One of the things I love about Facebook is my exposure to new "stuff". I've heard the term "restorative justice" before, but have never looked into it, and therefore never really understood what it was all about. Facebook is opening my already open mind on a daily basis. It is a portal to my continuing education.
But I'm preaching to the choir. I'm sure y'all feel the same way.
So here's the excerpt from the article in Psychology Today that resonated in my heart:
Restorative Circles provide a way for individuals and communities to handle conflicts compassionately rather than punitively, as well as to heal and learn from these conflicts. These days when I say I want justice, this is the kind of justice system I have in mind -- a system that values everyone's needs and is designed to address those needs without either blame or compromise.
How is it that a concept like this, which is so close to the fundamental truth, so right, so "just", is so far from our minds (here in the U.S.)?
How is it that something that makes so much sense, seems so obvious, yet seems so far from our collective consciousness and from a new and willfully manifested reality?
I wonder. I do know that it starts here and on Facebook and on Twitter - by sharing and reading and pondering. Planting the seeds of change.
Real change. Real. Change. Of the "fundamental truth" variety. Not the namby-pamby politi-speak mealy-mouthed bullshit we hear so much of today. All talk and no action.
Have a great new day y'all....
Our Justice System Requires Us To Punish Wrongdoers. What If There Were a Better Way?
Is there a better way of "doing justice"? The alternative may surprise you.
Published on August 18, 2010 by Mikhail Lyubansky, Ph.D. in Between the Lines
We think we know what it means -- that we who want justice are willing to fight for it. The words have a deeper meaning, of course. They are intended to remind us that it is not possible to have a peaceful society as long as there is injustice, because inevitably those who are oppressed will rise up.
As slogans go, this one is pretty clever, so clever, in fact, that it's easy to get caught up in the words and forget to think about what they actually mean.
What is it that we really want when we say we want justice?
A year ago I would have easily answered "true equality under the law" -- as opposed to our current criminal (in)justice system, in which race clearly plays a major role. More to the point, I would have said that I wanted the determination of guilt and the administration of punishment to not be correlated to race or any other demographic characteristic.
Today, I'm no longer satisfied with that.
For those of us living in the United States, "doing justice" is mostly synonymous with administering punishment. We may not literally follow the Biblical edict of "an eye for an eye", but most of us still believe that "the punishment must fit the crime". Indeed, many of us would be hard pressed to even come up with an alternative justice system.
Yet alternatives abound in the form of restorative justice.
There are many restorative justice systems. The one I've been studying is Restorative Circles (RC), a system developed by Dominic Barter in the shanty towns of urban Brazil and now spreading across the world as a means of promoting and facilitating social justice, group cohesion, resilient relationships and personal healing.
Restorative Circles provide a way for individuals and communities to handle conflicts, including racial conflicts, compassionately rather than punitively, as well as to heal and learn from these conflicts. These days when I say I want justice, this is the kind of justice system I have in mind -- a system that values everyone's needs and is designed to address those needs without either blame or compromise1.
To the uninitiated, restorative processes may appear idealistic and naive. After all, they reject the two core aspects of the traditional justice system: the assignment of blame and the administration of punishment. Instead, the goal of the Circle is for the parties involved in the conflict to first gain mutual understanding of the others' experiences and needs and then to restore or build a mutually satisfying relationship.
Talking is involved, so is listening. Lots of listening. But it's a decidedly different type of talk than people usually engage in2, and it's not just talk.
The restorative process is designed to lead to voluntary (and they really are voluntary!) acts offered to repair or restore the relationship. The two words are not synonymous. Reparative acts have to do with compensation -- paying for a broken window is a reparative act -- while restorative acts are those whose value is largely symbolic, a heart-felt apology may qualify, or a basket of vegetables from one's garden, or an invitation to dinner. It's certainly not surprising that people prefer to have both, but it turns out, Barter explains, that if they can only have one, there is a strong preference for acts that are restorative.
And yet, Restorative Circles aren't, at the heart of it, about apologies or even about restorative acts more generally. They're about mutual understanding and connection. Too often racial conflict is addressed with (legitimate) accusations. Denial ensues. Feelings are hurt. At the end, no one feels good about what happened.
Restorative processes offer an alternative, one that connects people by allowing them to not just understand each other but experience each other's humanity. That's why restorative acts are offered. That's why they are experienced as restorative. There is nothing like it in our current ways of doing justice.
In his trainings, Barter weaves in multiple examples from a variety of contexts. In one, a masked thief enters a small convenience store and robs the owner at gunpoint. He is apprehended a short while later and agrees to a restorative process. In that process, he explains that he did what he did because he was pressured to do so by a gang in order to demonstrate his commitment. The store owner shares how, weeks later, he still felt traumatized by the incident. It takes more than an hour to work through the nuances of understanding each other. When they finally reach the action phase of the process, the store owner offers the would-be-thief a job in the store.
Skeptical? I was too. And I wasn't about to be be convinced by testimonials and personal anecdotes. I wanted hard data, and I knew how to find it. What I found was one empirical study after another that demonstrated the effectiveness of restorative systems. Indeed, a review of research on restorative justice across multiple continents showed that restorative systems reduce recidivism in both violent and property crime in comparison to traditional justice systems and provide a variety of benefits to the "victims", including improved mental health and greater satisfaction with the justice process (Sherman & Strang, 2007).
Such a profound process should be difficult to facilitate, intimidating to even contemplate. It isn't. Part of the reason is that Barter has whittled the RC process to the bare essentials, which are few and relatively easy to learn, if not master. Another part is that Barter encourages a minimalist approach. "When I facilitate a circle," he says, "I intensely desire everyone's well-being and that's why I try to do nothing to help them." The statement seems paradoxical, but Barter is making an important point: The power of RC rests in the process, and it is the structure of the process that creates change, not the facilitator, whose job is merely to create and hold the space for the process to unfold.
Barter says the facilitators he enjoys observing most are those under the age of 10. Why not? In Dominic Barter's world, schoolchildren spontaneously break out into a restorative circle during recess. It seems downright inconceivable at first, but after a few days with Barter, the message sinks in: Facilitating a circle is child's play. Anyone can do it.
Given the level of conflict and injustice in our world, I wish everyone would.
Footnotes:
1. In regard to the "No Justice. No Peace" banner, in the context of restorative justice, the two concepts are not just interdependent, they are indistinguishable from each other. That is, justice is a way of resolving conflict compassionately by addressing everyone's needs, while peace is a way of living with conflict by engaging it effectively and compassionately.
2. Describing the actual process is beyond the scope of this particular piece, but interested readers should visit the restorative circles website.
Showing posts with label "Beyond Bad Government". Show all posts
Showing posts with label "Beyond Bad Government". Show all posts
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Sunday, April 8, 2012
The Fable of the Century, by Robert Reich
By Robert Reich, Thursday, April 5, 2012...
Imagine a country in which the very richest people get all the economic gains. They eventually accumulate so much of the nation’s total income and wealth that the middle class no longer has the purchasing power to keep the economy going full speed. Most of the middle class’s wages keep falling and their major asset – their home – keeps shrinking in value.
Imagine that the richest people in this country use some of their vast wealth to routinely bribe politicians. They get the politicians to cut their taxes so low there’s no money to finance important public investments that the middle class depends on – such as schools and roads, or safety nets such as health care for the elderly and poor.
Imagine further that among the richest of these rich are financiers. These financiers have so much power over the rest of the economy they get average taxpayers to bail them out when their bets in the casino called the stock market go bad. They have so much power they even shred regulations intended to limit their power.
These financiers have so much power they force businesses to lay off millions of workers and to reduce the wages and benefits of millions of others, in order to maximize profits and raise share prices – all of which make the financiers even richer, because they own so many of shares of stock and run the casino.
Now, imagine that among the richest of these financiers are people called private-equity managers who buy up companies in order to squeeze even more money out of them by loading them up with debt and firing even more of their employees, and then selling the companies for a fat profit.
Although these private-equity managers don’t even risk their own money – they round up investors to buy the target companies – they nonetheless pocket 20 percent of those fat profits.
And because of a loophole in the tax laws, which they created with their political bribes, these private equity managers are allowed to treat their whopping earnings as capital gains, taxed at only 15 percent – even though they themselves made no investment and didn’t risk a dime.
