So I've been super busy at work, and we're in the process of buying a house, so there's no time for blogging, which is a bummer for me, a reprieve for you. But this I had to write about.
You have doubtless heard of the atrocious displacement of animals from their natural habitat by encroaching development- development necessitated by population explosions caused by a lack of proper birth control. It's an outrage that these poor helpless animals, who were clearly on the land first, are being displaced by irrational and selfish parasites. It has to end. We must realize that we humans are members of nature as much as any other animal. It's time we finally come to see that the mountain lions have no right to continue to take our land away. Our cities have been here long before those lions were born. We were here first.
A couple blocks from us, there have been several dozens of mountain lion sightings over the last few months (as in one every couple days). This is quite frightening to me as a father, and angering as a citizen given the ridiculous stance the animal rights groups are taking. Santa Paula is not growing. There is no human development encroaching on the territory of established cats in the Santa Paula/Ojai/Ventura Triangle. The cats are moving into our territory because their population is exploding, thanks in large part to the idiotic prop 117 of 1990 that ended sport hunting of large cats in California--sport hunting needed to control the population of animals. But 'animal rights' activists HATE the idea of humans controling animal populations.
I have some experience in this subject. I grew up in Wyoming in a family of hunting and fishing guides. We were constantly in contact with the Bureau of Land Management and other civic entities that controls the population of large animals. The issue of population control was as front and center in my household as cartalk in a family of mechanics. And Wyoming has the largest population of lions in the country.
We have 4 good couple friends who have seen a lion in their backyard in the last month--all of whom have small children, one of whom is at the center of the big controversy of the Feb. 17th KILLING OF A LION CUB by Santa Paula police. Don't forget that this 30lb. cub was going to grow into a 150lb. killing machine. And it's being taught by its mother to kill in your backyard. Read some of the comments of that article for 'fun'. It's amazing just how irrational rational animals can be. These people bitch and moan about large families and how they're a drain on society, yet scream against population control for predatory animals in the midst of our children?
Now for a ranting interlude: There's a little book I want you to read. Please. It's called "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" In it this man named "Charles Darwin" (that's no coincidence-it's really the same man that you have as your prophet, your idol) makes the argument that the primary mode of 'fitness' in natural selection, or 'survival of the fittest', as it was later called, is the ability to procreate. 'Procreate' is a big word, and one you're probably not familiar with, but it means to 'conceive, carry to term, and bear offspring'. And if you bear many offspring, then obviously the more 'fit' you are, and worthy of survival. So you see, Mrs. Anti-Large-Family, we are more 'fit' than you, mainly because you fill yourself with unnatural chemicals so that you cannot conceive and procreate. By your own naturalist principles, you must concede that parents of big families are more worthy of survival than you, because they propagate our species. Don't like what I say? Who cares. Their ideologies will win by the attrition of yours.
The frequency with which we are having sightings is alarming, and the news even caught the eye of Jay Leno (only the last 30 seconds is pertinent)
Funny and cute. But it's not going to be that way when a kid gets mauled because some 'animal rights' jerks put a greater value on a predatory cat than an innocent child, or more generally, on the procreative rights of a beast rather than a member of their own species. Where are the animal rights for human animals? When will our territory be protected? Are we not a member of 'Nature' like the mountain lion, and just as worthy of our own territory?
Showing posts with label Culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Culture. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Hurry Up and Wait
Is it any wonder we Catholics, on February 14th, now celebrate the Feast of Sts. Cyril and Methodius rather than the commercially and hedonistically ruined St. Valentine? I'm sure that fact was nowhere near the mind of our dear President this past weekend, as his priority was given to Cupid rather than Hermes:"After pushing Congress for weeks to hurry up and pass the massive $787 billion stimulus bill, President Obama promptly took off for a three-day holiday getaway. Obama arrived at his home in Chicago on Friday, and treated wife Michelle to a Valentine's Day dinner downtown last night...
...The president plans to spend the Presidents' Day weekend in the Windy City, and is not expected to sign the bill until Tuesday, when he travels to Denver to discuss his economic plan."
I'm so glad to know our President spent the weekend getting laid, while Americans spent their weekend fearing they might get laid off.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The Internasty
A RECENT STUDY has found that teenagers spend an average of 31 hours online including 2 hours of viewing pornographic material.
Think things are bad now? Just you wait. In about 15-20 years, when current teenagers have reached 35-40 years old, there's going to be a huge number of new pedophiles and general sex offenders out there.
Thanks, technology! And a special thanks goes out to you, parents who don't know how to, or don't wish to, supervise.
Think things are bad now? Just you wait. In about 15-20 years, when current teenagers have reached 35-40 years old, there's going to be a huge number of new pedophiles and general sex offenders out there.
Thanks, technology! And a special thanks goes out to you, parents who don't know how to, or don't wish to, supervise.
Friday, February 6, 2009
The 10 Books That Screwed Up the World
One of my favorite professors in undergrad was Dr. Benjamin Wiker. He is, in my mind, a great leader of young men and women, for many reasons. Firstly, he's extremely amiable. Very few people are agreeable to all. Wiker is one of those few. Secondly, he's incredibly intelligent, and during many a seminar discussing Spencer or Aquinas, Virgil or Plutarch, he could pierce through the conversation with a pointed question that would immediately and correctly guide the course of a misdirected discussion. One can only do this with a thorough understanding of the text. Thirdly, he genuinely cares about the moral and intellectual development of his students, and this is probably his most rare trait, given today's rampant atheism and intellectual pride in academia. Last, but certainly not least, he has a fantastic sense of humor, laying down great pun after great pun. It was truly a sad day for Thomas Aquinas College when he left for other, more barren fields to plow.
No, this is not a eulogy for Dr. Wiker. He's still alive and well. But I'm compelled to write about him because I JUST READ A POST OVER AT SALVO by the post-Darwinian warrior Denyse O'Leary, about a book Dr. Wiker has recently written: 10 Books That Screwed Up the World: And 5 Others That Didn't Help. Learning that Mrs. O'Leary is a fan of Dr. Wiker makes me an even bigger fan of both.
Trust me when I say that Dr. Wiker writes like he leads a seminar: unpresuming but unrelenting, humble but confident, funny but quite serious.
While, without a thorough grounding in political theory beginning with Aristotle and carried through de Toqueville, it may be a little difficult to see all the reasons why Marx & Engels' Manifesto screwed up our world, but Dr. Wiker will quite simply explain, in the language of common sense and without pre-fabricated vocabulary, why it is so. And so it will be with his dissection of the other evil books of Western Civilization, whether their subject is natural philosophy, scientific method, psychoanalysis, or political theory.
If you are still requiring a little push to drop the whopping Twenty Bucks on the book, I recall a line from Dorothy Sayer's FANTASTIC ESSAY (Seriously. Print this out and read it) entitled "The Lost Tools of Learning":
You owe me a beer, Ben.
Actually, I owe a good deal of my intellectual life, and a great deal of my sense of wonder, to you.
No, this is not a eulogy for Dr. Wiker. He's still alive and well. But I'm compelled to write about him because I JUST READ A POST OVER AT SALVO by the post-Darwinian warrior Denyse O'Leary, about a book Dr. Wiker has recently written: 10 Books That Screwed Up the World: And 5 Others That Didn't Help. Learning that Mrs. O'Leary is a fan of Dr. Wiker makes me an even bigger fan of both.
Trust me when I say that Dr. Wiker writes like he leads a seminar: unpresuming but unrelenting, humble but confident, funny but quite serious.
While, without a thorough grounding in political theory beginning with Aristotle and carried through de Toqueville, it may be a little difficult to see all the reasons why Marx & Engels' Manifesto screwed up our world, but Dr. Wiker will quite simply explain, in the language of common sense and without pre-fabricated vocabulary, why it is so. And so it will be with his dissection of the other evil books of Western Civilization, whether their subject is natural philosophy, scientific method, psychoanalysis, or political theory.
If you are still requiring a little push to drop the whopping Twenty Bucks on the book, I recall a line from Dorothy Sayer's FANTASTIC ESSAY (Seriously. Print this out and read it) entitled "The Lost Tools of Learning":
"We who were scandalized in 1940 when men were sent to fight armored tanks with rifles, are not scandalized when young men and women are sent into the world to fight massed propaganda with a smattering of "subjects"; and when whole classes and whole nations become hypnotized by the arts of the spell binder, we have the impudence to be astonished"So please, pick up a copy now. Read it. Learn from it. Absorb it. Share it. Then go read the original texts yourself. That is how we will destroy the beast that has become intellectual apathy rampant in American society.
You owe me a beer, Ben.
Actually, I owe a good deal of my intellectual life, and a great deal of my sense of wonder, to you.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
And They Shall Be Known for Their Fruits
Or, more specifically, their fruitlessness.
