God supports abortion

Let's assume for a minute that God really did create all that surrounds us. That would mean God created the scheme that women carry babies inside their bodies during the nine months from conception to delivery. God is effectively giving the control of that supposed person (also called children and life by pro-lifers) over to the woman who is carrying them. That implies a tacit approval of abortion (the choice made to end that "life"). Hence, God's scheme of creation is an approval of abortion.

Maybe God didn't create the system I've described and a fundamentalist reading of the manmade scriptures in his supposedly holy books should override the natural laws implied in said creations.

Or maybe we are just a bunch of imperfect human beings with no special insights into God's plans or the ultimate black and white ideas of right and wrong that we often espouse. This being the case, we should allow the Mom to make the decisions her heart tells her to make and not judge her when she does so.

July 4 Semantics

This was the day that the elites in Congress declared themselves independent of The King of England. It was a political step toward the violent means they used to found my country. The word 'freedom' was not the preferred sound bite at the time: 'liberty' was.

Today, 'freedom' is the word that is most often used in connection with 'patriotism' and the July4th-iness of this holiday. It is a word used in politically-minded rhetoric to claim self-righteousness, innocence, and moral superiority. Unfortunately, the general American usage of this word has rendered it nearly meaningless. For a word to be useful, there must be universally (or at least commonly) accepted definition. No such definition currently exists.

All is not lost, however. I like to keep in mind that 'freedom' is just a word. There are many others. I will try to use them in the future.

Milton Friedman's supporters

Milton Friedman is dead, but his ideology is very much alive. This is from Stephen Moore, a right-wing economic writer for the Wall Street Journal late last week:

The myth that the stock-market collapse was due to a failure of Friedman's principles could hardly be more easily refuted. No one was more critical of the Bush spending and debt binge than Friedman. The massive run up in money and easy credit that facilitated the housing and credit bubbles was precisely the foolishness that Friedman spent a lifetime warning against.

That was an easy refutation because it does not defend against the best finger pointed from left to right. My left finger does not point to the fiscal habits or the personality of GW Bush. The finger points to lack of regulation of financial markets. Something that Friedman LOVED with all his cold, 'enlighted self interest'ed heart. I have seen no refutation of this finger by any of the Friedman/Reagan/Jack Kemp lovers of the world.

I have seen some of these defenders attempt a defense by pointing at de-regulators like Bill Clinton, Robert Rubin and Jimmy Carter. That's a lame defense because the named Democrats were wrong as well. Friedman's ideas were still bad, and worst of all they harmed the world. Another lame right wing defense of their principles is the claim that the real culprit is Bush's "liberal" spending binge. I cry 'bullshit' to both these arguments.

And yeah, I mentioned Jack Kemp who was the last of these three to pass into the great beyond of freedom, God and selfishness. Friedmanite Alan Greenspan has come out and admitted that capital markets were under-regulated, I like to imagine that Friedman would be genius enough to see that the facts now refute some of his principles. I'm certain that the vast majority of his followers are not genius enough. They will hold onto his ideas, wait for the next opportunity to put them into action, damage the world economy again, and blame others in turn.

Democratic Socialism

This is cool:
What is Democratic Socialism
Some stuff I can dig on, without all the right wing spin.

Bush's principles, popularity and pragmatism

Last night, GW Bush spoke for a few minutes and answered some questions in front of the Economic Club of Southern Michigan.

Bush said his 2nd most troubling time was the near economic collapse last year. Told inaction would lead to a crisis worse than the Great Depression, Bush said he decided he had to intervene to prevent widespread stock market collapse and bank failure.

"That's a sobering moment," he said. "I thought about it, and I didn't really want to be that president. So I abandoned free-market principles."

Later in the Q&A portion he was asked how he wanted his 'legacy' to read in the history books. "I hope it is this," Bush said. "'The man showed up in the office with a set of principles and he was unwilling to sacrifice his principles for the sake of popularity.'"

Hmmm....He was will to sacrifice them in the face of facts and practicality over the nation's finances. I think that's a great thing that he should be lauded for. Pity he wasn't willing to give up his principles in the face of facts earlier or on other policy matters.

Oh, and he also said the words "freedom" and "God" countless times. I guess that would be the extent of his principles.

Memorial Day

Strictly speaking, this American holiday is supposed to be about paying tribute to the people who have died in wars in the uniform of the USofA. But nothing is so cut and dried. It never is.
Should we honor those who died fighting against the Union in the US Civil War? Native Americans who died for their nations, against the Federal government? People who served, but didn't die? People who served and died as Americans on the Tory side of the Revolution?