Finally, imagine there is a presidential election. One party, called the Republican Party, nominates as its candidate a private-equity manager who has raked in more than $20 million a year and paid only 13.9 percent in taxes – a lower tax rate than many in the middle class.
Yes, I know it sounds far-fetched. But bear with me because the fable gets even wilder. Imagine this candidate and his party come up with a plan to cut the taxes of the rich even more – so millionaires save another $150,000 a year. And their plan cuts everything else the middle class and the poor depend on – Medicare, Medicaid, education, job-training, food stamps, Pell grants, child nutrition, even law enforcement.
What happens next?
There are two endings to this fable. You have to decide which it’s to be.
In one ending the private-equity manager candidate gets all his friends and everyone in the Wall Street casino and everyone in every executive suite of big corporations to contribute the largest wad of campaign money ever assembled – beyond your imagination.
The candidate uses the money to run continuous advertisements telling the same big lies over and over, such as “don’t tax the wealthy because they create the jobs” and “don’t tax corporations or they’ll go abroad” and “government is your enemy” and “the other party wants to turn America into a socialist state.”
And because big lies told repeatedly start sounding like the truth, the citizens of the country begin to believe them, and they elect the private equity manager president. Then he and his friends turn the country into a plutocracy (which it was starting to become anyway).
But there’s another ending. In this one, the candidacy of the private equity manager (and all the money he and his friends use to try to sell their lies) has the opposite effect. It awakens the citizens of the country to what is happening to their economy and their democracy. It ignites a movement among the citizens to take it all back.
The citizens repudiate the private equity manager and everything he stands for, and the party that nominated him. And they begin to recreate an economy that works for everyone and a democracy that’s responsive to everyone.
Just a fable, of course. But the ending is up to you.
Imagine a country in which the very richest people get all the economic gains. They eventually accumulate so much of the nation’s total income and wealth that the middle class no longer has the purchasing power to keep the economy going full speed. Most of the middle class’s wages keep falling and their major asset – their home – keeps shrinking in value.
Imagine that the richest people in this country use some of their vast wealth to routinely bribe politicians. They get the politicians to cut their taxes so low there’s no money to finance important public investments that the middle class depends on – such as schools and roads, or safety nets such as health care for the elderly and poor.
Imagine further that among the richest of these rich are financiers. These financiers have so much power over the rest of the economy they get average taxpayers to bail them out when their bets in the casino called the stock market go bad. They have so much power they even shred regulations intended to limit their power.
These financiers have so much power they force businesses to lay off millions of workers and to reduce the wages and benefits of millions of others, in order to maximize profits and raise share prices – all of which make the financiers even richer, because they own so many of shares of stock and run the casino.
Now, imagine that among the richest of these financiers are people called private-equity managers who buy up companies in order to squeeze even more money out of them by loading them up with debt and firing even more of their employees, and then selling the companies for a fat profit.
Although these private-equity managers don’t even risk their own money – they round up investors to buy the target companies – they nonetheless pocket 20 percent of those fat profits.
And because of a loophole in the tax laws, which they created with their political bribes, these private equity managers are allowed to treat their whopping earnings as capital gains, taxed at only 15 percent – even though they themselves made no investment and didn’t risk a dime.
Finally, imagine there is a presidential election. One party, called the Republican Party, nominates as its candidate a private-equity manager who has raked in more than $20 million a year and paid only 13.9 percent in taxes – a lower tax rate than many in the middle class.
Yes, I know it sounds far-fetched. But bear with me because the fable gets even wilder. Imagine this candidate and his party come up with a plan to cut the taxes of the rich even more – so millionaires save another $150,000 a year. And their plan cuts everything else the middle class and the poor depend on – Medicare, Medicaid, education, job-training, food stamps, Pell grants, child nutrition, even law enforcement.
What happens next?
There are two endings to this fable. You have to decide which it’s to be.
In one ending the private-equity manager candidate gets all his friends and everyone in the Wall Street casino and everyone in every executive suite of big corporations to contribute the largest wad of campaign money ever assembled – beyond your imagination.
The candidate uses the money to run continuous advertisements telling the same big lies over and over, such as “don’t tax the wealthy because they create the jobs” and “don’t tax corporations or they’ll go abroad” and “government is your enemy” and “the other party wants to turn America into a socialist state.”
And because big lies told repeatedly start sounding like the truth, the citizens of the country begin to believe them, and they elect the private equity manager president. Then he and his friends turn the country into a plutocracy (which it was starting to become anyway).
But there’s another ending. In this one, the candidacy of the private equity manager (and all the money he and his friends use to try to sell their lies) has the opposite effect. It awakens the citizens of the country to what is happening to their economy and their democracy. It ignites a movement among the citizens to take it all back.
The citizens repudiate the private equity manager and everything he stands for, and the party that nominated him. And they begin to recreate an economy that works for everyone and a democracy that’s responsive to everyone.
Just a fable, of course. But the ending is up to you.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
My letter to the President this morning...
Thanks to Nello Latini for sharing his photo of the White House on flickr!
Dear Mr. President,
Over the past week or so, there has been a great deal of chatter on Facebook about Monsanto, GMO's and Whole Foods.
The entire issue is very confusing and complex, and it's difficult to get at what's actually going on with regard to government regulation of GMO's and biotech companies like Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, Syngenta, et al.
My concern is that unregulated and unsupervised, these companies are potentially harming the environment, the balance of ecosystems, our food supply, and ultimately the health of humans, domestic animals and wildlife. Because of the unknown implications/ramifications of this research and technology (much of which is apparently already being implemented into widespread use) - I feel that a danger exists to all flora and fauna and the ecosystems of the entire planet.
We have many, many very grave issues before us, and I appreciate the monumental job you have before you. When everything on the to-do list is of the highest priority - well, I do feel for the huge responsibilities you face.
If you could point me to an agency website, or if a staffer could fill me in on this (very broad) topic as far as your administration is concerned - your specific policy towards GMO's - and your specific regulatory approvals and other actions within the USDA and possibly other departments (such as the EPA), I would appreciate it.
I'm also concerned about Tom Vilsack's close ties to Monsanto and the biotech industry.
It also appears that several former Monsanto executives/employees have been appointed/hired to key positions within the USDA. Not to question your judgement in this matter, but this smacks of, well, the old "inside the beltway" of doing things.
I would like a specific response to your reasoning behind appointing industry insiders to key positions within your administration - where these individuals may be inclined to steer policy in favor of their former employer/industry, in lieu of steering policy/regulations in a direction that provides the maximum benefit for "We The People" and the (hopefully) wholesome ecosystems we all depend on for healthy life and sustenance.
For reference, here are the two articles that I read on Facebook this morning that prompted this letter to you.
A story that appears to get at the heart of the Whole Foods/Monstato/GMO/USDA matter: http://goo.gl/AUwMe
and from a year ago, an ABC news story about the deregulation of GMO alfalfa: http://goo.gl/o28Nx
Thank you for your time, and keep up the good work. But, and there always is a but, you can do better.
Sincerely yours,
Alex T. Fuego
Driftwood, Texas
(I'll let y'all know when I receive a response...)
Follow up...
Here are two more really good articles from mi amigo Colby:
"Did Whole Foods Sell Out to Monsanto? The Organic Elite Surrenders to Monsanto: Now What?"
and
"19 Studies Link GMO Foods to Organ Disruption"
And lastly, the link to write to the President, your Senators, and Representatives...and State Governors and State Legislators as well...
http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Islands at Risk - Genetic Engineering in Hawai'i :: Monsanto Playing God?
Photo by Peter Adams on Flickr...
I would offer that it's not just Hawai'i that's at risk...it's the entire planet, and us along with it.
"We cannot ignore the moral and ethical ramifications of combining species at the molecular level..."
"...(genetic engineering is) crossing sacred barriers...it seems unholy...."
Bio-piracy: Multinational corporations (Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, Syngenta) bought up virtually all seed companies in the 1990's, and with the assistance of the Federal and State governments, and aligning Public Universities to help with additional research (some might say "converting them into their own private laboratories), and conducting genetic engineering research, that is eventually patented and thereby becomes private (corporate) property owned by a few individuals.