Thanks, ladies, for LEGALIZING DIVORCE for a whole new demographic. Good job. I'm so glad the true love you had for eachother that couldn't be expressed in any way other than 'matrimony' has lasted the test of...time.
Thanks, ladies, for LEGALIZING DIVORCE for a whole new demographic. Good job. I'm so glad the true love you had for eachother that couldn't be expressed in any way other than 'matrimony' has lasted the test of...time.
Friday, January 30, 2009
I'm a Backwards Thinker, Too
This is a new kind of wordplay. The closest I can find to describe it is a mix between anadiplosis and palindrome. But that's not quite right. Maybe Ray Gunner has an idea. At any rate, I like the effect quite a bit.
Monday, January 26, 2009
The Privation of the Best is the Worst
In describing the difference between man and beast, Aristotle noted that because of his reason, law, and virtue, man was superior to beasts, for they lacked the requirements for these qualities. In fact, man is the greatest of all animals because he possesses the qualities that are greater than all other qualities. But man acting outside of reason, law and virtue is far worse than the animals. Animals are not guilty of crime because law is not available to them. He applies the same principle in other ways, such as describing the privation of the best form of government (virtuous monarchy) devolves specifically into the worst (vicious tyranny).
A more concrete example might be that the best form of musical instrument, the violin, is the absolute worst when played poorly, as can be attested by anyone who's had to patiently wait through an hour long violin lesson with their 5 year old.
This is the idea behind the title of this post. The privation of the best is the worst.
And that was my first thought when I READ THIS ARTICLE about Nancy Pelosi's adamant defense of using more than $200,000,000 of the new economic stimulus package to subsidize birth control.
Yeah. That's right. Your federal government is about to hand out contraceptives to the poor (and even those that aren't so poor) because the burden on the government to help pay for all the prenatal care, those births and post-natal child well-being visits is not worth the cost. So rather than tighten the fiscal belt and help real American families, Pelosi the "Catholic" is advocating eliminating the problem by oppressing impoverished Americanss ability to reproduce. Here's a woman who's religious claim is to an institution who never has and never will allow contraception, and yet she's one of the staunchest supporters of such policy. The privation of the best (Catholicism) is the worst (amoral justification)
This is insane on so many levels I can't even get my mind around them all. But, just because I really need to vent about this, let's assume for the moment that you and I don't agree on the point that contraception is a moral evil. So in order to discuss this, let's leave faith out of it, and take a cue from our new President: he mentioned in his inaugural address that practicality will trump ideology in his administration. OK, so let's apply that.
To promote birth control as a way to stimulate the economy might have a short term positive effect on spending. Less poor people seeking medicaid for paying for births, the less money spent by the government. But what does this do long term? It removes from society a potential taxpayer. Which, if you were a democrat, you should realize is a bad thing since you tax the hell out of everyone and every lost taxpayer is a lost point of income. The initial $10,000 expenditure to generate the new taxpayer yields a net loss of what will be hundreds of thousands of dollars over his or her lifetime in income tax, property tax, and sales tax revenues, etc., and maybe millions if they become an economic success. Penny wise and pound foolish, Nancy Pelosi. Not very practical at all. The privation of the best is the worst.
What about voter bases? Madam Speaker Pelosi gets elected on a voter demographic that is highly weighted on the poor and undereducated side, especially minorities. These are the people that will be most effected by the influx of free contraceptives (and abortions and abortificants). Thus she is eliminating future voters. Not very practical for the continued success of your party, Madam Speaker.
I am truly mystified by this, but mostly I am angry that a woman who dares call herself a Catholic would slap her bishop, Rome, and Christ in the face with such bold-faced axe-grinding. This is a shame on all of us Catholics because she has become, by virtue of being so visible and audible through office and media, the voice of Catholic faith to many Americans and world citizens who just don't know any better. She is taking something that is so beautiful, so true, so good, and turning it into something so ugly, so false, and so bad.
Interestingly enough, not all politicians or governments agree that reducing births will help a sagging economy. Japan is actually ASKING WORKERS to take time off to go home and conceive future workers.
A more concrete example might be that the best form of musical instrument, the violin, is the absolute worst when played poorly, as can be attested by anyone who's had to patiently wait through an hour long violin lesson with their 5 year old.
This is the idea behind the title of this post. The privation of the best is the worst.
And that was my first thought when I READ THIS ARTICLE about Nancy Pelosi's adamant defense of using more than $200,000,000 of the new economic stimulus package to subsidize birth control.
Yeah. That's right. Your federal government is about to hand out contraceptives to the poor (and even those that aren't so poor) because the burden on the government to help pay for all the prenatal care, those births and post-natal child well-being visits is not worth the cost. So rather than tighten the fiscal belt and help real American families, Pelosi the "Catholic" is advocating eliminating the problem by oppressing impoverished Americanss ability to reproduce. Here's a woman who's religious claim is to an institution who never has and never will allow contraception, and yet she's one of the staunchest supporters of such policy. The privation of the best (Catholicism) is the worst (amoral justification)
This is insane on so many levels I can't even get my mind around them all. But, just because I really need to vent about this, let's assume for the moment that you and I don't agree on the point that contraception is a moral evil. So in order to discuss this, let's leave faith out of it, and take a cue from our new President: he mentioned in his inaugural address that practicality will trump ideology in his administration. OK, so let's apply that.
To promote birth control as a way to stimulate the economy might have a short term positive effect on spending. Less poor people seeking medicaid for paying for births, the less money spent by the government. But what does this do long term? It removes from society a potential taxpayer. Which, if you were a democrat, you should realize is a bad thing since you tax the hell out of everyone and every lost taxpayer is a lost point of income. The initial $10,000 expenditure to generate the new taxpayer yields a net loss of what will be hundreds of thousands of dollars over his or her lifetime in income tax, property tax, and sales tax revenues, etc., and maybe millions if they become an economic success. Penny wise and pound foolish, Nancy Pelosi. Not very practical at all. The privation of the best is the worst.
What about voter bases? Madam Speaker Pelosi gets elected on a voter demographic that is highly weighted on the poor and undereducated side, especially minorities. These are the people that will be most effected by the influx of free contraceptives (and abortions and abortificants). Thus she is eliminating future voters. Not very practical for the continued success of your party, Madam Speaker.
I am truly mystified by this, but mostly I am angry that a woman who dares call herself a Catholic would slap her bishop, Rome, and Christ in the face with such bold-faced axe-grinding. This is a shame on all of us Catholics because she has become, by virtue of being so visible and audible through office and media, the voice of Catholic faith to many Americans and world citizens who just don't know any better. She is taking something that is so beautiful, so true, so good, and turning it into something so ugly, so false, and so bad.
Interestingly enough, not all politicians or governments agree that reducing births will help a sagging economy. Japan is actually ASKING WORKERS to take time off to go home and conceive future workers.
Friday, November 14, 2008
The Mouth of a Generation
I just can't find the desire to write lately. There's either too little that's interesting to catch my eye, or way too many important news items to choose from. Either way, I'm bored with ranting, and so I've just been drawing more. Sorry.
But I just couldn't pass up the egotistical remarks by rapper Kanye West, at the tail end of AN INTERVIEW where he claimed to be the 'Michael Jordan of music'. Heh.
But then again, he just might be the voice of this generation. And maybe that's why I'm so tired of the news that I can't even muster the energy to write.
O! Wait! That's not why. THIS is why. I can't decide if it's really supposed to be Generation Zero. Why is there a new 'generation' every 5 years? Please.
But I just couldn't pass up the egotistical remarks by rapper Kanye West, at the tail end of AN INTERVIEW where he claimed to be the 'Michael Jordan of music'. Heh.
West, 31, said life has been difficult since his mother's death. Donda West died last November after having plastic surgery... "I'm just going through balancing that. And I always used to have that support system, you know. My mom would be there; no matter what, she was there before everything," he said. "We were together for like 30 years.Like 30 years? No way! That's, like, your whole life!
But then again, he just might be the voice of this generation. And maybe that's why I'm so tired of the news that I can't even muster the energy to write.
O! Wait! That's not why. THIS is why. I can't decide if it's really supposed to be Generation Zero. Why is there a new 'generation' every 5 years? Please.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
A Rhetorical Question
Of course, we're all asking 'Why?' and 'How?'.
Because of perception. Perception is very important.
Where Obama really lacks refined speaking skills--in the impromptu Q & A-- he has done a brilliant job of masking. He has (and here I mean HIS MINIONS have) developed this persona of a scholar...a good writer, a good speaker, a good thinker, a good leader. You and I know this is not true, but just listen to NPR faun over him for 30 secs and you'll see that this is the image that is being thrown out there for the unexamined mind to settle upon as an unarguable fact.
