As I get ready to cast my 12th vote for the presidency, I've been thinking in political snapshots. The scrapbook in my mind is a big one, because politics was always one of the really important subjects in our house when I was growing up. That was probably true in a lot of homes, but my family is Irish and you know how the Irish are. They love to fight, and really, what is a political campaign but a huge, knock down, drag out fight?
The first picture in that book is a rather tattered and yellowed one from the year 1948. It's of two girls in a noisy old iron bed, one six, the other twelve. It's the middle of the night, but voices from the other room keeping waking them up. The twelve-year old, Peggy, wants her Dad to come in to tell her who is winning. She's a pretty intense young lady, a lot like her father. The six-year old knows that she should be worried if Harry Truman doesn't win, if some guy named Dewey becomes president. When Daddy hasn't been to bed all night, it's pretty obvious that this is a very big deal. From the door, he tells Peggy that nothing is decided yet, and that she needs to say a prayer and go back to sleep. When the two girls wake up in the morning, all is right with the world. The man named Truman has surprised everyone and won.
The picture from 1952 is little different, of a dour looking family in the tiny kitchen of an apartment reading the Globe-Democrat's joyful announcement that Eisenhower has been elected president. The fact that the Globe-Democrat is happy about it is a definite clue that it's not good for us. Even at ten, I knew that the Globe was a "Republican rag", so, of course, that would be happy that the little man from Illinois, Adlai Stevenson, who spoke so beautifully, had been defeated. The paper seemed especially gleeful that twenty years of Democratic rule had come to an end. This all came as a big surprise to me at ten. From everything I'd heard the Democrats were the good guys and the Republicans were the bad guys.
The 1960s has so many little photos, one of the handsome Irishman running for office. God, he was beautiful and Catholic, just like me. There's another one of a really nasty flier stuffed under the doors in the very Jewish neighborhood where we lived. It said that John Kennedy's father, Joe, was a Nazi sympathizer who wanted to appease Hitler, thus helping to get millions of Jews killed. Daddy said it's what you'd expect from Nixon, who had run an especially nasty campaign against Helen Geohegan Douglas back in California years ago. He was a bastard, my Dad said. Even Eisenhower didn't seem to like him much. As usual, when it came to politics, my father turned out to be 110 percent correct. Nixon certainly was a bastard.
I need to take a good look at that photo; it's the very first piece of dirty tricks campaign literature I ever saw. Wasn't the last, though.
The pictures from the 1960s are interspersed with photos of a very nasty war being played out on our TV, of the tragic assassination of an inspirational leader By the time the 1968election came about, I could no longer even look at Lyndon Johnson because of all those pictures of death and dying. War, civil rights and more tragic assassinations. Martin Luther King shot... what an awful day that was. There's a picture of Eugene McCarthy, a senator who opposed the war and caused Lyndon Johnson to decide against another term. There's the very vivid picture of Bobby Kennedy leaving the ballroom in California and dying on the kitchen floor in the hotel where he was shot to death. Hubert Humphrey, the Happy Warrior when people were sick of war. Here's an older, "new" Nixon, with his hand held up in the V of Victory.....the "new" Nixon, who turned out to be exactly like the "old" Nixon.
The 70's pictures include one of George McGovern at a shopping center, my friend Ruth and I dragging six little kids to get a glimpse of "the next president of the United States", the one who would end the war in Vietnam. Alas, that was not to be. Just more of Nixon.
Tucked in among photos of the two major candidates is one of George Corley Wallace, an expecially nasty piece of humanity who got a lot of votes that year. Racism is not a pretty thing. The most heart-wrenching picture is of a little girl, also named Peggy, crying her eyes out on election night 1972 when McGovern lost. She was only seven and this was her first campaign loss. She took it very hard.
There are pictures from the Watergate hearings, very exciting pictures of democracy actually working. There's a shot of a disgraced Nixon stepping down, a picture of Gerald Ford taking the oath, a picture of Jimmy Carter riding right past us in a limo while campaigning in St.Louis. There are pictures of Ronald Reagan, one of George Herbert Walker Bush, one of Michael Dukakis, of course, one of Willie Horton, a black man who turned out to be the first Bush's very best friend. I see Bill Clinton, former Governor of Arkansas making a speech on C-Span. Five minutes into it, I knew that this was a guy that I could support. Great political photos from the 90s, if you are a Democrat.
The 21st century just shows one photo after another of a smirking, dim looking guy who is, astonishingly, the President of the United States of America. Here's a picture of him rousing the masses after a nasty, dishonorable attack on our country. This could be the only decent photo of the guy doing his job right. It's followed by a picture of me, my children, my friends, all marching against the invasion of Iraq. There's Ruth and her daughters, there's Mary Sue and her husband, my dear friend, Carol, and her daughter, there's my Peggy, my son, Dennis, and me. We are all walking down Delmar Boulevard in University City, peacefully protesting Iraq. It's one of my proudest pictures...shows I did my job well. Now,here's a funny one, Bush in a flight suit on a carrier declaring "Mission Accomplished", when, of course, it isn't.
So, now I am getting ready to cast my vote for president this twelfth time. I'm sure you can figure out who I'll be voting for. It's one of the proudest votes of my lifetime. It says a lot about where we are and where we may be going as a country. Not to be too corny, it speaks to HOPE. It's been one nasty campaign...the Democrats have run a clean and disciplined one, while the other side has been pretty much of a disgrace, sort of Nixon on steroids.