Memorial Day also seems to have something to do with buying mattresses, riding motorcycles and grilling meat over an open flame. It is a day when some Americans make an extra effort to remember a particular loved one who has died (though not necessarily a veteran).

I just watched a baseball game and thought about stuff like this. That's patriotic enough for me. The Minnesota Twins are better than I thought, and I did like the red, white and blue caps that both teams wore. America, I think I'll keep her.

World Government is happening

Yeah, that's right - I'm for increased centralization of world governance. First I came out of the closet as an avowed liberal, then an admitted socialist, and now this. No, this doesn't make me anti-freedom or unpatriotic. And I don't hate God either. It is just more of my confrontational pragmatism that is at work.

This has been a long, slow evolution since men first came together to divide up the fish and game they killed, and the women they mated with. It is seen in the origins of the United States of America. All the big world trends point toward a smaller world, and a necessarily more global form of government.

There are many among us who hate this. From anti-globalisation lefties, anti-UN and pro-StatesRights righties, to '9-11 Truthers' the falling barriers to world cooperation and order are demonized and fought. But this trend is unstoppable. It can be resisted and slowed but the world is getting smaller. Little by little, day by day we are linked by technology into a more interdependent world. This makes more interdependent nation-states inevitable.

Better to roll with it, and make it work than to resist it completely.

Patriots and Socialists

American right-wingers are working hard to frame current political thought and issues around these two words. They want us to think that Democrat = Socialist and Republican = Patriot. I've been bumping up against it quite a lot lately. The debate around buzzwords is so stupid, I find it hard to wrap my mind around it. I want to go on more about this silliness soon, but in the meantime Bill Maher wrote a nice rant about it, quoted here:

There's a name for people who do the right thing for their country, even if it involves sacrifice. And no, it's not "socialists." It's "patriots." We all know the modern definition of a patriot: It's the person who pays the least taxes and listens to the most A.M. radio. But that wasn't what it always meant.

Patriots want their fellow citizens to be able to go to the hospital. They want to make sure no one sells them bread made out of Chinese skulls. They want a country where the deer and the antelope can still play - and not just so Sarah Palin can shoot them from a helicopter. Patriots want to burn less coal and buy less oil. Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House roof and Ronald Reagan had them removed. You've heard of "opposite marriage"? This is "opposite patriotism."

Rush Limbaugh celebrated this Earth Day by praising coal-fired power plants and the plastic bag, while Glenn Beck cheered a man on while he cut down trees.

During the campaign, Obama suggested that one simple thing Americans could do to help with fuel-efficiency was check their car's tire pressure. And Republicans freaked, because to them, every suggestion for the common good is a direct attack on their personal liberty, and it's unpatriotic to interfere with anyone's God-given right to be big, dumb and selfish.

When the President suggests things that will help the greater good, that's not a slight against your fragile manhood. I know, you're a rugged individualist. But you're not - you're just a schmuck.

Going back to Reagan, all of our leaders have predictably and reliably told us that government is always the problem, never you my precious, perfect American citizen. You are always perfect just the way you are, like a precious little snowflake. A beautiful, precious, 350-pound, pig-ignorant snowflake.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/05/08/2009-05-08_americans_please_wash_hands_before_criticizing_obama.html#ixzz0F3lV9XPh&B

The Lying Liberal

I supported John Edwards' primary run for President. His positions on issues of governmental policy were the most similar to my own. He did not seem a particularly down to earth guy. As it turned out, he was treating his wife and family very badly during this time. I make no excuse or have no regret for supporting his candidacy.

You see, as a thinking person I see a difference between government policies that best serve my country and private behaviour that serves or dis serves individuals. I find these sorts of private scandals entertaining, but I'm not looking for proof of hypocrisy in my politicians. I'm looking for government policies that are good for my country.

So, the next time the headlines are full of a public offical taking drugs, cheating on their spouse, nailing a prostitute, reaching between stalls in a public toilet, etc. I will laugh and enjoy the spectacle. It doesn't color my liberal ideals one little bit. For me, liberalism's core principle is pragmatism in public policy. Hypocrisy between public and private behavior does not matter.

Guns

Amendment II: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The wording of this amendment is the best explanation I can give as to why the US is politically unable to institute stricter, more rational gun control laws. When taken in the context of the political and cultural realities of today, this amendement can most certainly be interpreted to give great freedom of the citizenry to pack heat and be ready to kill anything that moves to protect said personal space.
In this day and age, the primary philosophical basis for arguments of freedom and rights is "the state" vs the individual. This is not the context that existed in the US during the drafting, debate and ratification of this Bill. In those days, the primary philosophical question was what rights the States had over the central national government. Hence, the context of the Second Amendment was referring to the armies maintained by individual States (aka "the people").
The looser Articles of Confederation that preceded the Constitution had a very weak national governemnt, which was completely secondary to the State governments.
The legal rights of people to pack weapons giving the the power to kill each other with the flick of a finger is an accident of history. It is an accident of history that will not be corrected in my lifetime. That's a bummer.