So his stuttering comes across to you and me as a bumbling fool who needs his teleprompter, but to everyone else as a disheveled intellectual whose words are not fast enough for his thoughts.
If right reason governed people's actions and thoughts, countries would only be run by guys like Alan Keyes. But the reality is, guys like Alan Keyes will never get elected. They don't pay enough mind to 'passion'. They pay too much attention to 'reason'. Yes, humans are essentially rational animals, and it would be aweful nice for people to seek the 'truth'. But we are disordered by the punishment for original sin. We are ruled by our passions. This is especially dangerous when we fill our minds with entertainment rather than philosophy. Besides, people seek the perceived truth. And if it's palpable, they rest there and seek no more.
An uneducated electorate who spends its time watching America's Got Talent and Desperate Housewives will choose to be ruled by the politicians who most conform with what those shows project as 'intelligent leaders'. An educated electorate who spends its time reading Alexis de Tocqueville and Cicero will choose to be ruled by the men who most conform with what those thinkers project as 'intelligent leaders'.
Right now, 90% of America chooses to fill their imaginations with the musings of the former. It's easier. Philosophizing is hard. Daydreaming is easy.
Because of perception. Perception is very important.
Perception is why actors often go into politics-and do well- for they understand the power of perception. It doesn't matter how weak or strong the economy is. What matters is consumer confidence. It doesn't matter if America is safe or not. What matters is whether America feels safe and strong enough to kick ass.
It's why little guys win fistfights against big guys, and why bumbling fools are capable of running countries-because they project the image of greatness.
Aristotle said that all men seek the good. I say all men seek the perceived good.
Aristotle said that all men seek the good. I say all men seek the perceived good.
Where Obama really lacks refined speaking skills--in the impromptu Q & A-- he has done a brilliant job of masking. He has (and here I mean HIS MINIONS have) developed this persona of a scholar...a good writer, a good speaker, a good thinker, a good leader. You and I know this is not true, but just listen to NPR faun over him for 30 secs and you'll see that this is the image that is being thrown out there for the unexamined mind to settle upon as an unarguable fact.
So his stuttering comes across to you and me as a bumbling fool who needs his teleprompter, but to everyone else as a disheveled intellectual whose words are not fast enough for his thoughts.
If right reason governed people's actions and thoughts, countries would only be run by guys like Alan Keyes. But the reality is, guys like Alan Keyes will never get elected. They don't pay enough mind to 'passion'. They pay too much attention to 'reason'. Yes, humans are essentially rational animals, and it would be aweful nice for people to seek the 'truth'. But we are disordered by the punishment for original sin. We are ruled by our passions. This is especially dangerous when we fill our minds with entertainment rather than philosophy. Besides, people seek the perceived truth. And if it's palpable, they rest there and seek no more.
An uneducated electorate who spends its time watching America's Got Talent and Desperate Housewives will choose to be ruled by the politicians who most conform with what those shows project as 'intelligent leaders'. An educated electorate who spends its time reading Alexis de Tocqueville and Cicero will choose to be ruled by the men who most conform with what those thinkers project as 'intelligent leaders'.
Right now, 90% of America chooses to fill their imaginations with the musings of the former. It's easier. Philosophizing is hard. Daydreaming is easy.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Cicero Was Right
It's all about friends.
Generally, I have a hard time keeping them. But a few patient souls have stood by me no matter how depressed and moody I get, and lift me up with their hope. My wife is amazing that way, whose first concern this morning was getting me out of the depressed funk she knew I'd be in after last night. She sent me THIS from the Priests for Life. I shudder to think where I'd be without her.
Another true Ciceronian friend is Father Barry, whom I have known for a decade but have only gotten to know recently, a fact that is a testament to the good of Instant Messaging, as it allows friends to remain so even when living 1000s of miles away, a situation Cicero advised against not having had the technology to chat.
Today, Fr. Barry once again PUT IT ALL IN PERSPECTIVE, and for that I thank him again. As he says, look to today's reading for an eerie feeling of appropriateness:
Generally, I have a hard time keeping them. But a few patient souls have stood by me no matter how depressed and moody I get, and lift me up with their hope. My wife is amazing that way, whose first concern this morning was getting me out of the depressed funk she knew I'd be in after last night. She sent me THIS from the Priests for Life. I shudder to think where I'd be without her.
Another true Ciceronian friend is Father Barry, whom I have known for a decade but have only gotten to know recently, a fact that is a testament to the good of Instant Messaging, as it allows friends to remain so even when living 1000s of miles away, a situation Cicero advised against not having had the technology to chat.
Today, Fr. Barry once again PUT IT ALL IN PERSPECTIVE, and for that I thank him again. As he says, look to today's reading for an eerie feeling of appropriateness:
My beloved, obedient as you have always been,
not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent,
work out your salvation with fear and trembling.
For God is the one who, for his good purpose,
works in you both to desire and to work.
Do everything without grumbling or questioning,
that you may be blameless and innocent,
children of God without blemish
in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation,
among whom you shine like lights in the world,
as you hold on to the word of life,
so that my boast for the day of Christ may be
that I did not run in vain or labor in vain.
But, even if I am poured out as a libation
upon the sacrificial service of your faith,
I rejoice and share my joy with all of you.
In the same way you also should rejoice and share your joy with me.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Freedom of Choice Pact
Forget taxes. Forget Wall Street. Forget the war in Iraq. All issues pale in comparison to the issue of life when it comes to which issue carries the most intrinsic weight, and which is the one we must answer first, given the gravity of the subject. IN THIS ARTICLE, Hadley Arkes makes a good case (in fact, a very similar argument to Blaise Pascal's in 'The Wager' for the primacy of Theology given the stakes involved...) for what is the real issue here and in every election till this is resolved:
And because he doesn't see a fetus as a person either at conception or through birth, Obama can somehow manage to hold his head up and sign the pact with planned parenthood et al. to codify evil:
And he's serious. Because he not only thinks of a fetus as a non-person, but even born BABIES ARE A PUNISHMENT for what would otherwise be to him an acceptable promiscuity. And this is why we must end this vote-for-Ron-Paul-to-send-a-message-to-the-Republican-Party bullshit right here and now. Some otherwise very intelligent people are voting for Ron Paul this November. Let me put it very simply: voting for Ron Paul takes away votes from McCain. I'd love to see Ron Paul on the republican ticket as much as, or more than, the next guy, or even as a viable third party (which wouldn't happen) but the reality is that Ron Paul is doing for Obama what Ross Perot did for Bill Clinton. Now is not the time to make some ideological but impractical stand. Now is not the time to be playing with fire, no matter the policy Ron Paul stands for. Watch this to see what we will be living with for the next four years, and what we'll be missing if good people put naive but true ideological constructs in front of the realities and practicalities of political life:
Every issue in our politics involves the concern for the righting of wrongs, the relief of injuries or injustice. They may involve people threatened with the foreclosure of their homes, the loss of their jobs and their health insurance. All of these cases involve the suffering of hurts and harms. But they also depend on a judgment of the beings who count as “persons,” for if they don’t count, the harms they suffer go curiously unnoticed. In that famous scene in Huckleberry Finn, Huck had contrived a story and told Aunt Sally that his boat was delayed because "we blowed out a cylinder-head." Aunt Sally reacted: "Good gracious! anybody hurt?" "No'm. Killed a nigger." "Well, it's lucky; because sometimes people do get hurt."Obama, as a man keen on the issue of race, should keep this quote on his wall instead of pictures of Ché Guevara the murderous, wretched mercenary of Communist puppet masters (Obama's new motto: 'Ché you can believe in'...). But he doesn't. He has signed the pact.
And because he doesn't see a fetus as a person either at conception or through birth, Obama can somehow manage to hold his head up and sign the pact with planned parenthood et al. to codify evil:
And he's serious. Because he not only thinks of a fetus as a non-person, but even born BABIES ARE A PUNISHMENT for what would otherwise be to him an acceptable promiscuity. And this is why we must end this vote-for-Ron-Paul-to-send-a-message-to-the-Republican-Party bullshit right here and now. Some otherwise very intelligent people are voting for Ron Paul this November. Let me put it very simply: voting for Ron Paul takes away votes from McCain. I'd love to see Ron Paul on the republican ticket as much as, or more than, the next guy, or even as a viable third party (which wouldn't happen) but the reality is that Ron Paul is doing for Obama what Ross Perot did for Bill Clinton. Now is not the time to make some ideological but impractical stand. Now is not the time to be playing with fire, no matter the policy Ron Paul stands for. Watch this to see what we will be living with for the next four years, and what we'll be missing if good people put naive but true ideological constructs in front of the realities and practicalities of political life:
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Taxognomy and Taxing Ignominy
Recently, I posted a bit by Prof. David R. Kamerschen called BAR-STOOL ECONOMICS. This synopsis of Prof Kamerschen is a basic description of Reaganomics and an essential component in the trickle-down theory of economics. Some questions have been raised as to the validity of this description, and so I thought I'd revisit this subject, especially in the light of Barack Obama's continued insistence that his tax cut to 95% of working Americans is what the country needs, and is a complete turning away from the Bush budgets, where only the rich get tax relief.