Here's hoping that the next photo I put into my political photo album is of a handsome young man smiling as he accepts his victory and takes on the huge task he has before him. May it be followed by photos of my country at peace, working with other countries to make the world a better place. My album is almost complete. I wouldn't be sad if these were a few of the last ones I'll ever add.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Where Do They Get These People?
Like so many others before me, I bitch about the media a lot. I am mystified as to how the people who are supposed to be covering the news are chosen. Most of the cable news readers seem to be attractive people, good readers, have nice capped teeth and terrific hair. Few offer much more.
When you look back at the history of American journalism, you see Woodward and Bernstein breaking the Watergate Scandal, The Boston Globe and the Catholic priest mess, the New York Times and the Pentagon Papers, just to name a few from the last 40years. There has been quality investigative reporting by local newspapers uncovering dangers to citizens' health, welfare and tax dollars. The press has been a positive force in American life that keeps government, business and people honest.
I've been doing my family's genealogy for the past 10 years or so. This type of research requires reading old newspapers looking for birth, death and marriage notices. In the course of this browsing, I've looked at newspapers going back 165 years in this country. The striking thing is that they actually reported real news. To be fair, they also reported lots of sensational stories about wives who drank acid to commit suicide, murders and mayhem in the streets. However, there was in-depth coverage of real stories about government, full texts of laws that had been enacted, stories on tariffs, legislative wrongdoing, what local governments were doing day-to-day. Editorials came with the political sympathies of the newspaper written there for all to read. None of this Mickey Mouse "balance" on the editorial page. If you didn't like the views of the management, then find another paper.
Since few subscribe to the newspaper anymore, we can only compare the in-depth coverage by yesterday's newspapers with today's cable outlets. The comparison is not one that should comfort anyone who actually wants to know what's going on in this country.
Let's see....there's the car chase on a California freeway. There's the lost child or the horrendous family murder or bus/train wreck. There's news about some Hollywood person that most of us couldn't name under penalty of death. Presently, this is followed by snippets from the various presidential and vice-presidential candidates on the road. The blurb chosen is almost always a personal attack on an opponent. This is moved to the lead story if it's really a new and truly nasty accusation.
Let's face it, though. When have you heard one of these nicely coiffed, surgically enhanced men and women give you the latest plan for the economy by either candidate? How about an update on a new educational policy? Do you think that what the candidates are saying about the Middle East and diplomacy could be helpful before you vote in three weeks? Well, you're not going to get that on CNN Headline News, MSNBC, or Fox, that' for sure.
The reasons for this are two-fold. First, reporters at these outlets would need to do some actual investigative work in order to procure the real stories. It can't just be Candy Crowley getting off the bus and spouting the McCain talking point of the day. It would mean doing some fact-checking to see if that talking point had merit. It would mean not reporting some Drudge Report rumor as truth, then supporting it with repeats of the same rumor picked up by more internet sights. Today's reporters seem too busy being mini-celebrities to go out and do any leg-work. Better to rely on some campaign insider with an agenda.
The second reason we get this type of desultory news coverage is that we deserve it.
Yes, indeedy, we do. We can't concentrate long enough to listen to something as boring as someone's foreign policy plan; that could cut into valuable reality-show viewing. This rather large failing is one reason that we are governed so poorly. We didn't ask for better coverage as W dismantled constitutional protections to privacy. Most of us didn't understand what this adminstration was doing...and didn't want to take the time to find out. The same goes for the sinkhole that we call the War in Iraq. No disturbing pictures of dead American soldiers or Iraqi civilians. We went right along with the plan to keep those nasty images out of sight.
So, the cable networks, after what was, undoubtedly, a marathon of focus groups, decided to give us what we want . Instead of knowing what was going on in our country for the past eight years, we've spent a lot of time on Anna Nichole Smith, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Brad and Angelina, John Edward's $400 haircut, whether Hillary is too pushy, inportant topics like these.
We're in a pickle now, but there is a way out. We can insist on better coverage, and complain when we don't get it. Every one of these networks has a website. We can start yelling until we get better coverage, or turn off the set and read. The newspapers and the internet are fine sources for the information we need as citizens. We can stop settling for a bunch of beatiful people reading us "quasi-news" and find the real answers ourselves. Who knows? The cable news stations might come to miss us and start doing the kind of jobs they should have been doing all along.
When you look back at the history of American journalism, you see Woodward and Bernstein breaking the Watergate Scandal, The Boston Globe and the Catholic priest mess, the New York Times and the Pentagon Papers, just to name a few from the last 40years. There has been quality investigative reporting by local newspapers uncovering dangers to citizens' health, welfare and tax dollars. The press has been a positive force in American life that keeps government, business and people honest.
I've been doing my family's genealogy for the past 10 years or so. This type of research requires reading old newspapers looking for birth, death and marriage notices. In the course of this browsing, I've looked at newspapers going back 165 years in this country. The striking thing is that they actually reported real news. To be fair, they also reported lots of sensational stories about wives who drank acid to commit suicide, murders and mayhem in the streets. However, there was in-depth coverage of real stories about government, full texts of laws that had been enacted, stories on tariffs, legislative wrongdoing, what local governments were doing day-to-day. Editorials came with the political sympathies of the newspaper written there for all to read. None of this Mickey Mouse "balance" on the editorial page. If you didn't like the views of the management, then find another paper.
Since few subscribe to the newspaper anymore, we can only compare the in-depth coverage by yesterday's newspapers with today's cable outlets. The comparison is not one that should comfort anyone who actually wants to know what's going on in this country.