Glenn Beck demonstrates what is wrong with American politics

Here we see an entertainer overacting his way through a performance about my country. This guy is promoting his product. He looks and sounds like a charlatan preacher ala Ernest Angley or Jimmy Swaggart riffing on politics rather than Jesus. I am amazed that there are people who think there is substance to his message. There is substance, but the substance is promoting himself with cheap dramatic performances on serious issues that have real consequences. Oh, and he's a crybaby:

AIG bonus flap

What the fuck are we talking about here? $165 million? A flap over a mere $165 million in cash is bringing our executive and legislative branches of government to a halt while the people of the USofA are losing their jobs, homes and hope. What a shame that this AIG triviality has become issue one. A crying shame.

As I understand it the series of events goes something like this:
Last year the Bush Treasury Department and Federal Reserve, with the very active participation of Tim Geithner acted to prop up AIG with TARP money requested by Bush and approved by Congress. There were virtually no strings attached to this cash by Congress, the Fed or the Treasury at that time. The billions 'bailout' cash was paid out in exchange for a large stake in the company but with no specific directives on how that cash must be spent/invested. AIG management (which was left almost entirely in place) decided to pay themselves some hefty bonuses.

After the inauguration the Obama Administration and the Congress considered putting some restrictions on bonuses in the 'stimulus' bill, later dubbed the American Recovery Act (or something like that). This act is separate from the TARP legislation signed by Bush. Geithner (together with Senate leaders) agreed to take the restrictions out for expediency and because it would likely be challenged in court as an illegal override of TARP.

Now that the press echo chamber has made these bonuses the dramatic storyline of this week, the Congress and the Administration stopped nearly all other action to express indignation and pass some likely illegal legislation to tax the bonuses and recoup the few million dollars.

Enough already! This money is peanuts. The money is gone. Say goodbye to it and move on, please. Secretary Geithener and President Obama ought to be focusing on reforming, re-regulating and re-capitalizing our crumbling financial system. Republicans are shameless but they should be ashamed of themselves for making an mountain of this molehill. The press and the American public shouldn't be expected to know better, because....well....they are sheep.

TalkingpointBuzzwordKeyword Free Association

spending pork
stimulus sex pork
internet Al Gore 'internets'
regulation socialism
opposition partisan obstructionist
hope Obama
taxes bad
taxcuts alwaysgood
Reagan God
Clinton sex lie blow bubble
GeorgeW conservative notconservative
history rewrite
deficit theirfault
government us them

Galbraith vs the Administration

James K Galbraith's testimony from last week
Professor Galbraith spoke last week about the chances of success of the policies of the current Administration. I tend to agree with Galbraith, as I think he is the rightful carrier of the genius that came from his father. In this testimony (which should be read for context) he says that the 'stimulus' is too small, the bank plan will not work, and the home loan rescue plan will work. He's so cool, but this does put Galbraith in the position of disagreeing with my new boyfriend Tim Geithner. I must rationalize this because I admire these two guys.

Geithner's plan is not ideal but it appears to be politically possible. Galbraith's ideas are rational and sound, but politically unattractive. Galbraith advocates an FDR-style federal takeover of troubled banks and the bad assets they hold. That's a great idea that will not happen any time soon because the American public is not yet ready to consider such a radical idea. Hell, the conservative thinkers (and the public who follow them) think the current plan is somewhat Marxist already. Maybe things need to get worse before a sensible plan like Galbraith's has any chance of receiving due consideration.

Meanwhile, Geither has to deal with the political realities as well as economic ones. That's a very harsh couple of realities to work within. I wish Tim the hottie all the balls and wood he will need to do his good works.

Geithner the hottie

I watched a bit of Tim Geithner's testimony yesterday. I had to stop when they got to the portion where Republicans speak at him without the benefit of a response from the Secretary. Damn, he's hot! So very smart. The man is impressive in this setting, and some of the Republicans filled the room with their disdain for his "articulate testimony". They were showing their jealousy for the power held by the new Administration and their disrespect for someone with brains and the ability to express himself. What a shame.