"...the end of bio-diversity?..."
"...the vast majority of industrialized nations have banned GMO's (genetically modified organisms) completely...the small papaya farming industry in Hawai'i is dying because Japan, their major market, does not allow the import of GMO's...but not the United States...we are leading the research and development of GMO's..."
Hawaii has more experimental field trials of genetic engineering than any other state in the nation. Just a few of the many examples of permits granted for field trials include:
Corn engineered with human genes (Dow)
Sugarcane engineered with human genes (Hawai‘i Agriculture Research Center)
Corn engineered with jellyfish genes (Stanford University)
Tobacco engineered with lettuce genes (University of Hawai‘i)
Rice engineered with human genes (Applied Phytologics)
Corn engineered with hepatitis virus genes (Prodigene)
I have a bad feeling about all this.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Related Info:
The Global Spread of GMO Crops
Inherit the Wind
By PETER MONTAGUE
EarthJustice.Org
Hawaii Seed :: GMO Info
Union of Concerned Scientists :: Food & Agriculture
NPR's "On Being" :: Joanna Macy "A Wild Love for the World"
Joanna Macy - The Great Turning: The Great Turning is a name for the essential adventure of our time: the shift from the industrial growth society to a life-sustaining civilization.
Here is an interesting graphic showing ex-Monsanto employees who are now employed by WeThePeople in positions that in theory they can guide Federal policy to the benefit of Monsanto - or worse - basically corporate spies reporting back to Monsanto. Note that Flickr is blocking me from sharing the image...basically lobbying from within...
Our system is broken...
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
President Obama's 2012 State of the Union Address - Full Text
My sound card is busted on my laptop and I don't get TV way out here on the eastern fringe of the Chihuahua Desert. So, I couldn't watch President Obama's State of the Union Address. I searched around for the full text - in pdf format so I could download it and print it out and read it in bed - but it was nowhere to be found.
So I created it myself to share with y'all and the world. I expect millions and millions of hits from people wanting to do the same - download/print/read/keep/reflect/ponder/comprehend/actively bear witness to effect change in the world versus passively listen/and begin to act with regard to their own governance...
Yeah right. Anyway, here ya go. Have at it. Nighty night.
The White House President Obama State of the Union Address 2012 Full Text PDF
So I created it myself to share with y'all and the world. I expect millions and millions of hits from people wanting to do the same - download/print/read/keep/reflect/ponder/comprehend/actively bear witness to effect change in the world versus passively listen/and begin to act with regard to their own governance...
Yeah right. Anyway, here ya go. Have at it. Nighty night.
The White House President Obama State of the Union Address 2012 Full Text PDF
Thursday, January 19, 2012
The Internet is Lost :: On SOPA and PIPA
If there ever were a time for us, as citizens of these United States, to engage actively in our own governance, the time is now. Like right now. Before the upcoming Senate vote on PIPA [Protect IP Act] on January 24. That gives us three days to write, or even better, to call our Senators.
The House bill, SOPA [Stop Online Piracy Act], has been tabled for now, but is scheduled to rear its ugly head again in February. So it's important to call (or write) your Congressperson too.
If you're not sure what all the fuss is about, here's a good, balanced explanation from Forbes Magazine titled "What Are SOPA and PIPA And Why All the Fuss?"
Wiki also has a good informational page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Learn_more
In the C|Net article "How SOPA would affect you: FAQ", the author points out that The Honorable Lamar Smith [R], the right-in-my-backyard House Representative for Texas Congressional District 21, and sponsor of the bill, has an interesting slate of major campaign donors.
Quoting the article, "As CNET reported in December, Smith, a self-described former ranch manager whose congressional district encompasses the cropland and grazing land stretching between Austin and San Antonio, Texas, has become Hollywood's favorite Republican. The TV, movie, and music industries are the top donors to his 2012 campaign committee, and he's been feted by music and movie industry lobbyists at dinners and concerts."
As I like to say with regard to pretty much any bill authored by pretty much any Senator or Congressperson, "FOLLOW THE MONEY".
FOLLOW THE MONEY!
CHORUS: FOLLOW THE MONEY!
It is a sad state of the Republic, that it's the special interests (money) driving most of the legislation in both Houses of Congress. It's the interests of the special interests, that our elected representatives are paying attention to, and not the interests of "We The People".
And as I also like to say, "IF YOU'RE NOT ABSOLUTELY FUCKING LIVID (about your perverted/impotent system of governance), YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION".
So the time is now to call or write - to help them start paying attention to we the people, and to help them start paying attention to what is in the best interests of we the people.
Personally, I plan to start dedicating an hour or two a week to communicating with my elected officials - both on the Federal and State levels. They are all now in my contacts in Outlook. We dedicate time to ourselves, our partners/spouses, time to family/friends, time to exercise, time to read/listen to music, time to meditate/go to church/bird watch, time for artistic endeavors like photography or dancing Argentine Tango, time to watch sports or other drivel on the boob tube, time to go hunting, play golf, bowl, macrame'/knit (male emphasis here), play video games, shopping at Cabela's or Home Depot and generally if not specifically time for jacking off and reading on the toilet.
Why not time to actively engage in one's own governance? Dedicated, committed time, especially, ESPECIALLY, in these troubled times.
Dedicated, committed, open/mindful, aware, loving time to read and study and write (or call) about the issues we each hold dear. Too many issues? Pick one.
Sorry to get preachy y'all. I'm not preaching to you, kind reader. I'm preaching to everyone. Pleading with the Universe to get with the program, wake up, and take an interest in this world we've created through our profound apathy and inattention.
So here are the links to make it easy...to find your reps and their contact info...
www.opencongress.org
www.usa.gov
And lastly, here is the seed for the title of this post. It's the scene from the film "Downfall" (excellent film by the way) - the scene where Hitler gets pissed off when his generals are telling him they are being overwhelmed/overrun/losing the war. The scene that has been hackneyed on YouTube with folks dubbing in new subtitles to make their point.
The subtitles on this one are gone in a flash, so it's a challenge to follow everything. Some of it is silly, but most of it (the subtitle text) is profoundly true. Not that the Internet could ever actually be "lost" over PIPA or SOPA, but the Internet as we know it, could be.
Bear with it to the end - 4:00 minutes - that's the best part...
Thanks for reading, and make that commitment to call (or write) your peeps in the next couple of days. I thank you, and the citizens of the world thank you, from the bottom of our hearts.
P.S. Plus I'm really pissed that Congress is spending our precious money and time on an issue that really doesn't need to be addressed. The existing laws are possibly just fine, perhaps with some tweakage. I'll share a reply letter I recieved from my representative, Lloyd Doggett in the comments below, that talks about this. My point is that in these troubled times with very grave issues before us - our Congress deigns to squander precious time on needless bullshit. Especially when they are all clamoring for less regulation and less spending and more job creation. These fuckers need to get with the program. And we the people are the only ones who can help them do that.
The House bill, SOPA [Stop Online Piracy Act], has been tabled for now, but is scheduled to rear its ugly head again in February. So it's important to call (or write) your Congressperson too.
If you're not sure what all the fuss is about, here's a good, balanced explanation from Forbes Magazine titled "What Are SOPA and PIPA And Why All the Fuss?"
Wiki also has a good informational page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Learn_more
In the C|Net article "How SOPA would affect you: FAQ", the author points out that The Honorable Lamar Smith [R], the right-in-my-backyard House Representative for Texas Congressional District 21, and sponsor of the bill, has an interesting slate of major campaign donors.
Quoting the article, "As CNET reported in December, Smith, a self-described former ranch manager whose congressional district encompasses the cropland and grazing land stretching between Austin and San Antonio, Texas, has become Hollywood's favorite Republican. The TV, movie, and music industries are the top donors to his 2012 campaign committee, and he's been feted by music and movie industry lobbyists at dinners and concerts."
As I like to say with regard to pretty much any bill authored by pretty much any Senator or Congressperson, "FOLLOW THE MONEY".
FOLLOW THE MONEY!
CHORUS: FOLLOW THE MONEY!
It is a sad state of the Republic, that it's the special interests (money) driving most of the legislation in both Houses of Congress. It's the interests of the special interests, that our elected representatives are paying attention to, and not the interests of "We The People".