Let's see....there's the car chase on a California freeway. There's the lost child or the horrendous family murder or bus/train wreck. There's news about some Hollywood person that most of us couldn't name under penalty of death. Presently, this is followed by snippets from the various presidential and vice-presidential candidates on the road. The blurb chosen is almost always a personal attack on an opponent. This is moved to the lead story if it's really a new and truly nasty accusation.
Let's face it, though. When have you heard one of these nicely coiffed, surgically enhanced men and women give you the latest plan for the economy by either candidate? How about an update on a new educational policy? Do you think that what the candidates are saying about the Middle East and diplomacy could be helpful before you vote in three weeks? Well, you're not going to get that on CNN Headline News, MSNBC, or Fox, that' for sure.
The reasons for this are two-fold. First, reporters at these outlets would need to do some actual investigative work in order to procure the real stories. It can't just be Candy Crowley getting off the bus and spouting the McCain talking point of the day. It would mean doing some fact-checking to see if that talking point had merit. It would mean not reporting some Drudge Report rumor as truth, then supporting it with repeats of the same rumor picked up by more internet sights. Today's reporters seem too busy being mini-celebrities to go out and do any leg-work. Better to rely on some campaign insider with an agenda.
The second reason we get this type of desultory news coverage is that we deserve it.
Yes, indeedy, we do. We can't concentrate long enough to listen to something as boring as someone's foreign policy plan; that could cut into valuable reality-show viewing. This rather large failing is one reason that we are governed so poorly. We didn't ask for better coverage as W dismantled constitutional protections to privacy. Most of us didn't understand what this adminstration was doing...and didn't want to take the time to find out. The same goes for the sinkhole that we call the War in Iraq. No disturbing pictures of dead American soldiers or Iraqi civilians. We went right along with the plan to keep those nasty images out of sight.
So, the cable networks, after what was, undoubtedly, a marathon of focus groups, decided to give us what we want . Instead of knowing what was going on in our country for the past eight years, we've spent a lot of time on Anna Nichole Smith, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Brad and Angelina, John Edward's $400 haircut, whether Hillary is too pushy, inportant topics like these.
We're in a pickle now, but there is a way out. We can insist on better coverage, and complain when we don't get it. Every one of these networks has a website. We can start yelling until we get better coverage, or turn off the set and read. The newspapers and the internet are fine sources for the information we need as citizens. We can stop settling for a bunch of beatiful people reading us "quasi-news" and find the real answers ourselves. Who knows? The cable news stations might come to miss us and start doing the kind of jobs they should have been doing all along.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
And That Was The Week That Was
It was a wild and wooly ride, the week that was. It included a financial crisis that it's probably best so few of us understand. There were congressional all-nighters in an attempt to solve in a few days a problem that has been festering for months, possibly years. This was followed by the obligatory blame-game among governmental leaders that, as taxpayers, we pay our good money to hear during and after each crisis. There followed a resolution, of sorts. Finally, came the culmination of a week of political manuevering, The Vice-Presidential Debate.
Let's look at the financial crisis, as much as we would prefer not to. Like John McCain, I don't really understand economics much. I don't even balance the family checkbook, apparently also like McCain. The one thing I've always said about our nation's economy, though, is that most of us would cut back on buying big ticket items for our families if our salaries were cut. So, it seems crazy that we have attempted to cut taxes while waging a major and expensive war. Yet, that is what the Bush Administration chose to do. They cut taxes needed to pay for a war that they estimated would cost us about $80 billion. If the war had actually cost that much, cutting taxes may not have hurt the country. Since the real cost is probably somewhere between half a trillion and a trillion dollars, we'll never be able to calculate what effect a "measly" $80 billion dollar war would have had.
Oh well, easy come, easy go. So taxes were cut by that brilliant MBA that's been running the country for the past 8 years, and expenses for war escalated. In fact, we're looking for more places to wage war and spend money....brilliant stewardship there, George. Heckuva job, Georgie.
So, after hocking our children's futures to pay for mayhem, Washington managed to combine this folly with looking the other way while Congress and this administration allowed every lobbyist in Washington to earn a bonus by finding new ways to rip off the people. Whether on golf vacations, trips to the casinos, evening and weekends spent in luxury, we allowed lobbyists to bribe the people's representatives into giving away any and all protections we had against their greedy clients. This practice is called deregulation. Lobbyists talked legistlators and presidents into relaxing the only protections we had against thievery, and they robbed us blind. No one could have seen that coming, unless of course, he or she had ever read a history book.
If all of this sounds a little strong, it is merely the unvarnished truth. The gravest insult and injury to the American people is that now that these hyenas have stripped our carcasses, so to speak, we are now going to need to help them digest the meal they've made of the economy. We must now rescue them from their own gluttony and vices.
I am one of those who feel that the bailout/rescue is probably necessary...though it shouldn't have been. We have to go through with it because our personal financial futures and the future of the worldwide economy are so intertwined with the fate of the Wall Street thieves and their minions, that we'll all go down together. It shouldn've have been necessary because Wall Street investors assumed much risk to make maximum profit. They got the government to sanction the risks they were taking. Then when their bet didn't work out, they want a bailout. Casinos don't work that way, but it looks as if our government must. Hope it works, because it is the most expensive lesson this country will ever have to learn.
When all was accomplished, we had the spectacle of the finger-pointing. It was fun to watch the Republicans, the stewards of the country's economy low these many years, trying to blame this on poor people in general and an obscure loan program in particular. Hard to believe that could be the only cause of this mess, when you look at the expensive homes from coast-to-coast that sit in foreclosure next to little bungalows. If all the foreclosures were caused by poor people defaulting, we've got some pretty crafty poor folks out there.