Among the middle class and/or uninformed, it is a generally held but wrong opinion that Republicans only give tax breaks to the top 1-2% (i.e. the Rich) and tax the poor (i.e. the rest of the country), while Democrats give tax breaks to the bottom 98%, and tax the rich. The reality is that the Bush tax cuts of 2003 were the most progressive tax cuts for the middle class in quite some time. (Don't get me wrong, I think that Bush is an idiot economist...his tax cuts are good policy, but only when combined with less spending. Unfortunately Bush is a quasi-Republican when it comes to taxation-where he continues to tax the rich and undertax the welfare addicted masses- and a Democrat when it comes to spending. This is the worst possible mix.)
Take a look at the Wall Street Journal's analysis of the Bush tax cuts back in 2003 HERE, and more importantly, HERE.
Overlooking for the moment the role this (unfortunately) plays in (undermining) trickle-down economics, one must be turning a blind eye to the facts if it's believed for a moment that Republicans don't help the little guy. Simply put, the tax on the middle class has been cut significantly, which, as a solid member of such class, I feel not only in rate deductions but also in credits. How is this possible? Because the rich, while getting a tax cut under Bush, will make up a greater portion of the total tax revenue. This is bifurcation of tax revenue at it's worst.
'What's the big deal', you ask? 'Who cares if some rich jerk can't afford another yacht?
Simply put, the wealthy spend the greatest percentage of their money investing in American Markets. What they spend on goods is trivial compared to their investments. They do this because they are greedy and they want more money. The poor and middle class spend the greatest percentage of their money on goods (and usually goods which make them 'feel' wealthy like big screen T.V.s and new foreign cars). They do this because they are greedy and they want others to think they have more money. So while the wealthy are putting money back into American markets, the poor and middle class is busy giving their money to China, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, etc. Truly, if Barack Obama becomes president, he will ensure that every single person in America will have a home, two car garage, and 2.5 big screen TVs.
Thus the result of taxing the rich and giving it to the poor is that American companies won't have investors (because the rich can't invest, and they're also not selling goods because the poor are buying cheap foreign crap rather than American goods)
Thus, when Mr. Obama and the Democratic economic machine gets into office, plan on more American companies either going out of business or going overseas. And soon after that you'll lose your job.
And then you won't have to pay any taxes.
Among the middle class and/or uninformed, it is a generally held but wrong opinion that Republicans only give tax breaks to the top 1-2% (i.e. the Rich) and tax the poor (i.e. the rest of the country), while Democrats give tax breaks to the bottom 98%, and tax the rich. The reality is that the Bush tax cuts of 2003 were the most progressive tax cuts for the middle class in quite some time. (Don't get me wrong, I think that Bush is an idiot economist...his tax cuts are good policy, but only when combined with less spending. Unfortunately Bush is a quasi-Republican when it comes to taxation-where he continues to tax the rich and undertax the welfare addicted masses- and a Democrat when it comes to spending. This is the worst possible mix.)
Take a look at the Wall Street Journal's analysis of the Bush tax cuts back in 2003 HERE, and more importantly, HERE.
Overlooking for the moment the role this (unfortunately) plays in (undermining) trickle-down economics, one must be turning a blind eye to the facts if it's believed for a moment that Republicans don't help the little guy. Simply put, the tax on the middle class has been cut significantly, which, as a solid member of such class, I feel not only in rate deductions but also in credits. How is this possible? Because the rich, while getting a tax cut under Bush, will make up a greater portion of the total tax revenue. This is bifurcation of tax revenue at it's worst.
Families with incomes over $100,000 would end up paying a larger share of the total income tax. These families would pay 73% of all federal income taxes. Not to put too fine a point on this income redistribution, but taxpayers with incomes over $200,000 could expect on average to pay about $99,000 in taxes under Mr. Bush's plan.But take a look at the Obama reality. Under the Obama plan, 95% of working Americans will get a tax 'relief'-but 10% of America will get screwed more than even he recognizes. Howso? Because when he cuts income taxes on the middle class, he'll raise it on the wealthy publicly and on everyone privately- he proposes increases to the social security tax, death tax, capital gains tax, payroll tax, etc. etc. But he's also going to increase spending. So he'll raise taxes even higher (one wonders why the $200,000 earners paying up to 73% in taxes haven't revolted yet. They will soon). This results in wealthy having less money to 'play' with.
'What's the big deal', you ask? 'Who cares if some rich jerk can't afford another yacht?
Simply put, the wealthy spend the greatest percentage of their money investing in American Markets. What they spend on goods is trivial compared to their investments. They do this because they are greedy and they want more money. The poor and middle class spend the greatest percentage of their money on goods (and usually goods which make them 'feel' wealthy like big screen T.V.s and new foreign cars). They do this because they are greedy and they want others to think they have more money. So while the wealthy are putting money back into American markets, the poor and middle class is busy giving their money to China, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, etc. Truly, if Barack Obama becomes president, he will ensure that every single person in America will have a home, two car garage, and 2.5 big screen TVs.
Thus the result of taxing the rich and giving it to the poor is that American companies won't have investors (because the rich can't invest, and they're also not selling goods because the poor are buying cheap foreign crap rather than American goods)
Thus, when Mr. Obama and the Democratic economic machine gets into office, plan on more American companies either going out of business or going overseas. And soon after that you'll lose your job.
And then you won't have to pay any taxes.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Veal Feel Better After an Udder Disappointment
Wow. Reality out 'onions' the Onion.
A chef in Switzerland HAS STARTED USING harvested human breastmilk for use in his recipes, in place of animal milk. This is posing a somewhat difficult position for the Swiss food control authority, because human milk was just not considered something they needed to regulate in commercial food preparation.
But the real kicker is how PETA has kept abreast of foreign wheys and exposed the perks of milking humans for all their worth. They have SENT A LETTER to Ben & Jerry's asking them if they would please consider following the lead and using human breastmilk in their ice cream.
You know, for the sake of the cows. And the farmers who do the milking.
Unlike other places in the country, in my little community of conservatively-minded baby-havers, breastmilk definitely gets a fair shake. But who knew it would make one?
A chef in Switzerland HAS STARTED USING harvested human breastmilk for use in his recipes, in place of animal milk. This is posing a somewhat difficult position for the Swiss food control authority, because human milk was just not considered something they needed to regulate in commercial food preparation.
"[Humans] are not on the list of approved species such as cows and sheep, but they are also not on the list of the banned species such as apes and primates..."Ummm. Right now I'm thinking that ape and primate milk has been specifically banned in Switzerland for the same reason they put 'Do not take orally' on the back of Preparation H...because some idiot has tried it that way.
But the real kicker is how PETA has kept abreast of foreign wheys and exposed the perks of milking humans for all their worth. They have SENT A LETTER to Ben & Jerry's asking them if they would please consider following the lead and using human breastmilk in their ice cream.
You know, for the sake of the cows. And the farmers who do the milking.
Unlike other places in the country, in my little community of conservatively-minded baby-havers, breastmilk definitely gets a fair shake. But who knew it would make one?
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The Sweet Science Meets the Mind's Grind
It's not surprising to me that THIS crazy combination came from Russia. The Russians have always placed a great deal of emphasis on boxing, chess, and marksmanship-those being the signs of raw power, intellect, and military skill, respectively--ordered towards impressing fear upon 
enemies and pride amongst comrades. Consequently, it's not surprising that chess is historically a MANLY PURSUIT, given that men generally possess a warlike competitive spirit, while women more nurturing and tend to reticence rather than making waves.
At any rate, war and chess were connected in the Russian/Soviet mind very early and very clearly in the person of Nikolai Vasilyevich Krylenko (1885-1938). Personally appointed by Lenin, a violent Krylenko declared at the onset of the red tide: "We must execute not only the guilty. Execution of the innocent will impress the masses even more."
But it was the same Krylenko that in 1924 had taken on the task of turning chess into the Soviet Union's national game. As chairman of the chess section of the Supreme Council for Physical Culture of the Russian Socialist Republics, Krylenko persuaded the Kremlin to organize the first international tournament at Moscow in 1925. In his introduction to the tournament book, he wrote:
The Cold War brought new life to chess, especially in the West. The Cold War was a psychological war, and was therefore prime for metaphorical representation by the likes of chess. As competing nations couldn't turn to physical conflict, they turned to intellectual sparring. The import of the games carried more than a title to any one individual, rather but the implied superiority of the winner's nation.