And as I also like to say, "IF YOU'RE NOT ABSOLUTELY FUCKING LIVID (about your perverted/impotent system of governance), YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION".
So the time is now to call or write - to help them start paying attention to we the people, and to help them start paying attention to what is in the best interests of we the people.
Personally, I plan to start dedicating an hour or two a week to communicating with my elected officials - both on the Federal and State levels. They are all now in my contacts in Outlook. We dedicate time to ourselves, our partners/spouses, time to family/friends, time to exercise, time to read/listen to music, time to meditate/go to church/bird watch, time for artistic endeavors like photography or dancing Argentine Tango, time to watch sports or other drivel on the boob tube, time to go hunting, play golf, bowl, macrame'/knit (male emphasis here), play video games, shopping at Cabela's or Home Depot and generally if not specifically time for jacking off and reading on the toilet.
Why not time to actively engage in one's own governance? Dedicated, committed time, especially, ESPECIALLY, in these troubled times.
Dedicated, committed, open/mindful, aware, loving time to read and study and write (or call) about the issues we each hold dear. Too many issues? Pick one.
Sorry to get preachy y'all. I'm not preaching to you, kind reader. I'm preaching to everyone. Pleading with the Universe to get with the program, wake up, and take an interest in this world we've created through our profound apathy and inattention.
So here are the links to make it easy...to find your reps and their contact info...
www.opencongress.org
www.usa.gov
And lastly, here is the seed for the title of this post. It's the scene from the film "Downfall" (excellent film by the way) - the scene where Hitler gets pissed off when his generals are telling him they are being overwhelmed/overrun/losing the war. The scene that has been hackneyed on YouTube with folks dubbing in new subtitles to make their point.
The subtitles on this one are gone in a flash, so it's a challenge to follow everything. Some of it is silly, but most of it (the subtitle text) is profoundly true. Not that the Internet could ever actually be "lost" over PIPA or SOPA, but the Internet as we know it, could be.
Bear with it to the end - 4:00 minutes - that's the best part...
Thanks for reading, and make that commitment to call (or write) your peeps in the next couple of days. I thank you, and the citizens of the world thank you, from the bottom of our hearts.
P.S. Plus I'm really pissed that Congress is spending our precious money and time on an issue that really doesn't need to be addressed. The existing laws are possibly just fine, perhaps with some tweakage. I'll share a reply letter I recieved from my representative, Lloyd Doggett in the comments below, that talks about this. My point is that in these troubled times with very grave issues before us - our Congress deigns to squander precious time on needless bullshit. Especially when they are all clamoring for less regulation and less spending and more job creation. These fuckers need to get with the program. And we the people are the only ones who can help them do that.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
A Christmas Message from America's Rich - Matt Taibi | Rolling Stone
Cross-posted From Matt Taibi / TAIBBLOG / ROLLING STONE. Original article here.
It seems America’s bankers are tired of all the abuse. They’ve decided to speak out.
True, they’re doing it from behind the ropeline, in front of friendly crowds at industry conferences and country clubs, meaning they don’t have to look the rest of America in the eye when they call us all imbeciles and complain that they shouldn’t have to apologize for being so successful.
But while they haven’t yet deigned to talk to protesting America face to face, they are willing to scribble out some complaints on notes and send them downstairs on silver trays. Courtesy of a remarkable story by Max Abelson at Bloomberg, we now get to hear some of those choice comments.
Home Depot co-founder Bernard Marcus, for instance, is not worried about OWS:
“Who gives a crap about some imbecile?” Marcus said. “Are you kidding me?”
Former New York gurbernatorial candidate Tom Golisano, the billionaire owner of the billing firm Paychex, offered his wisdom while his half-his-age tennis champion girlfriend hung on his arm:
“If I hear a politician use the term ‘paying your fair share’ one more time, I’m going to vomit,” said Golisano, who turned 70 last month, celebrating the birthday with girlfriend Monica Seles, the former tennis star who won nine Grand Slam singles titles.
Then there’s Leon Cooperman, the former chief of Goldman Sachs’s money-management unit, who said he was urged to speak out by his fellow golfers. His message was a version of Wall Street’s increasingly popular If-you-people-want-a-job, then-you’ll-shut-the-fuck-up rhetorical line:
Cooperman, 68, said in an interview that he can’t walk through the dining room of St. Andrews Country Club in Boca Raton, Florida, without being thanked for speaking up. At least four people expressed their gratitude on Dec. 5 while he was eating an egg-white omelet, he said.
“You’ll get more out of me,” the billionaire said, “if you treat me with respect.”
Finally, there is this from Blackstone CEO Steven Schwartzman:
Asked if he were willing to pay more taxes in a Nov. 30 interview with Bloomberg Television, Blackstone Group LP CEO Stephen Schwarzman spoke about lower-income U.S. families who pay no income tax.
“You have to have skin in the game,” said Schwarzman, 64. “I’m not saying how much people should do. But we should all be part of the system.”
There are obviously a great many things that one could say about this remarkable collection of quotes. One could even, if one wanted, simply savor them alone, without commentary, like lumps of fresh caviar, or raw oysters.
But out of Abelson’s collection of doleful woe-is-us complaints from the offended rich, the one that deserves the most attention is Schwarzman’s line about lower-income folks lacking “skin in the game.” This incredible statement gets right to the heart of why these people suck.
Why? It's not because Schwarzman is factually wrong about lower-income people having no “skin in the game,” ignoring the fact that everyone pays sales taxes, and most everyone pays payroll taxes, and of course there are property taxes for even the lowliest subprime mortgage holders, and so on.
It’s not even because Schwarzman probably himself pays close to zero in income tax – as a private equity chief, he doesn’t pay income tax but tax on carried interest, which carries a maximum 15% tax rate, half the rate of a New York City firefighter.
The real issue has to do with the context of Schwarzman’s quote. The Blackstone billionaire, remember, is one of the more uniquely abhorrent, self-congratulating jerks in the entire world – a man who famously symbolized the excesses of the crisis era when, just as the rest of America was heading into a recession, he threw himself a $5 million birthday party, featuring private performances by Rod Stewart and Patti Labelle, to celebrate an IPO that made him $677 million in a matter of days (within a year, incidentally, the investors who bought that stock would lose three-fourths of their investments).
So that IPO birthday boy is now standing up and insisting, with a straight face, that America’s problem is that compared to taxpaying billionaires like himself, poor people are not invested enough in our society’s future. Apparently, we’d all be in much better shape if the poor were as motivated as Steven Schwarzman is to make America a better place.
But it seems to me that if you’re broke enough that you’re not paying any income tax, you’ve got nothing but skin in the game. You've got it all riding on how well America works.
You can’t afford private security: you need to depend on the police. You can’t afford private health care: Medicare is all you have. You get arrested, you’re not hiring Davis, Polk to get you out of jail: you rely on a public defender to negotiate a court system you'd better pray deals with everyone from the same deck. And you can’t hire landscapers to manicure your lawn and trim your trees: you need the garbage man to come on time and you need the city to patch the potholes in your street.
And in the bigger picture, of course, you need the state and the private sector both to be functioning well enough to provide you with regular work, and a safe place to raise your children, and clean water and clean air.
The entire ethos of modern Wall Street, on the other hand, is complete indifference to all of these matters. The very rich on today’s Wall Street are now so rich that they buy their own social infrastructure. They hire private security, they live on gated mansions on islands and other tax havens, and most notably, they buy their own justice and their own government.
An ordinary person who has a problem that needs fixing puts a letter in the mail to his congressman and sends it to stand in a line in some DC mailroom with thousands of others, waiting for a response.
But citizens of the stateless archipelago where people like Schwarzman live spend millions a year lobbying and donating to political campaigns so that they can jump the line. They don’t need to make sure the government is fulfilling its customer-service obligations, because they buy special access to the government, and get the special service and the metaphorical comped bottle of VIP-room Cristal afforded to select customers.
Want to lower the capital reserve requirements for investment banks? Then-Goldman CEO Hank Paulson takes a meeting with SEC chief Bill Donaldson, and gets it done. Want to kill an attempt to erase the carried interest tax break? Guys like Schwarzman, and Apollo’s Leon Black, and Carlyle’s David Rubenstein, they just show up in Washington at Max Baucus’s doorstep, and they get it killed.