Lastly, we were treated to more of The Palin Phenomenon. Pundits, who mere days before, were calling for her resignation are now singing her praises....not because she had a command of, or even an understanding of, major policies. Peggy Noonan, Pat Buchanan and others on the right are so proud of her because she was warm, cuddly and made a connection with the people. So does a warm puppy, but let's not elect one to the vice-presidency under a very sick old man. It certainly doesn't take much to impress the right...they loved Bush. Need I say more?
The Republicans have decided to take the gloves off and go after Obama's character for the next 30 days. I don't blame them at all. They have no programs to get us back on track, so why not make the opponent look like a terrorist or worse?
I'm done with the week that was. The next week doesn't appear to be any more restful...but it couldn't get worse. Could it?
Let's look at the financial crisis, as much as we would prefer not to. Like John McCain, I don't really understand economics much. I don't even balance the family checkbook, apparently also like McCain. The one thing I've always said about our nation's economy, though, is that most of us would cut back on buying big ticket items for our families if our salaries were cut. So, it seems crazy that we have attempted to cut taxes while waging a major and expensive war. Yet, that is what the Bush Administration chose to do. They cut taxes needed to pay for a war that they estimated would cost us about $80 billion. If the war had actually cost that much, cutting taxes may not have hurt the country. Since the real cost is probably somewhere between half a trillion and a trillion dollars, we'll never be able to calculate what effect a "measly" $80 billion dollar war would have had.
Oh well, easy come, easy go. So taxes were cut by that brilliant MBA that's been running the country for the past 8 years, and expenses for war escalated. In fact, we're looking for more places to wage war and spend money....brilliant stewardship there, George. Heckuva job, Georgie.
So, after hocking our children's futures to pay for mayhem, Washington managed to combine this folly with looking the other way while Congress and this administration allowed every lobbyist in Washington to earn a bonus by finding new ways to rip off the people. Whether on golf vacations, trips to the casinos, evening and weekends spent in luxury, we allowed lobbyists to bribe the people's representatives into giving away any and all protections we had against their greedy clients. This practice is called deregulation. Lobbyists talked legistlators and presidents into relaxing the only protections we had against thievery, and they robbed us blind. No one could have seen that coming, unless of course, he or she had ever read a history book.
If all of this sounds a little strong, it is merely the unvarnished truth. The gravest insult and injury to the American people is that now that these hyenas have stripped our carcasses, so to speak, we are now going to need to help them digest the meal they've made of the economy. We must now rescue them from their own gluttony and vices.
I am one of those who feel that the bailout/rescue is probably necessary...though it shouldn't have been. We have to go through with it because our personal financial futures and the future of the worldwide economy are so intertwined with the fate of the Wall Street thieves and their minions, that we'll all go down together. It shouldn've have been necessary because Wall Street investors assumed much risk to make maximum profit. They got the government to sanction the risks they were taking. Then when their bet didn't work out, they want a bailout. Casinos don't work that way, but it looks as if our government must. Hope it works, because it is the most expensive lesson this country will ever have to learn.
When all was accomplished, we had the spectacle of the finger-pointing. It was fun to watch the Republicans, the stewards of the country's economy low these many years, trying to blame this on poor people in general and an obscure loan program in particular. Hard to believe that could be the only cause of this mess, when you look at the expensive homes from coast-to-coast that sit in foreclosure next to little bungalows. If all the foreclosures were caused by poor people defaulting, we've got some pretty crafty poor folks out there.
Lastly, we were treated to more of The Palin Phenomenon. Pundits, who mere days before, were calling for her resignation are now singing her praises....not because she had a command of, or even an understanding of, major policies. Peggy Noonan, Pat Buchanan and others on the right are so proud of her because she was warm, cuddly and made a connection with the people. So does a warm puppy, but let's not elect one to the vice-presidency under a very sick old man. It certainly doesn't take much to impress the right...they loved Bush. Need I say more?
The Republicans have decided to take the gloves off and go after Obama's character for the next 30 days. I don't blame them at all. They have no programs to get us back on track, so why not make the opponent look like a terrorist or worse?
I'm done with the week that was. The next week doesn't appear to be any more restful...but it couldn't get worse. Could it?
Thursday, September 25, 2008
McCain and the Fire Drill
John McCain is a decorated war hero. We all know that because we're told that every day. John McCain already has all the right tools needed to run this country. I've seen his ads, and they all indicate that he's the man with the plan. He may be a tad vague on the details, and on a lot of other things for that matter, but I've been listening to all that the maverick is sending my way. It's rather hard to take it all in, though, as we watch his entire campaign melt down faster than a mortgage-backed security. This campaign looks like the milling around of kids in a classroom when the teacher is out and the fire bell rings.
Let's talk about his campaign manager, Rick Davis. He is or, maybe, is not with a firm that gets thousands of dollars monthly from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for doing nothing. He quit in 2006....he quit last month. They have done no work for theses entities, yet are on a retainer. They are being paid for their access to John McCain. John tells one story....the New York Times tells another. John is on TV vouching for this man's integrity when he doesn't have the full story or just lies about the guy's involvement. Either way, this is not a good thing and indicates poor communication inside the campaign.