It is a shame because Tim Geithner is on very solid ground with his understanding of macroeconomics policy and financial markets. It is a shame because we are pretty fucked, and Republicans threw their philosphies at the pragmatist before them rather than engage him in real discussion. I hope they are simply posturing for the cameras and will endeavor to speak and listen when the cameras are off. It seems that listening and considering the ideas of the new Administration is a tough pill for them to swallow.

jealousy

It was obvious that many righties are feeling jealous of President Obama. They bemoan the admiration he is receiving as 'worship'. A cute way of doing this is to say something along the lines of "I have a savior and his name is Jee-sus, not Obama".

I can remember feeling that way at the height of Reagan's popularity. I can vividly remember feeling that way about W Bush's popularity. The strange thing is I can't remember how very obnoxious I must have been about it. I felt VERY angry about the adulation they were receiving given the damage I knew they were doing to my country.

One thing I'm sure of is that I didn't invoke Jesus, the right wing owns that icon.

If...and only if...reasonable prospect that...

“If actions taken by the administration, the Congress, and the Federal Reserve are successful in restoring some measure of financial stability — and only if that is the case, in my view — there is a reasonable prospect that the current recession will end in 2009 and that 2010 will be a year of recovery.” Nice quote from Ben Bernanke today. Like a good chair should.

Animated credit crisis explanation

The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo.

This stimulus ain't very stimulative

Heh heh. This is a great word for a punch line. Boy, how we love those. No matter how serious a problem, no matter how complex an issue, all of them can be reduced to a one-liner. The downward spiral of the international economy may be one of the best examples ever. This is an incredibly complicated set of circumstances that have created equally complicated government policy choices for our politicians. Fortunately, the mass of voters can reduce the whole thing down to a "stimulus" comment that hints at boners and orgasms.

Strictly speaking, this current bill is necessary but it is not very stimulative in the economic sense. The US economy is GDP or Gross Domestic Product, a measure of total spending. Stimulative policies are those that add to GDP or spending.

Conservatives like to say ('think' is not the right word here) that tax cuts are stimulative because they stimulate consumers to invest and spend. This is bullshit, especially in a deflationary spiral like we find ourselves in right now. In economic conditions such as we face now, most rational consumers (Conservatives are the opposite of rational) either put any extra cash in reserve or they use it to pay down debt. Very little of it is spent, creating very little stimulation to the economy. Also, precious little is invested in anything that might create spending or jobs.

In the real world, the best way to create spending (add to GDP) is to SPEND!!!! This would seem obvious to anyone who is thinking, but conservatives do not habitate the thinking side of the universe. Political reality being what it is, the moderate Democrats and Republicans who negotiated the 'stimulus' package had to dedicate a fair portion of the total dollar figure to tax breaks. Regardless of how good or bad the tax breaks are, they are not stimulative.

The spending that was included in the package is mostly dedicated to aid to unemployed (and other people directly impacted by the downward spiral) and cash paid out to the states to help make up their revenue losses. This spending is good, but not particularly stimulative. The purpose and result of this is mostly to prevent further erosion of spending rather than increase it. It should help stop the bleeding, but is unlikely to bring about healing.

I think the bill signed into law by Obama this week is good, but I think more will be needed. We have strengthened the floor so that the economy will (hopefully) not fall much further. To really get us up off the floor will require another infusion of government debt to be spent on job creation. I hope the Democratic leaders will forget this 'bi-partisan' nonsense and do what is wise. Republicans are wrong, their opinions should be completely ignored.

Dramatic Financial Meltdown - Frontline

PBS is currently broadcasting a great dramatic one-hour summary of the financial events of 2008:
Frontline - Inside the Meltdown
This has been my obsession for the last six months, and it kept me awake last night worrying about the rest of this year for the world financial system. The events are edited down to a compelling hour, but it could have easily been two hours. Perhaps they will do a second part of this after the pragmatic Obama Administration has had an opportunity to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

This series of market failures has radicalized me. My left-leaning philosophy has become clearer and even more leftward than it has ever been. The corporate financial structure of the United States is becoming more government controlled by osmosis and the course of events. This is not something that has happened because people wish it to be so, but because it must be so. The conversion of Henry Paulson from free market fundamentalist to interventionist has been astounding, and the Frontline presentation of this is stark and accurate.

A wise person I know recently compared the human mind to underwear, changing it is necessary from time to time. He also intimated that information and the application of logic should be catalysts for mind changing. In the case of Henry Paulson, events played a bigger part. Shit happened and the only rational, pragmatic response was socialistic. Paulson's first instinct was to let his philosophy of free market fundamentalism guide his actions. These actions failed and he learned from this.

I hope the thinking American voters will learn some of the lessons Paulson learned, but I doubt the 'independent' voters and Republican base can do this. That is what kept me from sleeping soundly last night