Some of these people take that VIP-room idea a step further. J.P. Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon – the man the New York Times once called “Obama’s favorite banker” – had an excellent method of guaranteeing that the Federal Reserve system’s doors would always be open to him. What he did was, he served as the Chairman of the Board of the New York Fed.
And in 2008, in that moonlighting capacity, he orchestrated a deal in which the Fed provided $29 billion in assistance to help his own bank, Chase, buy up the teetering investment firm Bear Stearns. You read that right: Jamie Dimon helped give himself a bailout. Who needs to worry about good government, when you are the government?
Dimon, incidentally, is another one of those bankers who’s complaining now about the unfair criticism. “Acting like everyone who’s been successful is bad and because you’re rich you’re bad, I don’t understand it,” he recently said, at an investor’s conference.
Hmm. Is Dimon right? Do people hate him just because he’s rich and successful? That really would be unfair. Maybe we should ask the people of Jefferson County, Alabama, what they think.
That particular locality is now in bankruptcy proceedings primarily because Dimon’s bank, Chase, used middlemen to bribe local officials – literally bribe, with cash and watches and new suits – to sign on to a series of onerous interest-rate swap deals that vastly expanded the county’s debt burden.
Essentially, Jamie Dimon handed Birmingham, Alabama a Chase credit card and then bribed its local officials to run up a gigantic balance, leaving future residents and those residents’ children with the bill. As a result, the citizens of Jefferson County will now be making payments to Chase until the end of time.
Do you think Jamie Dimon would have done that deal if he lived in Jefferson County? Put it this way: if he was trying to support two kids on $30,000 a year, and lived in a Birmingham neighborhood full of people in the same boat, would he sign off on a deal that jacked up everyone’s sewer bills 400% for the next thirty years?
Doubtful. But then again, people like Jamie Dimon aren’t really citizens of any country. They live in their own gated archipelago, and the rest of the world is a dumping ground.
Just look at how Chase behaved in Greece, for example.
Having seen how well interest-rate swaps worked for Jefferson County, Alabama, Chase “helped” Greece mask its debt problem for years by selling a similar series of swaps to the Greek government. The bank then turned around and worked with banks like Goldman, Sachs to create a thing called the iTraxx SovX Western Europe index, which allowed investors to bet against Greek debt.
In other words, Chase knowingly larded up the nation of Greece with a crippling future debt burden, then turned around and helped the world bet against Greek debt.
Does a citizen of Greece do that deal? Forget that: does a human being do that deal?
Operations like the Greek swap/short index maneuver were easy money for banks like Goldman and Chase – hell, it’s a no-lose play, like cutting a car’s brake lines and then betting on the driver to crash – but they helped create the monstrous European debt problem that this very minute is threatening to send the entire world economy into collapse, which would result in who knows what horrors. At minimum, millions might lose their jobs and benefits and homes. Millions more will be ruined financially.
But why should Chase and Goldman care what happens to those people? Do they have any skin in that game?
Of course not. We’re talking about banks that not only didn’t warn the citizens of Greece about their future debt disaster, they actively traded on that information, to make money for themselves.
People like Dimon, and Schwarzman, and John Paulson, and all of the rest of them who think the “imbeciles” on the streets are simply full of reasonless class anger, they don’t get it. Nobody hates them for being successful. And not that this needs repeating, but nobody even minds that they are rich.
What makes people furious is that they have stopped being citizens.
Most of us 99-percenters couldn’t even let our dogs leave a dump on the sidewalk without feeling ashamed before our neighbors. It's called having a conscience: even though there are plenty of things most of us could get away with doing, we just don’t do them, because, well, we live here. Most of us wouldn’t take a million dollars to swindle the local school system, or put our next door neighbors out on the street with a robosigned foreclosure, or steal the life’s savings of some old pensioner down the block by selling him a bunch of worthless securities.
But our Too-Big-To-Fail banks unhesitatingly take billions in bailout money and then turn right around and finance the export of jobs to new locations in China and India. They defraud the pension funds of state workers into buying billions of their crap mortgage assets. They take zero-interest loans from the state and then lend that same money back to us at interest. Or, like Chase, they bribe the politicians serving countries and states and cities and even school boards to take on crippling debt deals.
Nobody with real skin in the game, who had any kind of stake in our collective future, would do any of those things. Or, if a person did do those things, you’d at least expect him to have enough shame not to whine to a Bloomberg reporter when the rest of us complained about it.
But these people don’t have shame. What they have, in the place where most of us have shame, are extra sets of balls. Just listen to Cooperman, the former Goldman exec from that country club in Boca. According to Cooperman, the rich do contribute to society:
Capitalists “are not the scourge that they are too often made out to be” and the wealthy aren’t “a monolithic, selfish and unfeeling lot,” Cooperman wrote. They make products that “fill store shelves at Christmas…”
Unbelievable. Merry Christmas, bankers. And good luck getting that message out.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Our Economy Was Built on Bull. Until We Admit That, We’re Screwed
Here's a great article by Kai Wright/ColorLines - very well written - and it mirrors my views on the subject. This is something that is close to my heart and mind on nearly a daily basis as I watch our world devolve into something new and possibly highly unpleasant for large numbers of our fellow citizens. Hell, it already is highly unpleasant for large numbers of our fellow citizens.
I've been wanting to write a post like this for some time. Kai Wright has done it for me - more eloquently than I could have. Definitely more succinctly than I would have. Or could have. Besides, I'm on vacation - the first "real" one in a long, long time - me and sweetiepiehoneybunch and Diggeroo. So I'm taking the lazy way out and cross-posting his piece.
http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/12/get_honest_about_economic_justice_in_2012_or_live_to_regret_it.html
I've been saying this for years, that our heads are in the sand regarding the real truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. As long as we the people continue to ignore and refuse to acknowledge the truth about what is going on across the board and across the planet, we are collectively pissing in the wind. Meaning, we are pissing all over ourselves whilst "trying" (in our beluded state - belief and delusion at the same time) to "solve" "our" "problems" and "issues".
What greater gift could we give to ourselves, our children, their children, our fellow citizens on this planet, the entire planet itself - what greater gift could we give than to be brutally and unequivocally honest about the root causes of the challenges that face us?
What greater gift could we give to the world for our leaders to "man up" and lead with maturity, insight, thoughtfulness, awareness, open-mindedness, and love? To move the profit motive lower on the list. Much lower. Maybe even at the bottom of the list.
I wonder what that economy might look like...?
Without the basis of the fundamental truth as a starting point, we are deluding ourselves that long-term solutions to the issues that face us can be found.
Anyway, I could go on and on, so here's the article:
At the foot of Manhattan’s Broadway Ave., just below Wall Street, stands one of the city’s most reliable tourism draws: Arturo Di Modica’s 3.5-ton statue of a charging bull. Since 1989, the sculpture has been an iconic symbol of American wealth, of the aggressive capitalist spirit that, it is argued, made this country great and powerful. Visitors flock from around the world to rub the bull’s horns for good luck. Or they used to, at least. Now, tourists snap pictures from behind police barricades.
For more than two months, the raging bull of wealth has sat caged, facing eye-to-eye with a New York Police Department cruiser as cops have worked around the clock to protect it from the Occupy Wall Street movement. The park’s administrator called has the security “Orwellian.” That’s to say the least.
If you’re looking for visuals to encapsulate 2011, look no further than the bizarre scene at Di Modica’s bull. Daily, the country’s largest police force mobilizes to protect the idea of American prosperity from an imagined threat, while the actual economy lays gored and gutted by demonstrable and ongoing crimes.
In the immediate, this perversity results from a spectacular failure of political leadership. We traveled a long, winding road to the point at which no-brainers like a modest payroll tax cut and an extension of unemployment benefits demand political brinksmanship. People of varying ideologies and partisan affiliations may debate endlessly who’s more at fault, but to do so is to truly miss the forest for the trees. The ugly reality is no leader in either party has yet shown the mettle to rise and meet the enormity of today’s challenges.
That’s not to suggest moral equivalencies. Republican leaders have been openly obstructionist, preferring a broken economy to a successful Obama presidency. Their cynicism has rarely been as bald as this week’s House vote on the payroll tax cut, but they’ve never made much effort to conceal it.