Then there's his running mate. I think we've all seen her. Perhaps we haven't any idea of what she's actually about, but we've seen her. Cute as a button she is, and incapable of making it through an interview with the likes of Charlie Gibson or Katie Couric, two former morning show hosts, without serious gaffes. I mean, unless I'm missing some inner intelligence that she's intentionally hiding, the lady is hopeless. It's not as if Katie and Charlie are playing Stump the Candidate in their interviews with any of these guys, and she failed to impress on any level. As with every other aspect of this campaign, what are they really trying to do to and with this woman? If they are trying to allay our fears about her leadership ability, it ain't workin'. If they are trying to make her look vice-presidential....dear God. My deepest suspicion is that there is no actual plan of how to use her....that she was and is a stunt. That doesn't speak well of this campaign.
Now we come to the Maverick's handling of serious issues. He cancels conventions because of bad weather a half-continent away. He reassures us about the economy that he told us only months ago he really doesn't understand. Several days later, he's the grim reaper on the same economy and he's back to cancelling things again. This time he's cancelling the debates that many voters use as serious tools to decide who should be running this country. His return to Washington seems to be designed to ease our worries about the economy, as John takes over and repairs things for us. Yet, no one seems very reassured by this bi-polar reaction to all the things that are frightening the American people today.
It seems to be another indication of a campaign that hasn't prepared the candidate well enough for a debate with a pretty impressive opponent. It also doesn't look very tough and presidential.
If all this weren't frenetic enough, today John, who suspended his campaign appearances to get back to Washington to solve our problem for us, is having a sit-down with George Bush, who is the author of all our turmoil. Should the campaign even be allowing McCain in the same building with Bush? Doesn't that merely remind everyone in the country which party has been minding the store horribly for the past eight years? Here's hoping they get a really good shot of him giving George a big wet one on the lips. John and George are even dragging Barack Obama into this useless photo-op that will solve nothing. The real work of trying to sort this mess out has already been done, or will be accomplished by folks who actually handle these things daily, for a living.
Watching all this I have come up with three alternatives as to why this campaign is so terribly screwed up. First, perhaps Karl Rove really is running this one, and McCain's people have some wonderfully nasty surprise left for us in October. Second, it could be that John McCain is running this himself and is such a stubborn old coot that he's going to screw it up all by himself. Lastly, and I suspect that this is really the case, everyone is running this campaign. It has that piece-meal, everything by the seat of the pants feel of desperate people throwing things up against the wall and hoping for something to just hang there for a day or two. People are running in all directions, accomplishing nothing, frightened and frightening....sort of like, well, a fire drill.
Hey, it may work. The low information voters are out there, and they don't analyze this stuff as much as we do. He might just pull this thing out.
But, God, this is terrible campaigning....and an even worse way to run a country.
Let's talk about his campaign manager, Rick Davis. He is or, maybe, is not with a firm that gets thousands of dollars monthly from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for doing nothing. He quit in 2006....he quit last month. They have done no work for theses entities, yet are on a retainer. They are being paid for their access to John McCain. John tells one story....the New York Times tells another. John is on TV vouching for this man's integrity when he doesn't have the full story or just lies about the guy's involvement. Either way, this is not a good thing and indicates poor communication inside the campaign.
Then there's his running mate. I think we've all seen her. Perhaps we haven't any idea of what she's actually about, but we've seen her. Cute as a button she is, and incapable of making it through an interview with the likes of Charlie Gibson or Katie Couric, two former morning show hosts, without serious gaffes. I mean, unless I'm missing some inner intelligence that she's intentionally hiding, the lady is hopeless. It's not as if Katie and Charlie are playing Stump the Candidate in their interviews with any of these guys, and she failed to impress on any level. As with every other aspect of this campaign, what are they really trying to do to and with this woman? If they are trying to allay our fears about her leadership ability, it ain't workin'. If they are trying to make her look vice-presidential....dear God. My deepest suspicion is that there is no actual plan of how to use her....that she was and is a stunt. That doesn't speak well of this campaign.
Now we come to the Maverick's handling of serious issues. He cancels conventions because of bad weather a half-continent away. He reassures us about the economy that he told us only months ago he really doesn't understand. Several days later, he's the grim reaper on the same economy and he's back to cancelling things again. This time he's cancelling the debates that many voters use as serious tools to decide who should be running this country. His return to Washington seems to be designed to ease our worries about the economy, as John takes over and repairs things for us. Yet, no one seems very reassured by this bi-polar reaction to all the things that are frightening the American people today.
It seems to be another indication of a campaign that hasn't prepared the candidate well enough for a debate with a pretty impressive opponent. It also doesn't look very tough and presidential.
If all this weren't frenetic enough, today John, who suspended his campaign appearances to get back to Washington to solve our problem for us, is having a sit-down with George Bush, who is the author of all our turmoil. Should the campaign even be allowing McCain in the same building with Bush? Doesn't that merely remind everyone in the country which party has been minding the store horribly for the past eight years? Here's hoping they get a really good shot of him giving George a big wet one on the lips. John and George are even dragging Barack Obama into this useless photo-op that will solve nothing. The real work of trying to sort this mess out has already been done, or will be accomplished by folks who actually handle these things daily, for a living.
Watching all this I have come up with three alternatives as to why this campaign is so terribly screwed up. First, perhaps Karl Rove really is running this one, and McCain's people have some wonderfully nasty surprise left for us in October. Second, it could be that John McCain is running this himself and is such a stubborn old coot that he's going to screw it up all by himself. Lastly, and I suspect that this is really the case, everyone is running this campaign. It has that piece-meal, everything by the seat of the pants feel of desperate people throwing things up against the wall and hoping for something to just hang there for a day or two. People are running in all directions, accomplishing nothing, frightened and frightening....sort of like, well, a fire drill.
Hey, it may work. The low information voters are out there, and they don't analyze this stuff as much as we do. He might just pull this thing out.