Chess as a metaphor was everywhere. Do you remember that the opening scene of one of the first James Bond films--those icons of anti-red propoganda--, 'From Russia with Love', is a chess match between two grandmasters?
In real life, it was the Fischer-Spassky match of 1972 —when an eccentric American genius smashed 25 years of Soviet chess hegemony—that was the 'sports' event that marked the beginning of the end of the Cold War (vastly more than did the 1980 Miracle on Ice). The end that left the West victorious also left Bobby Fischer mentally crushed and socially inept, an ironic end to the man who said: "Chess is war on a board. The object is to crush the other man's mind."
Given this storied and politically charged game, what I want to know is whether chess boxing can mean anything now...?
enemies and pride amongst comrades. Consequently, it's not surprising that chess is historically a MANLY PURSUIT, given that men generally possess a warlike competitive spirit, while women more nurturing and tend to reticence rather than making waves.At any rate, war and chess were connected in the Russian/Soviet mind very early and very clearly in the person of Nikolai Vasilyevich Krylenko (1885-1938). Personally appointed by Lenin, a violent Krylenko declared at the onset of the red tide: "We must execute not only the guilty. Execution of the innocent will impress the masses even more."
But it was the same Krylenko that in 1924 had taken on the task of turning chess into the Soviet Union's national game. As chairman of the chess section of the Supreme Council for Physical Culture of the Russian Socialist Republics, Krylenko persuaded the Kremlin to organize the first international tournament at Moscow in 1925. In his introduction to the tournament book, he wrote:
"In our country, where the cultural level is comparatively low, where up to now a typical pastime of the masses has been brewing liquor, drunkenness and brawling, chess is a powerful means of raising the general cultural level."Between organizing mass murders of the workers he cared so deeply about, Krylenko edited the main Soviet chess journal: '64', keeping ideological control of a chess community that soon grew to tens of millions. The party slogan: "Take chess to the workers!"
The Cold War brought new life to chess, especially in the West. The Cold War was a psychological war, and was therefore prime for metaphorical representation by the likes of chess. As competing nations couldn't turn to physical conflict, they turned to intellectual sparring. The import of the games carried more than a title to any one individual, rather but the implied superiority of the winner's nation.
Chess as a metaphor was everywhere. Do you remember that the opening scene of one of the first James Bond films--those icons of anti-red propoganda--, 'From Russia with Love', is a chess match between two grandmasters?
In real life, it was the Fischer-Spassky match of 1972 —when an eccentric American genius smashed 25 years of Soviet chess hegemony—that was the 'sports' event that marked the beginning of the end of the Cold War (vastly more than did the 1980 Miracle on Ice). The end that left the West victorious also left Bobby Fischer mentally crushed and socially inept, an ironic end to the man who said: "Chess is war on a board. The object is to crush the other man's mind."Given this storied and politically charged game, what I want to know is whether chess boxing can mean anything now...?
Friday, September 19, 2008
The Mess We're In
The following is from my genius brother-in-law explaining parts of the corporate relationship to the current economic crisis. It's long, but well worth it. My own (much shorter and less authoritatively based) musings follow:
------------------------------------------------
Lenders:
First, a brief history: In the mid '90's Congress forced lending institutions to lower their lending standards because lower credit scores were more common among certain ethnicities than others and this was viewed by Congress as discriminatory. Lending institutions fought against this move by Congress because it raised the risk levels lenders would have to bear while not providing for a concomitant increase in profit potential.
What Lenders Did: Banks found that, in fact, foreclosure rates and late payments were not rising as they had feared. They were writing more loans, making lots more money and the risk they initially feared did not seem to be materializing (even through the tech crash). So, seeing that lowering the bar one rung made more money without materializing risk, lenders (not forced by Congress) decided to lower the bar another rung. Again, they made more money and the risks did not materialize. At this point some lenders drew the line (typically traditional banks, i.e., not banks whose primary existence was low credit mortgages). Others kept moving that rung lower and lower.
Why it worked for so long: Lenders typically do not hold a mortgage; they sell them to investment banks who bundle them up (collateralized mortgage obligations, or CMOs) and in turn sell some of them to investors who hold them like bonds and receive the mortgage interest (along with principle) as a return. CMOs are traditionally very safe investments and are frequently insured, meaning that if default occurs, an insurance company keeps the payments going to the investor (AIG is one of the largest CMO insurers in the world). Insurance companies naturally want to make sure that what they are insuring is of high-quality. They determine this via their own due diligence but rely very heavily upon ratings agencies (Standard & Poors, Fitch, etc...) to study the CMO and give it a risk ranking. The rating agencies continued to rate CMOs and other mortgage derivatives very highly even as the lending standards were getting lower and lower. If the ratings agencies give it a high enough rating, it will be insured and investors will buy, period. As long as the housing market remained strong this self-perpetuating string of events continued.
When the Shit Hit the Fan: When it became clear that the CMOs actually held some percentage of toxic mortgages (even if were 5% or lower), it became clear that the rating agencies had failed, which meant that insurers had insured debt they never would have insured had the ratings been accurate, which meant that investors bought supposedly "very safe" income investments which they never would have bought had they not been insured. Once this occurred, insurers stopped insuring and investors stopped buying, which meant that lenders were left with 1,000's of mortgages that they could not bundle and sell. These lenders were NOT set up as mortgage servicing companies so they did not have the necessary reserves or infrastructure to simply hold the loans and ride out the mess. Thus they die, or are on their death bed today.
Note and Clarification: Note that no lenders have been bailed out. Also, remember that some traditional banks DID stop the lowering of standards at a point prior to the wacky stuff that followed. These banks, whose existence was not predicated so heavily on mortgage loans are riding out the storm.
Freddie's Fannie
A Brief History: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac used to be Government Agencies whose job was to "help" provide stability to the mortgage markets (a massive part of the economy). They were stop-loss agencies; if lenders followed proper risk guidelines set by Fannie and Freddie, then F&F would back the mortgage. F&F were pseudo-privatized and became pseudo-governmental agencies. As such, they could pursue profit like a private company but their Charter, written and approved by Congress, gave the government the authority to force F&F's hand in bad markets to help stabilize a messy mortgage environment. Due to the pseudo-government agency status of F&F, bonds sold by F&F to investors bear a credit rating just below Federal Bonds. In fact, through this entire mess, F&F bonds have been terrific investments just as Treasuries have.
The Worst of Both Worlds: As private businesses, F&F fell into the same trap as so many lenders. Then, after massively over-leveraging themselves, like the investment houses did (more on them later), the Shit Hit the Fan as noted above. Then, their hands started to be forced under their Charter to try to come to the aid of the lenders. However, having so leveraged themselves and having their own leverage unravel, F&F simply did not have the reserves or wherewithal to help, period.
Bail-Out: The Feds brought F&F back into itself. The feds did NOT bail-out stockholders who saw their investment disappear. The feds DID stand behind the F&F bonds because of the pseudo-governmental status which has always, universally been interpreted as a federal backing of the bonds. To not back them would have been viewed as the Feds breaking faith because they allowed the bonds to be sold with an implicit, universally understood guarantee. F&F's "bail-out" is truly different in kind because of this implicit, universally understood guarantee.
Investment Houses (Bear Stearns, Lehman, Merrill, Morgan, etc...)
Preliminary Clarification: These are NOT Banks - they are NOTHING like banks - they have different rules and oversight than banks - if banks are apples, investment houses are oranges (or lemons...).
What was Happening: As mentioned earlier, Lenders sold mortgages to Investment Houses who in turn bundled them (and created hybrid derivatives) and sold them to investors. Like the lenders, they did not see the original fears materializing and began to get more and more aggressive with what they would buy and how they would sell. They made gobs of "easy" money acting as the middle man while the housing market remained strong. Again, their fear was falsely held in check in part due to the high credit ratings the mortgage backed securities were receiving from the rating agencies.
What Happened: Like the lenders, when the wheels came off the supposedly unstoppable mortgage machine, the Investment Houses were left with TRILLIONS of dollars of exposure to mortgage derivatives (Lehman alone had upwards of $9,000,000,000,000 in exposure). Investment Houses are not allowed to hold these investments to maturity - they MUST sell them. If they are unable to find a buyer they are forced, due to Sarbanes-Oxley (read Congress) to "mark to market", which means they must declare them to be worth $0.00, a total loss; even though a large percentage of the mortgages are perfectly good mortgages (Traditional banks CAN hold these derivatives to maturity and CAN give them a value). When the Investment Houses declare these massive losses, their reserves need to be brought up significantly, but the interest rates to bring up the reserves become astronomical (in some cases higher than 50%) because the future ability to pay back the loans is severely suspect. Thus, insolvency ensues.