Still, even if President Obama had been given a willing Congress, the solutions he has championed aren’t nearly on par with the problem. Like his congressional opponents, he insists the structural foundation of our economy remains strong. Rather than confront the core issues—inequity and instability—Obama has thrashed around with Republicans in the margins—over how to control debt, over the degree to which health care should be a commodity rather than a right, over which borrowers were the least irresponsible and thus deserving of help. Meanwhile, at each crucial juncture in his reform-branded presidency, Obama has left financial players to voluntarily take responsibility for their behavior. They remain steadfast in their refusal to do so.
These bipartisan leadership failures have prolonged the immediate crisis, which dates back to 2007, when the foreclosures that would bring down the system first began consuming working-class communities of color in particular. Four years later, Republicans and Democrats alike are still working off of the optimistic notion that we need only contain the immediate problem until we can get back to growth—that we need only protect the bull with barricades until those pesky protesters disappear and allow its charge to resume. With each year that our chosen leaders have indulged this fantasy, a cancer has spread. Each year has brought new records in the poverty, hunger and inequality that will ultimately consume this country.
But that’s just the immediate crisis. As we move into an election year, in which U.S. residents will have prolonged debate over our collective priorities and values, we must pursue answers to a broader question. Since at least 1981, when the Reagan revolution overtook public policy, we have built an economy on two related fictions. The first is that boundless growth is sustainable. The second is that unrestrained capitalism, particularly in the financial sector, will create wealth for everyone. These are discredited ideas, and the question of 2012 must be how we begin building a society based on something different.
This broader question is crucial because, in truth, the problem extends past the economy. Look around and you’ll find one broken institution after another, each of them buckling under the weight of the late 20th century consensus that greed is good, that a winner-takes-all individualism will somehow improve our collective endeavors. Industries, communities, natural resources, even sports leagues have collapsed as Ronald Reagan’s corrosive vision has become dominant.
Meanwhile, racism and racial injustice remain rooted in our society in no small part because they are necessary to explain why unrestrained capitalism and unfettered growth fail so spectacularly in creating widespread wealth. The entrenched, generational poverty that has gripped so many black communities and the yawning racial gaps that persist in wealth and income, among other things, can only be explained if they are blamed on the individuals hurt by them. Thus “welfare queens” and “super predator” youth and cheating “illegals” and “lazy Indians” and on and on. These caricatures continue to inform public policy on poverty, education, immigration and more. They continue to explain away inequity and provide villians against which struggling whites can define themselves without questioning the larger system. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s quote about slave owners—the original unrestrained capitalists—still rings true: “The Southern aristocracy took the world and gave the poor white man Jim Crow.”
Di Modica offered a quote on capitalism, too. In November, Newark’s Star-Ledger asked the artist what he thought about the security around his statue. He didn’t like it. “The bull is for the people,” he declared. “The bull is for everyone, the people with money and the people with no money.” If only it were so.
Wall Street’s bull markets have proven to be for the benefit of a very few. But as the financial industry’s largest players have been unleashed to pursue profit for themselves at all costs, the dreadful consequences have surely impacted everyone. Pensions have been wiped out. Family homes have been stripped of value, many taken away altogether. Small businesses have been locked out of credit markets. More than 14 million people are exiled from the labor force. A galling one in three black children and nearly as many Latino children are growing up in poverty right now, while the president brags about ferreting out fraud in the food stamp program rather than getting more money for it.
Our chosen political leaders have tolerated all of this in order to maintain the fiction that our economic system still works, that the organizing principles of our society remain valid. So the central question of 2012’s likely all-consuming political debate must be simple: How do we acknowledge that our current economy is built on lies and then start erecting a new one based on equity and sustainability?
Again, here is the original article by Kai Wright...
Friday, August 26, 2011
The Deficit Tango or, The Federal Budget Put in Simpler Terms
(Note: the best part of this post is all the way down at the bottom...)
Sorry folks, but no, this is not my post about how much my tango has cost me over the past seven years. Or is it eight? I dunno. Some day I may get around to writing that post. It would be an interesting one, especially when you factor in lost opportunity costs and loss of profit. I get this nagging retro rearview don't want to look at it was it all a dream feeling that my tango came at great cost to me. HUGE investment. The return on that investment? Hmm. You'll have to stay tuned whilst I ponder and cipher on that one. And I'm not talking about greenbacks. Well, maybe kindasorta that too. Whatever. But I digress. (grin)
This one is about Warren Buffet's op-ed in the New York Times about the super-wealthy getting preferential treatment by Congress and not paying enough taxes. I haven't actually read it yet, but I wanted to post it before I get too far down the road and forget.
Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html
And then there's this little tidbit from Warren - thanks to La Reina for sending it to me:
The Federal Budget put in simpler terms...
The U.S. Congress sets a federal budget every year in the trillions of dollars. Few people know how much money that is, so we created a breakdown of federal spending in simple terms. Let's put the 2011 federal budget into perspective:
• U.S. income: $2,170,000,000,000
• Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000
• New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
• National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
• Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000 (about 1 percent of the budget)
It helps to think about these numbers in terms that we can relate to. Therefore, let's remove eight zeros from these numbers and pretend this is the household budget for the fictitious Jones family.
• Total annual income for the Jones family: $21,700
• Amount of money the Jones family spent: $38,200
• Amount of new debt added to the credit card: $16,500
• Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
• Amount cut from the budget: $385
Sorry folks, but no, this is not my post about how much my tango has cost me over the past seven years. Or is it eight? I dunno. Some day I may get around to writing that post. It would be an interesting one, especially when you factor in lost opportunity costs and loss of profit. I get this nagging retro rearview don't want to look at it was it all a dream feeling that my tango came at great cost to me. HUGE investment. The return on that investment? Hmm. You'll have to stay tuned whilst I ponder and cipher on that one. And I'm not talking about greenbacks. Well, maybe kindasorta that too. Whatever. But I digress. (grin)
This one is about Warren Buffet's op-ed in the New York Times about the super-wealthy getting preferential treatment by Congress and not paying enough taxes. I haven't actually read it yet, but I wanted to post it before I get too far down the road and forget.
Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html
And then there's this little tidbit from Warren - thanks to La Reina for sending it to me:
The Federal Budget put in simpler terms...
The U.S. Congress sets a federal budget every year in the trillions of dollars. Few people know how much money that is, so we created a breakdown of federal spending in simple terms. Let's put the 2011 federal budget into perspective:
• U.S. income: $2,170,000,000,000
• Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000
• New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
• National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
• Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000 (about 1 percent of the budget)
It helps to think about these numbers in terms that we can relate to. Therefore, let's remove eight zeros from these numbers and pretend this is the household budget for the fictitious Jones family.
• Total annual income for the Jones family: $21,700
• Amount of money the Jones family spent: $38,200
• Amount of new debt added to the credit card: $16,500
• Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
• Amount cut from the budget: $385
Friday, August 5, 2011
America's $1 Bill Protest
Self-explanatory protest.
Facebook Event Page: https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=247696611916441
http://www.rubberstamps.net/
Facebook Event Page: https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=247696611916441
http://www.rubberstamps.net/
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
A voice of reason
Phyllis Bennis, Director, The New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies.
Profound. Lucid. Must hear.
Profound. Lucid. Must hear.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
The Financial Report for the Government of the United States of America in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Nine
From Guest Blogger Michael Granof for McCombs TODAY - published by the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas.
The title of the article is "Released to Near Silence, the U.S. Treasury 2009 Financial Report Shows Dire Course". Click the link to read more.
Grave. Very grave indeed.
Thanks go to Mari for this one (again).
The title of the article is "Released to Near Silence, the U.S. Treasury 2009 Financial Report Shows Dire Course". Click the link to read more.
Grave. Very grave indeed.
Thanks go to Mari for this one (again).
Friday, January 22, 2010
Deadly serious stuff :: Supreme Court allows unlimited corporate funding in political campaigns
[Foto by AlexTangoFuego]
Keith Olbermann: U.S. government for sale ::With no limits on campaign financing, corporations will take over the government
Here is a New York Times article, also on the subject of the Supreme Court's decision yesterday to allow unlimited corporate funding of political campaigns.