But, God, this is terrible campaigning....and an even worse way to run a country.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Let's Run That By Todd
Sarah Palin's selling card is that she's a competent executive who has run a town and now, a state. Alaska isn't California, but still, it is a state she's running. Sarah and the GOP throw that word competent around as if they are trying to convince themselves that she's the real thing. Perhaps, she is the real thing; but there is a nagging concern in the back of my brain.
Why was Governor Palin carbon copying her husband on state e-mails? Is that something that is pretty common place? Did Mitt Romney cc his wife on state issues when he was governor of Massachusetts? Does Arnold run the e-mails about the California budget crisis past Maria Shriver to get her input and approval? I'm just a little bewildered about all this.
Todd Palin's a cutie and he races a mean snowmobile. However,shouldn't Alaskans be a little concerned whether Sarah feels all that comfortable in her position as the state's Chief Executive when she needs to see what Todd thinks about the day-to-day operations of their state?
For all of us, this could present a problem. Let's face it. John McCain just turned 72. His health is not the best, and his years of POW imprisonment can't have done him any good. Palin could be called upon to serve as our president sooner rather than later. Will she be able to make decisions without checking with her husband? What if he's out snowmobile racing or fishing or shooting moose? Will those decisions have to be put on hold until the Sercret Service can get him back, or until he's checked his e-mails, at least? Just curious.
Why was Governor Palin carbon copying her husband on state e-mails? Is that something that is pretty common place? Did Mitt Romney cc his wife on state issues when he was governor of Massachusetts? Does Arnold run the e-mails about the California budget crisis past Maria Shriver to get her input and approval? I'm just a little bewildered about all this.
Todd Palin's a cutie and he races a mean snowmobile. However,shouldn't Alaskans be a little concerned whether Sarah feels all that comfortable in her position as the state's Chief Executive when she needs to see what Todd thinks about the day-to-day operations of their state?
For all of us, this could present a problem. Let's face it. John McCain just turned 72. His health is not the best, and his years of POW imprisonment can't have done him any good. Palin could be called upon to serve as our president sooner rather than later. Will she be able to make decisions without checking with her husband? What if he's out snowmobile racing or fishing or shooting moose? Will those decisions have to be put on hold until the Sercret Service can get him back, or until he's checked his e-mails, at least? Just curious.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Sarah Palin: Where Have I Met Her Before?
As I watched Sarah Palin work the crowd at the Republican Convention, I kept trying to remember where I had met her before. She looks and sounds so familiar to me. I'm getting older now, and can't always place all the people I've met over the years.
Then it dawned on me. She was the really cute and successful real estate agent I had a couple of transactions with during my career. Pretty and perky, she sold lots of houses, mostly to men who seemed very taken with her. As I remember, she was a big smiler, but beneath that smile was a really tough negotiator. In real estate, this can be a good thing, if you know what you are negotiating about. Unfortunately, Sarah was a little vague on contract law and time essences. She just did her own thing and made lots of bucks. Her manager answered all the lawsuit questions that came up later, and her malpractice insurance was frighteningly high.
Then I looked at her again and realized that isn't who she was. I kept trying to place her and came up with it, I thought. She was the area Tupperware Sales Manager, who got me, in a moment of weakness and some financial concern, to sign up as a distributor. I remembered her daily calls to see if I had been calling my Golden One Hundred closest friends trying to book some parties. I remember, too, how quickly I regretted my decision to try this. Well, she does look just like that lady, but I realized that, no, that wasn't her.
Then, I finally placed her for sure. She was the president of the Women's Service Club I joined when I was still a stay-at-home mom. She's the lady who talked us all into doing a Christmas Bazaar and making hundreds of hand-crafted items. We met every week from September until mid-November, making pine-cone wreaths, clothespin Santas, mongrammed tree skirts, sequin-coated ornaments. It was a shame that Sarah couldn't be there with us more, but she always seemed to have some other more pressing appointment on our workdays.
It's hard when you are such an involved person to do all the things you'd like to do.
As I remember, Sarah was able to make the thank-you luncheon where she received a plaque for organizing the bazaar.
Now, she's running for vice-president of the United States, a heartbeat away from the office being sought by a somewhat elderly and not terribly well-looking John McCain.
Sarah, here's hoping that unlike your look-alike friends you take the time to learn the contracts and legalities involved in the job you are undertaking, don't use your authority to push folks around, and make sure that you have the time to do the job you are up for as well as taking care of your personal obligations. And just keep on giving them all that perky smile.
Then it dawned on me. She was the really cute and successful real estate agent I had a couple of transactions with during my career. Pretty and perky, she sold lots of houses, mostly to men who seemed very taken with her. As I remember, she was a big smiler, but beneath that smile was a really tough negotiator. In real estate, this can be a good thing, if you know what you are negotiating about. Unfortunately, Sarah was a little vague on contract law and time essences. She just did her own thing and made lots of bucks. Her manager answered all the lawsuit questions that came up later, and her malpractice insurance was frighteningly high.
Then I looked at her again and realized that isn't who she was. I kept trying to place her and came up with it, I thought. She was the area Tupperware Sales Manager, who got me, in a moment of weakness and some financial concern, to sign up as a distributor. I remembered her daily calls to see if I had been calling my Golden One Hundred closest friends trying to book some parties. I remember, too, how quickly I regretted my decision to try this. Well, she does look just like that lady, but I realized that, no, that wasn't her.