Bail-Outs: It is fairly universally recognized that Bear-Stearns was bailed out (NOT stock holders) because it was the first to fail and the Feds hoped that stepping in once and early would stem the tide and because BS had another huge firm on the hook. The structure of the Bail-Out was NOT to give tax-payer money upfront, but to promise to use taxpayer money in the future IF JP Morgan (who bought BS) was unable to "fix" BS. It is also important to note that JP Morgan had over $3,000,000,000,000 in exposure through BS so, had BS simply declared bankruptcy, JPM may have been sunk as well (the hook).
Lehman Bros was not bailed out because it was not 1st and because it had no one on the hook "enough" to bring someone else down with them.
Merrill Lynch's CEO, who was brought in after the Shit Hit the Fan, did everything he could to clean up the Balance Sheet, even though he was demonized for "hurting" the company by doing so. In retrospect, he saw the writing on the wall and saved the shareholders. He cleaned the balance sheet so well that Bank of America offered to buy Merrill Lynch at a premium. Merrill Lynch's astute moves bailed out the stock holders from a complete loss as was seen in BS and Lehman.
Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs may or may not sell themselves. Stay tuned...
AIG - The World Economy's Insurance
What it is: AIG is the world's largest insurance company; the world's, not just America's.
What it Does & the Current Problem: AIG is much more than a Life Insurance company or an All State. AIG insures debt, meaning that it will continue to make payments to an investor if the underlying party fails. AIG insures Trillions of mortgage debt, without which the debt would be unsellable to investors. AIG insures TRILLIONS of municipal debt, without which municipality bonds could not have been issued. If AIG goes down, Trillions of life insurance benefits disappear, trillions of dollars of interest disappears, trillions of dollars of municipal debt becomes toxic, trillions of dollars of foreign investment disappears. In fact, it is almost impossible to quantify the effect of AIG failing on the world economy. The world's financial markets would completely shut down (for a while). Whether any one company should be allowed to become so important is beside the point; it simply is.
The Bail-Out: Taxpayers are "lending" AIG $85,000,000,000 at 11.5% interest to give AIG time to sell-off assets and recover from the complete freeze of credit. The thinking behind the bail-out is that as things settle and the credit markets begin moving again and all those "unsellable" CMOs that had to be valued at $0.00 work their way back into the market at honest values (most CMOs are made of a high percentage of good mortgages), that the unbelievably intense pressure on AIG will subside, allowing it to shore up its reserves at "normal" rates and remake itself into a leaner company.
The Sky Is NOT Falling
There is nothing new under the sun and our collective memory is way too short. Yes, seeing 150 year old Investment Houses go down is disconcerting. Yes, seeing tax dollars used to pay for management stupidity is annoying. Yes, it will get worse before it gets better. Yes, we are going to see high inflation. No, the sky is NOT falling.
I would not be surprised to see the indexes pull back another 15 - 20% before things turn around. However, if they do, bear in mind that this kind of 50% pullback from a new high happened LESS THAN 10 YEARS AGO. The thinking that led to the run-up prior to our current calamity, the tech calamity, and every other previous calamity was the same; the paradigm has changed, something is forever different. The thinking during our present calamity, the tech calamity, and every prior calamity is the same; the paradigm has changed, something is forever different. To put it in the words of a brilliant historian whose name escapes me, "Man learns from history that he does not learn from history"; this is true in all realms, be it political or financial. We are living in the dark days of a bear market. Clarity is difficult in the darkness, but history can provide a guide. Market history has this to say (these are averages);
10% Downturns happen about once every year and last on average 113 days
15% Downturns happen about once every two years and last on average 215 days
20%+ Downturns happen about every 3 1/2 years and last on average 329 days
--------------------------------------------------------
My (The Duck's) opinion:
The advent of the credit card, the ability to spend and increase personal debt from home via the internet or T.V., and the commercialization of greed starting with shows such as Robin Leech’s “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” has brought on the combination of increased sense of entitlement and greed to the poor and middle classes, as well as the means and access to increase personal debt to reach greedy goals. This was not possibly a problem before 20 years ago. I do not cease to be shocked at the number of people in my small town who have 1 or 2 year old boats, Harleys, Cadillac Escalades (they spinnin' ni**er, they spinnin') and all kinds of new goods. Way back when, the poor rarely saw the wealthy. The poor therefore didn't have visual access to the wealthy's goods, and cash systems based on the value of gold didn't afford the poor the ease to buy without means. If the poor wanted more, they cut back expenditures and saved, or worked harder and increased income.
Greed amongst the wealthy is not new and never will be surprising. I think the level of greed amongst the poor and middle class is something new under the sun. (the poor used to suffer from envy, but now Visa has brought a whole new vice into their, our, reach.) It is the individuals in America who are the root cause, living beyond their proprietary means. They have entered into mortgages which they could only afford in the best of times. When average times did eventually come, their over-extension has put everyone else in jeopardy. And now my tax dollars will bail them out instead of help me buy my own home, for which I have patiently waited, knowing this fallout would happen.
------------------------------------------------
Lenders:
First, a brief history: In the mid '90's Congress forced lending institutions to lower their lending standards because lower credit scores were more common among certain ethnicities than others and this was viewed by Congress as discriminatory. Lending institutions fought against this move by Congress because it raised the risk levels lenders would have to bear while not providing for a concomitant increase in profit potential.
What Lenders Did: Banks found that, in fact, foreclosure rates and late payments were not rising as they had feared. They were writing more loans, making lots more money and the risk they initially feared did not seem to be materializing (even through the tech crash). So, seeing that lowering the bar one rung made more money without materializing risk, lenders (not forced by Congress) decided to lower the bar another rung. Again, they made more money and the risks did not materialize. At this point some lenders drew the line (typically traditional banks, i.e., not banks whose primary existence was low credit mortgages). Others kept moving that rung lower and lower.
Why it worked for so long: Lenders typically do not hold a mortgage; they sell them to investment banks who bundle them up (collateralized mortgage obligations, or CMOs) and in turn sell some of them to investors who hold them like bonds and receive the mortgage interest (along with principle) as a return. CMOs are traditionally very safe investments and are frequently insured, meaning that if default occurs, an insurance company keeps the payments going to the investor (AIG is one of the largest CMO insurers in the world). Insurance companies naturally want to make sure that what they are insuring is of high-quality. They determine this via their own due diligence but rely very heavily upon ratings agencies (Standard & Poors, Fitch, etc...) to study the CMO and give it a risk ranking. The rating agencies continued to rate CMOs and other mortgage derivatives very highly even as the lending standards were getting lower and lower. If the ratings agencies give it a high enough rating, it will be insured and investors will buy, period. As long as the housing market remained strong this self-perpetuating string of events continued.
When the Shit Hit the Fan: When it became clear that the CMOs actually held some percentage of toxic mortgages (even if were 5% or lower), it became clear that the rating agencies had failed, which meant that insurers had insured debt they never would have insured had the ratings been accurate, which meant that investors bought supposedly "very safe" income investments which they never would have bought had they not been insured. Once this occurred, insurers stopped insuring and investors stopped buying, which meant that lenders were left with 1,000's of mortgages that they could not bundle and sell. These lenders were NOT set up as mortgage servicing companies so they did not have the necessary reserves or infrastructure to simply hold the loans and ride out the mess. Thus they die, or are on their death bed today.
Note and Clarification: Note that no lenders have been bailed out. Also, remember that some traditional banks DID stop the lowering of standards at a point prior to the wacky stuff that followed. These banks, whose existence was not predicated so heavily on mortgage loans are riding out the storm.
Freddie's Fannie
A Brief History: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac used to be Government Agencies whose job was to "help" provide stability to the mortgage markets (a massive part of the economy). They were stop-loss agencies; if lenders followed proper risk guidelines set by Fannie and Freddie, then F&F would back the mortgage. F&F were pseudo-privatized and became pseudo-governmental agencies. As such, they could pursue profit like a private company but their Charter, written and approved by Congress, gave the government the authority to force F&F's hand in bad markets to help stabilize a messy mortgage environment. Due to the pseudo-government agency status of F&F, bonds sold by F&F to investors bear a credit rating just below Federal Bonds. In fact, through this entire mess, F&F bonds have been terrific investments just as Treasuries have.
The Worst of Both Worlds: As private businesses, F&F fell into the same trap as so many lenders. Then, after massively over-leveraging themselves, like the investment houses did (more on them later), the Shit Hit the Fan as noted above. Then, their hands started to be forced under their Charter to try to come to the aid of the lenders. However, having so leveraged themselves and having their own leverage unravel, F&F simply did not have the reserves or wherewithal to help, period.
Bail-Out: The Feds brought F&F back into itself. The feds did NOT bail-out stockholders who saw their investment disappear. The feds DID stand behind the F&F bonds because of the pseudo-governmental status which has always, universally been interpreted as a federal backing of the bonds. To not back them would have been viewed as the Feds breaking faith because they allowed the bonds to be sold with an implicit, universally understood guarantee. F&F's "bail-out" is truly different in kind because of this implicit, universally understood guarantee.
