One could almost forgive Justice Scalia as being ignorant on both topics, as he’s never witnessed the atrocities that millions of Europeans did, but Scalia is routinely touted as one of the most brilliant thinkers on the Supreme Court. Thus, it can only be concluded that Scalia is perfectly happy with the use of torture and state-sponsored killing, as his comments suggest, which places him squarely in the company of such unworthy notables as Hitler and Rome’s Caligula.
You wouldn’t think that the bloodthirsty would achieve such high respect, but like I said, “The worlds gone mad”.
Gas Economics
The Headline I read touted that gas prices rose 2 cents over the weekend, but I can tell you that’s not true. Gas prices didn’t rise over a span of three days – they rose in a matter of minutes. And it wasn’t two cents; it was ten!
Somewhere between 3:10 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. on Saturday afternoon, the price of gas rose ten cents at a local convenience store and within an hour, every gas outlet within 20 miles of my computer followed suit.
At the same time as the news outlets were reporting that gasoline supplies in the U.S. were rising, an event the laws of supply and demand say should trigger a price reduction, every gas station in the country was increasing their prices. So much for the fundamentals of economics!
Call me jaded, but I think gas suppliers are gouging.
Tensions rise in the Middle East; gas prices go up ten cents.
Tensions abate in the Middle East; gas prices go down five cents.
Fire breaks out at a domestic oil refinery; gas prices go up ten cents.
Firemen extinguish the blaze; gas prices go down five cents.
And then, at the end of each fiscal quarter, Exxon posts record profits.
Somewhere between 3:10 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. on Saturday afternoon, the price of gas rose ten cents at a local convenience store and within an hour, every gas outlet within 20 miles of my computer followed suit.
At the same time as the news outlets were reporting that gasoline supplies in the U.S. were rising, an event the laws of supply and demand say should trigger a price reduction, every gas station in the country was increasing their prices. So much for the fundamentals of economics!
Call me jaded, but I think gas suppliers are gouging.
Tensions rise in the Middle East; gas prices go up ten cents.
Tensions abate in the Middle East; gas prices go down five cents.
Fire breaks out at a domestic oil refinery; gas prices go up ten cents.
Firemen extinguish the blaze; gas prices go down five cents.
And then, at the end of each fiscal quarter, Exxon posts record profits.
Monday, February 25, 2008
War Lies Go Unpunished
There was a time in this country when killing without justification was treated severely, oftentimes resulting in the death of the perpetrator, but that practice hasn't been applied to our elected officials who authorize killing with reckless abandon under the cloak of 'waging war'. And it certainly hasn't been applied to President Bush and his Administration for lying to the American people and duping the Nation into believing there was a moral justification for going to war in Iraq.
The well-respected Center for Public Integrity in Washington, D.C. recently released the results of an in-depth study it undertook of public statements issued by President Bush and members of his Administration in the lead-up to the Iraq War. The study documented that President Bush and his Administration issued 935 false statements regarding the justification for invading Iraq in the two years before the war began.
Those lies convinced a majority of the American people (albeit a slim majority) that invading Iraq was morally justified when it was not. They duped this Nation into sacrificing the lives of thousands of soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars that future generations will be required to repay. They triggered the senseless deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis. They destroyed America's moral credibility in the eyes of the world, but more importantly, in the eyes of God.
Even today, many of our conservative politicians refuse to acknowledge the lies, refuse to repudiate the lies and refuse to accept responsibility for perpetrating the lies. As a result, those lies go unpunished...and the killing continue! When will it end? When will someone be held responsible?
The well-respected Center for Public Integrity in Washington, D.C. recently released the results of an in-depth study it undertook of public statements issued by President Bush and members of his Administration in the lead-up to the Iraq War. The study documented that President Bush and his Administration issued 935 false statements regarding the justification for invading Iraq in the two years before the war began.
Those lies convinced a majority of the American people (albeit a slim majority) that invading Iraq was morally justified when it was not. They duped this Nation into sacrificing the lives of thousands of soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars that future generations will be required to repay. They triggered the senseless deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis. They destroyed America's moral credibility in the eyes of the world, but more importantly, in the eyes of God.
Even today, many of our conservative politicians refuse to acknowledge the lies, refuse to repudiate the lies and refuse to accept responsibility for perpetrating the lies. As a result, those lies go unpunished...and the killing continue! When will it end? When will someone be held responsible?
Friday, February 22, 2008
MISSING THE MARK - a Question of Ethics or Romance
If you read The New York Times article questioning John McCain's relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman, or any of the hundreds of articles subsequently commenting on the story, you can’t help concluding that society is still not ready to accept non-marital male-female relationships without jumping to the conclusion that a romantic and/or sexual element lies somewhere within.
What disappoints me is not that The New York Times ran the piece; after all, McCain is running for President on an ethical and moral character platform, it’s that the discussion quickly dissolved into whether The New York Times showed bad taste for running the article or John McCain cheated on his wife. Few stopped to examine the nature of relationships in general. It appear as if everybody just assumed that a man and a woman can't have a non-romantic relationship, an assumption that is patently false.
In my book, The New York Times article and the firestorm it has triggered is more telling about the focus of this Country than McCain's character. I saw the piece as questioning McCain’s willingness to be influenced by special interest lobbying – whereas the rest of the country focused on the question of McCain’s marital fidelity. Perhaps our society gravitates towards the scent of sexual scandal out of habit, but this proclivity gravely undermines a discussion that is sorely needed - the nature of relationships between the sexes and how those relationships should be viewed in the public arena.
Until such a discussion occurs on a broad scale in this country, every question of improper political influence between a man and a woman will automatically become clouded by the aura of sexual impropriety, and the evils of improper political influence will take a backseat thereto. For that, we all suffer.
What disappoints me is not that The New York Times ran the piece; after all, McCain is running for President on an ethical and moral character platform, it’s that the discussion quickly dissolved into whether The New York Times showed bad taste for running the article or John McCain cheated on his wife. Few stopped to examine the nature of relationships in general. It appear as if everybody just assumed that a man and a woman can't have a non-romantic relationship, an assumption that is patently false.
In my book, The New York Times article and the firestorm it has triggered is more telling about the focus of this Country than McCain's character. I saw the piece as questioning McCain’s willingness to be influenced by special interest lobbying – whereas the rest of the country focused on the question of McCain’s marital fidelity. Perhaps our society gravitates towards the scent of sexual scandal out of habit, but this proclivity gravely undermines a discussion that is sorely needed - the nature of relationships between the sexes and how those relationships should be viewed in the public arena.
Until such a discussion occurs on a broad scale in this country, every question of improper political influence between a man and a woman will automatically become clouded by the aura of sexual impropriety, and the evils of improper political influence will take a backseat thereto. For that, we all suffer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)