Then, I finally placed her for sure. She was the president of the Women's Service Club I joined when I was still a stay-at-home mom. She's the lady who talked us all into doing a Christmas Bazaar and making hundreds of hand-crafted items. We met every week from September until mid-November, making pine-cone wreaths, clothespin Santas, mongrammed tree skirts, sequin-coated ornaments. It was a shame that Sarah couldn't be there with us more, but she always seemed to have some other more pressing appointment on our workdays.
It's hard when you are such an involved person to do all the things you'd like to do.
As I remember, Sarah was able to make the thank-you luncheon where she received a plaque for organizing the bazaar.
Now, she's running for vice-president of the United States, a heartbeat away from the office being sought by a somewhat elderly and not terribly well-looking John McCain.
Sarah, here's hoping that unlike your look-alike friends you take the time to learn the contracts and legalities involved in the job you are undertaking, don't use your authority to push folks around, and make sure that you have the time to do the job you are up for as well as taking care of your personal obligations. And just keep on giving them all that perky smile.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Let Me Introduce You To Dr. Palin
Here's a scenario for you. You have a very serious heart ailment and require immediate surgery. You have chosen one of the best surgeons in town because he has a reputation for getting the job done.
The doctor enters the operating room accompanied by another person. He introduces his companion as Dr. Sarah Palin, a recent graduate of medical school who has always wanted to be a heart surgeon. Before they put you under, he just wants you to know that should anything happen to him during your operation, this person will be there to take over.
There....now isn't that reassuring? What? No?
Well, that's what Dr. McCain just told you. and unfortunately for you, Dr. McCain isn't looking so healthy these days. Hey, good luck.
McCain's VP pick is utterly amazing on so many levels. Not only is this choice silly, the players are as well. The Palin selection makes every decision that John McCain makes from here until he retires from public life suspect. Here is a man with health so bad that he will not release his medical records to the public, and has only allowed a couple of journalists to look them over privately. If ever there's a red flag, this would be it. Apparently, John is under the impression that he will live forever and that this lady will never need to demonstrate whether she is up to the job or not.
Then there is the matter of Sarah Palin herself. She must be supremely confident in her own ability to even consider accepting the nomination. After all, if you or I were asked to serve as vice-president, I doubt that we'd accept. I, for one, would need years to learn the things I need to know just about foreign policy. Perhaps Sarah is counting on her new VP to help her learn on the job That would be....Nancy Pelosi. Yes, that should work well. Obama has Biden to advise him if he has questions on a world scale that need answering, and, if somehting were to happen to Obama, you would be left in the hands of Joe Biden. Not exactly the samething, is it?
If John McCain chose her to mollify the far-right wing of his party and get them out there voting, it will probably work. Well, it will probably work if the abortion issue, race and gun-rights trump job creation and their childrens' futures. But the cynicism and disdain this decision shows should make everyone, left and right, very nervous about this man.
As my Dad used to say, "We shall see what we shall see."
The doctor enters the operating room accompanied by another person. He introduces his companion as Dr. Sarah Palin, a recent graduate of medical school who has always wanted to be a heart surgeon. Before they put you under, he just wants you to know that should anything happen to him during your operation, this person will be there to take over.
There....now isn't that reassuring? What? No?
Well, that's what Dr. McCain just told you. and unfortunately for you, Dr. McCain isn't looking so healthy these days. Hey, good luck.
McCain's VP pick is utterly amazing on so many levels. Not only is this choice silly, the players are as well. The Palin selection makes every decision that John McCain makes from here until he retires from public life suspect. Here is a man with health so bad that he will not release his medical records to the public, and has only allowed a couple of journalists to look them over privately. If ever there's a red flag, this would be it. Apparently, John is under the impression that he will live forever and that this lady will never need to demonstrate whether she is up to the job or not.
Then there is the matter of Sarah Palin herself. She must be supremely confident in her own ability to even consider accepting the nomination. After all, if you or I were asked to serve as vice-president, I doubt that we'd accept. I, for one, would need years to learn the things I need to know just about foreign policy. Perhaps Sarah is counting on her new VP to help her learn on the job That would be....Nancy Pelosi. Yes, that should work well. Obama has Biden to advise him if he has questions on a world scale that need answering, and, if somehting were to happen to Obama, you would be left in the hands of Joe Biden. Not exactly the samething, is it?
If John McCain chose her to mollify the far-right wing of his party and get them out there voting, it will probably work. Well, it will probably work if the abortion issue, race and gun-rights trump job creation and their childrens' futures. But the cynicism and disdain this decision shows should make everyone, left and right, very nervous about this man.
As my Dad used to say, "We shall see what we shall see."
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Wanted: A President Who Is Smarter Than I Am
So many of the articles I read online question what virtues the average American is looking for in his or her president. There is often discussion as to whether the people want a really intelligent guy or one who is a "man of the people"....someone to identify with, sit down and shoot the bull. Many folks claim to want the kind of leader we could all sit down and have a beer with.
Well, count me out.
I don't want a fellow who is just one of us. "Us" is in a bad way at the moment. "Us" is up to our eyeballs in debt, in a pointless war, short on health insurance and good jobs. In other words, "Us" is sort of screwed right now and don't have a clue how to get "us" back on track.
I don't want to be the one to throw stones, folks, but this state of affairs came about because we have had two full terms of a president that lots of my fellow Americans thought would be a great guy to sit down and have a beer with.....
figuratively, of course, since he is a dry alcoholic.
This time out, I want to choose our president the same way we would choose our financial advisor, our surgeon, our teachers. You never hear people saying that they want a financial advisor or doctor they can have a beer with.
We don't care about the personalities of those who are performing vital services for us. My stockbroker can be a total jerk, my brain surgeon can a most unpleasant guy. No problem...just deliver on what you said you could do for me.....make me money, make me well.