And here is the New York Times editorial about it.
This is deadly serious stuff folks (thanks Alberto, for sharing). If you ever
thought of writing to your representatives in Congress, now is the time to do it. Please also share and email this article to everyone you know. We have to correct this travesty of justice. How do we over-rule the Supreme Court of the United States of America? That is the question before us as citizens now.
My first thought is that our justices have been bought off, and to follow the money will lead us to the culprits. Unbelievable that this is happening in America. Un-*******-believable. Expletive deleted. Sorry, I can't, I won't censor my own brain and its inner workings.
UN...FUCKING...BELIEVABLE.
It's time for pitchforks and torches in the streets, and perhaps some tar and feathers. Oh, I do miss the good 'ol days...
Link to the House of Representatives - name & address search...
Link to the Senate - name & address search...
Another good contacts link at USA.gov...
"True patriots must be willing to defend their country against their government." [Attributed to author Edward Abbey]
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Giant Ponzi Scheme Looting the Country
I have long considered our entire economic system to be a gigantic Ponzi scheme, dependent on all of us to spend 110% of our net income just to break even - to keep the thing "running". I have also pondered how this whole mortgage debacle, and other aspects of the ongoing fiscal destabilization, is essentially a "looting of the country". Yes, many millions are losing their collective asses, but I'm sure many millions are also cashing in on others' misfortunes.
In this article, the woman's attorney is quoted when discussing the mortgage crisis - using the phrases "giant Ponzi scheme" and "looting of the country".
"Unilateral transfer of wealth" also comes to mind.
Stealing. Legalized robbery.
In theory, because the banks and mortgage companies and investment houses were the "bad guys" in this, conspiratorial in their behavior, predatory in their advertising, policies and lending rules - they should be taking a hit, not being made whole again - a BIG hit.
The recent business-as-usual spending spree by bailed out insurance giant AIG should be evidence enough that these assholes are not taking a hit, but having a grand time on our dime.
Sure the investment houses have disappeared, but there's no doubt in my mind that their chief executives and primary beneficiaries are safely ensconced in their ivory towers. But the banks and mortgage firms - I have a sneaking suspicion they have found ways to make themselves whole again, and continue in their predatory practices, lining pockets in the process.
I could go on and on, but I won't. I'm going to have to do some research and be sure I understand it all, and am able to speak intelligently on the subject.
Greed. Greed. Not a good thing.
Good day my friends.
P.S. I've purposely avoided Madoff's $50 Billion Ponzi scheme. This one is brewing.
In this article, the woman's attorney is quoted when discussing the mortgage crisis - using the phrases "giant Ponzi scheme" and "looting of the country".
"Unilateral transfer of wealth" also comes to mind.
Stealing. Legalized robbery.
In theory, because the banks and mortgage companies and investment houses were the "bad guys" in this, conspiratorial in their behavior, predatory in their advertising, policies and lending rules - they should be taking a hit, not being made whole again - a BIG hit.
The recent business-as-usual spending spree by bailed out insurance giant AIG should be evidence enough that these assholes are not taking a hit, but having a grand time on our dime.
Sure the investment houses have disappeared, but there's no doubt in my mind that their chief executives and primary beneficiaries are safely ensconced in their ivory towers. But the banks and mortgage firms - I have a sneaking suspicion they have found ways to make themselves whole again, and continue in their predatory practices, lining pockets in the process.
I could go on and on, but I won't. I'm going to have to do some research and be sure I understand it all, and am able to speak intelligently on the subject.
Greed. Greed. Not a good thing.
Good day my friends.
P.S. I've purposely avoided Madoff's $50 Billion Ponzi scheme. This one is brewing.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
I toldya so...
The $300 billion housing bailout (passed by Congress this past summer) to supposedly help hundreds of thousands (+/-400,000) of homeowners avoid foreclosure has failed miserably.
Only 312 homeowners have filled out the application paperwork.
Of those 312 who applied - guess the number who have been able to forestall foreclosure and stay in their homes - ZERO.
Sad, but true, and I am not surprised in the least. This is our own federal government of the United States of America. It's time we admit that it is fundamentally impossible for them to do anything effectively, efficiently, or that actually results in the desired/planned/needed outcome.
It just ain't gonna happen.
Now here's my question...where's our $300 billion?
Here's the link to the video on NBC.
By the way, $300,000,000,000 divided by 400,000 equals $750,000 per homeowner. Something's wrong with our government's math.
Only 312 homeowners have filled out the application paperwork.
Of those 312 who applied - guess the number who have been able to forestall foreclosure and stay in their homes - ZERO.
Sad, but true, and I am not surprised in the least. This is our own federal government of the United States of America. It's time we admit that it is fundamentally impossible for them to do anything effectively, efficiently, or that actually results in the desired/planned/needed outcome.
It just ain't gonna happen.
Now here's my question...where's our $300 billion?
Here's the link to the video on NBC.
By the way, $300,000,000,000 divided by 400,000 equals $750,000 per homeowner. Something's wrong with our government's math.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Constituent Response from Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Regarding my letter requesting that she *not* support the automotive industry bailout.
[Here's the letter from my Congressman - Lloyd Doggett)
It's important to note (in the kind Senator's letter) that before all this jumped to the forefront in the news media, Congress had already appropriated $25 billion in "loans". The $25-50 billion they are requesting now is on top of that figure.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Dear Mr. Tango.Fuego:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the financial state of the U.S. automobile industry. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.
Our economy is facing dramatic challenges. Financial conditions are rapidly deteriorating, creating volatility and uncertainty for businesses, small and large, across the country.
As Texans, we have learned to take responsibility for our actions and being asked to pay for the mistakes of others is something many, including myself, find deeply troubling. While I am a firm believer of free market principles, I also believe that our economy is facing new challenges that if unaddressed, may produce serious unwarranted costs.
On September 30, 2008, the President signed into law H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009. This legislation included, among many items, funding to support a $25 billion loan program for U.S. automakers. The loans, which will be repaid with interest, are intended for long-term business restructuring to promote innovative technologies and new fuel efficient products. The Department of Energy, which is administering the loan program, has indicated that the loans are scheduled to be released in 12 to 18 months.
Several weeks after H.R. 2638 was signed into law, executives of the three major U.S. automakers requested Congress provide an additional $25 billion to $50 billion from the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to support their short-term funding needs. The CEOs of the largest U.S. automakers testified before Congress that their companies are facing a liquidity crisis, and without an immediate injection of capital, their businesses may fail, creating massive job losses across the country.
The domestic auto industry has failed to meet foreign competition, and I do not think taxpayers should have to provide additional money from the TARP to the auto industry. Instead, I have proposed restructuring and expediting the $25 billion Department of Energy loan program to help the American auto industry weather the financial storm and retain their employees across the country. Requiring these prior funds, which are required to be paid back with interest, to be used on long-term expenditures is not the best use of federal resources when these companies are struggling to stay operational. Rather, these funds should be utilized for short-term needs first. I also believe that any government plan to aid the auto industry must include significant taxpayer protections, including restrictions on executive compensation, concessions from the unions, and assurances that each recipient of federal loans is financially viable.
As Congress returns to debate this issue, you may be certain I will keep your views in mind.
I appreciate hearing from you. I hope you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you.
Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator
284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-5922 (tel)
202-224-0776 (fax)
http://hutchison.senate.gov
[Here's the letter from my Congressman - Lloyd Doggett)
It's important to note (in the kind Senator's letter) that before all this jumped to the forefront in the news media, Congress had already appropriated $25 billion in "loans". The $25-50 billion they are requesting now is on top of that figure.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Dear Mr. Tango.Fuego:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the financial state of the U.S. automobile industry. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.
Our economy is facing dramatic challenges. Financial conditions are rapidly deteriorating, creating volatility and uncertainty for businesses, small and large, across the country.
As Texans, we have learned to take responsibility for our actions and being asked to pay for the mistakes of others is something many, including myself, find deeply troubling. While I am a firm believer of free market principles, I also believe that our economy is facing new challenges that if unaddressed, may produce serious unwarranted costs.