Investment Houses (Bear Stearns, Lehman, Merrill, Morgan, etc...)
Preliminary Clarification: These are NOT Banks - they are NOTHING like banks - they have different rules and oversight than banks - if banks are apples, investment houses are oranges (or lemons...).
What was Happening: As mentioned earlier, Lenders sold mortgages to Investment Houses who in turn bundled them (and created hybrid derivatives) and sold them to investors. Like the lenders, they did not see the original fears materializing and began to get more and more aggressive with what they would buy and how they would sell. They made gobs of "easy" money acting as the middle man while the housing market remained strong. Again, their fear was falsely held in check in part due to the high credit ratings the mortgage backed securities were receiving from the rating agencies.
What Happened: Like the lenders, when the wheels came off the supposedly unstoppable mortgage machine, the Investment Houses were left with TRILLIONS of dollars of exposure to mortgage derivatives (Lehman alone had upwards of $9,000,000,000,000 in exposure). Investment Houses are not allowed to hold these investments to maturity - they MUST sell them. If they are unable to find a buyer they are forced, due to Sarbanes-Oxley (read Congress) to "mark to market", which means they must declare them to be worth $0.00, a total loss; even though a large percentage of the mortgages are perfectly good mortgages (Traditional banks CAN hold these derivatives to maturity and CAN give them a value). When the Investment Houses declare these massive losses, their reserves need to be brought up significantly, but the interest rates to bring up the reserves become astronomical (in some cases higher than 50%) because the future ability to pay back the loans is severely suspect. Thus, insolvency ensues.
Bail-Outs: It is fairly universally recognized that Bear-Stearns was bailed out (NOT stock holders) because it was the first to fail and the Feds hoped that stepping in once and early would stem the tide and because BS had another huge firm on the hook. The structure of the Bail-Out was NOT to give tax-payer money upfront, but to promise to use taxpayer money in the future IF JP Morgan (who bought BS) was unable to "fix" BS. It is also important to note that JP Morgan had over $3,000,000,000,000 in exposure through BS so, had BS simply declared bankruptcy, JPM may have been sunk as well (the hook).
Lehman Bros was not bailed out because it was not 1st and because it had no one on the hook "enough" to bring someone else down with them.
Merrill Lynch's CEO, who was brought in after the Shit Hit the Fan, did everything he could to clean up the Balance Sheet, even though he was demonized for "hurting" the company by doing so. In retrospect, he saw the writing on the wall and saved the shareholders. He cleaned the balance sheet so well that Bank of America offered to buy Merrill Lynch at a premium. Merrill Lynch's astute moves bailed out the stock holders from a complete loss as was seen in BS and Lehman.
Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs may or may not sell themselves. Stay tuned...
AIG - The World Economy's Insurance
What it is: AIG is the world's largest insurance company; the world's, not just America's.
What it Does & the Current Problem: AIG is much more than a Life Insurance company or an All State. AIG insures debt, meaning that it will continue to make payments to an investor if the underlying party fails. AIG insures Trillions of mortgage debt, without which the debt would be unsellable to investors. AIG insures TRILLIONS of municipal debt, without which municipality bonds could not have been issued. If AIG goes down, Trillions of life insurance benefits disappear, trillions of dollars of interest disappears, trillions of dollars of municipal debt becomes toxic, trillions of dollars of foreign investment disappears. In fact, it is almost impossible to quantify the effect of AIG failing on the world economy. The world's financial markets would completely shut down (for a while). Whether any one company should be allowed to become so important is beside the point; it simply is.
The Bail-Out: Taxpayers are "lending" AIG $85,000,000,000 at 11.5% interest to give AIG time to sell-off assets and recover from the complete freeze of credit. The thinking behind the bail-out is that as things settle and the credit markets begin moving again and all those "unsellable" CMOs that had to be valued at $0.00 work their way back into the market at honest values (most CMOs are made of a high percentage of good mortgages), that the unbelievably intense pressure on AIG will subside, allowing it to shore up its reserves at "normal" rates and remake itself into a leaner company.
The Sky Is NOT Falling
There is nothing new under the sun and our collective memory is way too short. Yes, seeing 150 year old Investment Houses go down is disconcerting. Yes, seeing tax dollars used to pay for management stupidity is annoying. Yes, it will get worse before it gets better. Yes, we are going to see high inflation. No, the sky is NOT falling.
I would not be surprised to see the indexes pull back another 15 - 20% before things turn around. However, if they do, bear in mind that this kind of 50% pullback from a new high happened LESS THAN 10 YEARS AGO. The thinking that led to the run-up prior to our current calamity, the tech calamity, and every other previous calamity was the same; the paradigm has changed, something is forever different. The thinking during our present calamity, the tech calamity, and every prior calamity is the same; the paradigm has changed, something is forever different. To put it in the words of a brilliant historian whose name escapes me, "Man learns from history that he does not learn from history"; this is true in all realms, be it political or financial. We are living in the dark days of a bear market. Clarity is difficult in the darkness, but history can provide a guide. Market history has this to say (these are averages);
10% Downturns happen about once every year and last on average 113 days
15% Downturns happen about once every two years and last on average 215 days
20%+ Downturns happen about every 3 1/2 years and last on average 329 days
--------------------------------------------------------
My (The Duck's) opinion:
The advent of the credit card, the ability to spend and increase personal debt from home via the internet or T.V., and the commercialization of greed starting with shows such as Robin Leech’s “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” has brought on the combination of increased sense of entitlement and greed to the poor and middle classes, as well as the means and access to increase personal debt to reach greedy goals. This was not possibly a problem before 20 years ago. I do not cease to be shocked at the number of people in my small town who have 1 or 2 year old boats, Harleys, Cadillac Escalades (they spinnin' ni**er, they spinnin') and all kinds of new goods. Way back when, the poor rarely saw the wealthy. The poor therefore didn't have visual access to the wealthy's goods, and cash systems based on the value of gold didn't afford the poor the ease to buy without means. If the poor wanted more, they cut back expenditures and saved, or worked harder and increased income.
Greed amongst the wealthy is not new and never will be surprising. I think the level of greed amongst the poor and middle class is something new under the sun. (the poor used to suffer from envy, but now Visa has brought a whole new vice into their, our, reach.) It is the individuals in America who are the root cause, living beyond their proprietary means. They have entered into mortgages which they could only afford in the best of times. When average times did eventually come, their over-extension has put everyone else in jeopardy. And now my tax dollars will bail them out instead of help me buy my own home, for which I have patiently waited, knowing this fallout would happen.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Then and NOW
NOW, The National Organization for Women, WILL TODAY throw it's support to Obama's camp. I know it's a radio interview, but you should really listen to it-or wait a couple of hours for the AP to pick it up in print.
Surely this was a tough decision for NOW...I mean, they 'very, very rarely endorse a presidential candidate', right? Hmmm. Then why do they have a POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE? In fact, take a look at THIS. It's NOW's endorsement of Hillary Rodham Clinton for President. No surprise, right? Take a look at the date on the press release. March 28, 2007. Yes. That says 2007. That's pretty much immediately after Billary announced her presidential bid. Didn't take long for them to turn their back on their stated political neutrality.
And why did they support her? Well, look at their own words:
In its support of the Obamanation, NOW has firmly squared itself in the liberalism over women camp. Why? Because NOW is not about 'now'. It's about 'then'. Which 'then'? JANUARY 23, 1973, that's when. Palin is pro-woman. NOW is pro-abortion. If they were really about 'choice', then they'd have to respect Palin's intellectual 'choice' that abortion is murder. The only 'choice' NOW is really interested in is retaining the 'choice' for women (and more correctly, men) to live as promiscuously as they want, because they're always the 'choice' to eliminate the proof of those 'choices'. The reason they don't get that explicit is because if they did, they'd sound like A FREAKY CAMILLE PAGLIA, outwardly recognizing abortion as murder, and recognizing others have the right to opinions, but just flat out ignoring all reason publically.
All NOW is really interested in is promoting the pro-abort, anti-real woman agenda. And now they've been put into a position where this is painfully obvious. Well, to those of us listening.
Surely this was a tough decision for NOW...I mean, they 'very, very rarely endorse a presidential candidate', right? Hmmm. Then why do they have a POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE? In fact, take a look at THIS. It's NOW's endorsement of Hillary Rodham Clinton for President. No surprise, right? Take a look at the date on the press release. March 28, 2007. Yes. That says 2007. That's pretty much immediately after Billary announced her presidential bid. Didn't take long for them to turn their back on their stated political neutrality.
And why did they support her? Well, look at their own words:
Gathered here today at the historic home of Alice Paul and the National Woman's Party, surrounded by great women of the past, we are celebrating this Women's History Month by both honoring the past and looking to the future. We truly are living in historic times, days our foremothers knew would come, as long as new generations of women's rights activists — and voters — carried on their work. And carry it on we have, with U.S. women enjoying freedoms and opportunities that our great grandmothers only dreamed of. Today, the first woman speaker presides over the U.S. House of Representatives, and Harvard University has its first woman president. Firsts are important, because they open doors for those who follow — but our real goal is to have every first followed by seconds and thirds and fourths, until having women in leadership is so common that it isn't even remarkable any longer...I love this. This is the fallout from the Palin VP selection that I was waiting for. I've been waiting for the time when all of the feminist groups extolling the virtues of absolute equality, nay, sameness of gender, will have to decide whether they are promoting women or liberalism.
NOW PAC's "Make History With Hillary," campaign will organize and energize women's rights supporters across the country — urging women and men across this nation to stand up and say "I'm Ready" for a woman president.
In its support of the Obamanation, NOW has firmly squared itself in the liberalism over women camp. Why? Because NOW is not about 'now'. It's about 'then'. Which 'then'? JANUARY 23, 1973, that's when. Palin is pro-woman. NOW is pro-abortion. If they were really about 'choice', then they'd have to respect Palin's intellectual 'choice' that abortion is murder. The only 'choice' NOW is really interested in is retaining the 'choice' for women (and more correctly, men) to live as promiscuously as they want, because they're always the 'choice' to eliminate the proof of those 'choices'. The reason they don't get that explicit is because if they did, they'd sound like A FREAKY CAMILLE PAGLIA, outwardly recognizing abortion as murder, and recognizing others have the right to opinions, but just flat out ignoring all reason publically.
All NOW is really interested in is promoting the pro-abort, anti-real woman agenda. And now they've been put into a position where this is painfully obvious. Well, to those of us listening.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Up Next: Pelosi Explains Humanae Vitae
How do these people honestly hold their head up?
Above his payscale? The Church is not aware of the point at which life begins and therefore that's not what matters?
Here's Pelosi's (and Obama's) actual comments:
Perhaps if Pelosi doesn't want to read actual Church documents, she could include this reading in her 'extensive study on the issue': "Abortion: The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective" by Fr. John Connery:
Above his payscale? The Church is not aware of the point at which life begins and therefore that's not what matters?
Here's Pelosi's (and Obama's) actual comments:
Perhaps if Pelosi doesn't want to read actual Church documents, she could include this reading in her 'extensive study on the issue': "Abortion: The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective" by Fr. John Connery:
"The Christian tradition from the earliest days reveals a firm antiabortion attitude . . . The condemnation of abortion did not depend on and was not limited in any way by theories regarding the time of fetal animation. Even during the many centuries when Church penal and penitential practice was based on the theory of delayed animation, the condemnation of abortion was never affected by it. Whatever one would want to hold about the time of animation, or when the fetus became a human being in the strict sense of the term abortion from the time of conception was considered wrong, and the time of animation was never looked on as a moral dividing line between permissible and impermissible abortion."I really need to stop following politics, because it's leading me to some pretty hateful thoughts. Although, I did really enjoy seeing both Pelosi and Obama get drymouth while making up their responses on the spot. They were both clearly nervous. This is a good thing, as even the most ardent murderers are now showing weakness in their confidence in falsehood. There's hope...
Or to put it in the blunter words of the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer:
"Destruction of the embryo in the mother's womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed on this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder."
Monday, August 25, 2008
Beastly is only sin deep
THIS KIND OF CRAP is why I'm so serious all the time.
...'And for the talent competition, Sister Rufina will be making rosaries in a dazzling habit of black and white sequins to the music of Neil Young's "Natural Beauty"'.
I used to think Fellini's 'ecclesiastical fashion show' in his movie "Roma" was satire, but I guess it was actually prophecy.
Here's the clip in case you haven't wasted 2 hours of your life to see the rest of the movie:
...'And for the talent competition, Sister Rufina will be making rosaries in a dazzling habit of black and white sequins to the music of Neil Young's "Natural Beauty"'.
I used to think Fellini's 'ecclesiastical fashion show' in his movie "Roma" was satire, but I guess it was actually prophecy.
Here's the clip in case you haven't wasted 2 hours of your life to see the rest of the movie:
Friday, July 25, 2008
Thank You, Pope Paul VI!
Today is an interesting day. As Catholics around the world are celebrating the 40th anniversary of HUMANAE VITAE the rest of the secular world is celebrating the wonders of modern scientific fertility, as the world's first test tube baby TURNS 30 TODAY.
The irony of this connection is just too much for me. Humanae Vitae, one of the greatest works on the dignity of the human person, is altogether overlooked even by Catholics, while polls show the majority of Catholics in America are 'for artificial insemination as well as contraception'.
I'm reminded of a woman I once met who was a 'serious Catholic' and yet worked in a fertility clinic promoting un-natural fertility and yet denying the natural. She had never read Humanae Vitae. Sure, she personally hated abortion. Sure, she would never advocate euthanasia. She herself didn't see the harm in promoting life through In Vitro Fertilization, but wouldn't do it herself. She personally got nearly everything right, but like most who pass the big stuff and miss the minor points, missed what Humanae Vitae didn't: personhood and its consequent relationship to contraception.
As soon as contraception is introduced into society, SO IT GOES, so does human dignity. Allow the Pill and soon you'll be aborting the young and killing the elderly. They are invalid. Invalid in the sense of GATTACA. Make the control over fertility commonplace, and then people become a commodity. That is where we're at today. We weren't in 1968, at least not quite.
And the Church knows that DISSENT FROM THE TEACHINGS of Humanae Vitae is at the root of many of our problems today. According to Cardinal James F. Stafford:
The irony of this connection is just too much for me. Humanae Vitae, one of the greatest works on the dignity of the human person, is altogether overlooked even by Catholics, while polls show the majority of Catholics in America are 'for artificial insemination as well as contraception'.I'm reminded of a woman I once met who was a 'serious Catholic' and yet worked in a fertility clinic promoting un-natural fertility and yet denying the natural. She had never read Humanae Vitae. Sure, she personally hated abortion. Sure, she would never advocate euthanasia. She herself didn't see the harm in promoting life through In Vitro Fertilization, but wouldn't do it herself. She personally got nearly everything right, but like most who pass the big stuff and miss the minor points, missed what Humanae Vitae didn't: personhood and its consequent relationship to contraception.
As soon as contraception is introduced into society, SO IT GOES, so does human dignity. Allow the Pill and soon you'll be aborting the young and killing the elderly. They are invalid. Invalid in the sense of GATTACA. Make the control over fertility commonplace, and then people become a commodity. That is where we're at today. We weren't in 1968, at least not quite.
And the Church knows that DISSENT FROM THE TEACHINGS of Humanae Vitae is at the root of many of our problems today. According to Cardinal James F. Stafford:
"The deadliest thing to hit the Catholic in the last 40 years, he says, was not the encyclical which reiterated the Church's stand against contraception - but the dissent from it."Catholics the world over would do themselves a great favor by reading and internalizing Humanae Vitae. And then maybe we'd be back in the driver's seat when it comes to directing the world in human dignity issues, rather than being those freaks who listen to pedophiles on the weekend and get artificially inseminated during the week. And then we might have fewer pedophiles and women infertile because of long term contraceptive use.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
lesbians 1, Lesbians 0
I thought that you would like an update on THIS post a couple of months ago. (and when I say 'you' I'd like to mean it in the plural, but I fear the truth) It seems that those Cretans who call themselves judges in Greece's court system DECIDED AGAINST the residents of the island of Lesbos who were trying to reserve the adjective 'lesbian' to those people who are actually residents of Lesbos.
Interesting note to remind us to act charitably: 'cretin', or stupid person, deformed of the mind or body, is from the Swiss French 'crestin', which in turn is from the Latin 'Christianus'. This was to remind people that those unfortunately deformed or dumb were nevertheless human and not beasts.
So I mean it in all charity that those stupid, psychotic and socially undermining lesbian cretins are ruining my language. But yes, they're as human as the judges aren't. Same thing goes for the FOOLS MISLEADING South Carolina. "So Gay?"
Interesting note to remind us to act charitably: 'cretin', or stupid person, deformed of the mind or body, is from the Swiss French 'crestin', which in turn is from the Latin 'Christianus'. This was to remind people that those unfortunately deformed or dumb were nevertheless human and not beasts.
So I mean it in all charity that those stupid, psychotic and socially undermining lesbian cretins are ruining my language. But yes, they're as human as the judges aren't. Same thing goes for the FOOLS MISLEADING South Carolina. "So Gay?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