On September 30, 2008, the President signed into law H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009. This legislation included, among many items, funding to support a $25 billion loan program for U.S. automakers. The loans, which will be repaid with interest, are intended for long-term business restructuring to promote innovative technologies and new fuel efficient products. The Department of Energy, which is administering the loan program, has indicated that the loans are scheduled to be released in 12 to 18 months.
Several weeks after H.R. 2638 was signed into law, executives of the three major U.S. automakers requested Congress provide an additional $25 billion to $50 billion from the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to support their short-term funding needs. The CEOs of the largest U.S. automakers testified before Congress that their companies are facing a liquidity crisis, and without an immediate injection of capital, their businesses may fail, creating massive job losses across the country.
The domestic auto industry has failed to meet foreign competition, and I do not think taxpayers should have to provide additional money from the TARP to the auto industry. Instead, I have proposed restructuring and expediting the $25 billion Department of Energy loan program to help the American auto industry weather the financial storm and retain their employees across the country. Requiring these prior funds, which are required to be paid back with interest, to be used on long-term expenditures is not the best use of federal resources when these companies are struggling to stay operational. Rather, these funds should be utilized for short-term needs first. I also believe that any government plan to aid the auto industry must include significant taxpayer protections, including restrictions on executive compensation, concessions from the unions, and assurances that each recipient of federal loans is financially viable.
As Congress returns to debate this issue, you may be certain I will keep your views in mind.
I appreciate hearing from you. I hope you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you.
Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator
284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-5922 (tel)
202-224-0776 (fax)
http://hutchison.senate.gov
Thursday, November 13, 2008
$700 billion bailout lacks oversight :: The Livid Level
Read the article here on MSNBC.com.
Does this surprise anyone? I'm not surprised. I have been telling everyone I know that the U.S. Government (and its Department of Special Interests) is stealing the U.S. Taxpayer blind. Robbing from the poor and the middle class and giving to the rich.
Pallets full of $100 million in cash - bricks of $100 bills - are air freighted to EyeRACK (I say Ear-rock...with a slight roll of the "r" - one little tongue thrust into the roof of the mouth - the proper way...), disappears, and no one knows what happened to it. I know what happened to it. It's back in the good 'ol U.S. of A - in the form of big houses, big boats, big vacations. Assholes.
$100 million is piss-ant. A drop in the bucket. Not even a drop. A droplet. $100 million will barely buy you four Gulfstream jets. $100 million will barely buy you ten nice sized houses in Aspen. By "nice sized" I mean at least 6,000 square feet. Red Mountain quality level.
So now we're talking $700 billion. AIG has already asked for another $40 billion and continues to blow OUR money on luxuries and posh-ass amenities at out of town retreats or whatever they are doing under the guise of rebuilding their failed business model. No doubt with the same corporate leadership philosophy and oversight that built the business model that failed. You really think they are doing anything different? These are corporate Republican assholes. Moneygrubbers. They are doing the same old thing, only with our money backing them to do it all over and fail again. Key point here - they are skimming their 'vig' in the process.
Does anyone really believe that our Federal Government (or local, county or state for that matter) can really do ANYFUCKINGTHING right? I'm not just talking about the current DUMBFUCKS of the current administration.
I sorry to burst everyone's bubble here. I'm a big OBAMANOS supporter. BUT DOES ANYONE REALLY BELIEVE THAT ANYTHING WILL TRULY BE DIFFERENT UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION???
The momentum of the (Fed) behemoth is so great, that I don't think anyone can change the way "business as usual" has been going on at the federal level for years and years and years. Not Obama. Not God.
Alex is not pissed anymore. Alex is absolutely fucking livid. Foaming at the mouth type livid. Spitting and choking and sputtering livid - as I sit here calmly at my keyboard at 4am.
If you get 10 or 20 million livid folks - out of work - hungry - their houses and their SUV's and their boats and their jetskis and their RV's and their bigscreen plasma displays repo'd - watching AIG (and other banking executives) using tax dollars to enrich and luxuriate themselves - watching all government employees and Senators and Congresspeople safe and sound in the cocoon of taxpayer funded salaries and benefits - healthcare - retirement - lots of paid vacation days - etc. - watch what happens.
Watch what happens when you get 10 or 20 million people who finally reach the livid level.
Watch what happens.
It's called a revolution.
P.S. This is one of those posts that I usually go back and hide within a few minutes of posting it...although this time, I'm leaving it up.
Okay. There's a little glimmer of hope peeking through my lividity. Call your Senator and Representative today. Call their office directly. Tell them you read about this on MSNBC and you want to know what they are going to do about it. What are they going to do about it today? Right now.
Their numbers are below.
Call.
Now.
No excuses.
Tell them you are disappointed in them. Disappointed in the job they are doing.
Tell them you have faith and hope that they can do a better job.
Tell them that they must do a better job.
Tell them you expect them not only to "do the right thing", but to also "do the thing right".
Congressional Directory
Senate Directory
We're all going to have to get off our collective asses and get involved. Directly involved. Obama can't do it alone. It is time.
Does this surprise anyone? I'm not surprised. I have been telling everyone I know that the U.S. Government (and its Department of Special Interests) is stealing the U.S. Taxpayer blind. Robbing from the poor and the middle class and giving to the rich.
Pallets full of $100 million in cash - bricks of $100 bills - are air freighted to EyeRACK (I say Ear-rock...with a slight roll of the "r" - one little tongue thrust into the roof of the mouth - the proper way...), disappears, and no one knows what happened to it. I know what happened to it. It's back in the good 'ol U.S. of A - in the form of big houses, big boats, big vacations. Assholes.
$100 million is piss-ant. A drop in the bucket. Not even a drop. A droplet. $100 million will barely buy you four Gulfstream jets. $100 million will barely buy you ten nice sized houses in Aspen. By "nice sized" I mean at least 6,000 square feet. Red Mountain quality level.
So now we're talking $700 billion. AIG has already asked for another $40 billion and continues to blow OUR money on luxuries and posh-ass amenities at out of town retreats or whatever they are doing under the guise of rebuilding their failed business model. No doubt with the same corporate leadership philosophy and oversight that built the business model that failed. You really think they are doing anything different? These are corporate Republican assholes. Moneygrubbers. They are doing the same old thing, only with our money backing them to do it all over and fail again. Key point here - they are skimming their 'vig' in the process.
Does anyone really believe that our Federal Government (or local, county or state for that matter) can really do ANYFUCKINGTHING right? I'm not just talking about the current DUMBFUCKS of the current administration.
I sorry to burst everyone's bubble here. I'm a big OBAMANOS supporter. BUT DOES ANYONE REALLY BELIEVE THAT ANYTHING WILL TRULY BE DIFFERENT UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION???
The momentum of the (Fed) behemoth is so great, that I don't think anyone can change the way "business as usual" has been going on at the federal level for years and years and years. Not Obama. Not God.
Alex is not pissed anymore. Alex is absolutely fucking livid. Foaming at the mouth type livid. Spitting and choking and sputtering livid - as I sit here calmly at my keyboard at 4am.
If you get 10 or 20 million livid folks - out of work - hungry - their houses and their SUV's and their boats and their jetskis and their RV's and their bigscreen plasma displays repo'd - watching AIG (and other banking executives) using tax dollars to enrich and luxuriate themselves - watching all government employees and Senators and Congresspeople safe and sound in the cocoon of taxpayer funded salaries and benefits - healthcare - retirement - lots of paid vacation days - etc. - watch what happens.
Watch what happens when you get 10 or 20 million people who finally reach the livid level.
Watch what happens.
It's called a revolution.
P.S. This is one of those posts that I usually go back and hide within a few minutes of posting it...although this time, I'm leaving it up.
Okay. There's a little glimmer of hope peeking through my lividity. Call your Senator and Representative today. Call their office directly. Tell them you read about this on MSNBC and you want to know what they are going to do about it. What are they going to do about it today? Right now.
Their numbers are below.
Call.
Now.
No excuses.
Tell them you are disappointed in them. Disappointed in the job they are doing.
Tell them you have faith and hope that they can do a better job.
Tell them that they must do a better job.
Tell them you expect them not only to "do the right thing", but to also "do the thing right".
Congressional Directory
Senate Directory
We're all going to have to get off our collective asses and get involved. Directly involved. Obama can't do it alone. It is time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)