I want the next president to be smart,certainly smarter than I am. I want someone who has a better idea of how to turn the country around than I do. The problems that the United States faces today loom large over all of us. I want a person who can start the fix. I'm not looking for a beer-drinking buddy. I don't drink, and even if I did, I can guarantee you that I will never be invited to have a beer with the next president, or any president for that matter.
So, as a nation, let's start thinking like good consumers. Let's demand the best of the best. Let's not let the media or the parties allow us to become embroiled in some side issues, or a discussion of which candidate seems like the nicer guy.
Let's get the most bang for our votes. Let's elect a president who is smarter than we are. Future generations of Americans will thank us.
Well, count me out.
I don't want a fellow who is just one of us. "Us" is in a bad way at the moment. "Us" is up to our eyeballs in debt, in a pointless war, short on health insurance and good jobs. In other words, "Us" is sort of screwed right now and don't have a clue how to get "us" back on track.
I don't want to be the one to throw stones, folks, but this state of affairs came about because we have had two full terms of a president that lots of my fellow Americans thought would be a great guy to sit down and have a beer with.....
figuratively, of course, since he is a dry alcoholic.
This time out, I want to choose our president the same way we would choose our financial advisor, our surgeon, our teachers. You never hear people saying that they want a financial advisor or doctor they can have a beer with.
We don't care about the personalities of those who are performing vital services for us. My stockbroker can be a total jerk, my brain surgeon can a most unpleasant guy. No problem...just deliver on what you said you could do for me.....make me money, make me well.
I want the next president to be smart,certainly smarter than I am. I want someone who has a better idea of how to turn the country around than I do. The problems that the United States faces today loom large over all of us. I want a person who can start the fix. I'm not looking for a beer-drinking buddy. I don't drink, and even if I did, I can guarantee you that I will never be invited to have a beer with the next president, or any president for that matter.
So, as a nation, let's start thinking like good consumers. Let's demand the best of the best. Let's not let the media or the parties allow us to become embroiled in some side issues, or a discussion of which candidate seems like the nicer guy.
Let's get the most bang for our votes. Let's elect a president who is smarter than we are. Future generations of Americans will thank us.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Why The MSM Is So Easy To Dislike
Hate is such a strong word. We're not supposed to hate vegetables, or clothes, or entertainment. We can dislike things, but we really shouldn't use the term hate. That's what my parents and teachers told me loudly and often as a child. But I have to say, God, it would be easy to say I hate the mainstream media these days.
I am very interested in this campaign for the Presidency of the United States. Actually, it's one of my main interests in life, kind of an obsession. I want to see the country squared away and on the right path before I get too old to care. So, daily, I click through the cable networks looking for the latest updates on what's going on in this much too long war of words. Instead of information, I encounter some of the sleaziest and laziest reporting in my memory by pundits who seem far more intent on impressing other pundits. Most have little interest in educating the public. They want only to show their fellow reporters what inside info they've gleaned at the last cocktail party they attended.
It is ever more clear that the Washington establishment and the press corp that covers it have settled down in some big feather bed together. None of the bed's occupants wants to crowd any of his or her bedmates, so nothing that would cause any discomfort gets reported to the poor schleps out here who are paying the rent on the room they all occupy.
That would be us, the taxpayers.
This unwillingness to actually report anything of import is compounded by the media's desire to appear "fair". What the hell does that mean? By this campaign's standards, it means that John McCain is outed for having 8 homes, then we must be sure to point out that Barack Obama made a lot of money last year. If we point out that John McCain doesn't seem to have a handle on the economy, we must point out that Obama got a low-rate loan on his home back in Chicago. Not quite the same thing, but, you know, it's fair.
Instead of concentrating on all the non-news items of this campaign, the press could restore some of its former dignity by forcing all parties to talk about something novel, like the issues.
I would like to hear about John McCain's plan to give us all a tax credit of up to $5000 to purchase health insurance. I want to hear how that's going to work for the folks who don't have the $5000 to purchase it in the first place....will he see to it that the government helps those people in some other way? I want to hear how Obama will fund his plan for health care. I want to hear how these guys plan to help end the job drain in this country. I would like to hear responsible media types discuss these matters, not the silly trivia and personality drivel so many of their members seem to thrive on. The MSM fears that we will all get bored and switch channels. Some viewers will. That's why there's a game show network, folk.
I hear interviews with candidates and their surrogates in which totally inaccurate and deceptive information is delivered by the pricipals and never challenged in any way. Is this because the interviewers are afraid they won't be able to get the guests back on their program or because they really don't know the correct answers to the questions so they can't challenge the guests? I have a sinking feeling that its a combination of both problems.
Edward R. Murrow, David Brinkley, Walter Cronkite, John Chancellor and Dan Rather would not have been afraid to ask the tough questions. And if they were given B.S. for answers they would have known and challenged the B.S. Like so many other things, those days are over and those figures gone.
Wake up, MSM. People are spending more and more time on the internet because you no longer satisfy. Man up and start doing your job. I promise that if you do, I'll try to only dislike you.
I am very interested in this campaign for the Presidency of the United States. Actually, it's one of my main interests in life, kind of an obsession. I want to see the country squared away and on the right path before I get too old to care. So, daily, I click through the cable networks looking for the latest updates on what's going on in this much too long war of words. Instead of information, I encounter some of the sleaziest and laziest reporting in my memory by pundits who seem far more intent on impressing other pundits. Most have little interest in educating the public. They want only to show their fellow reporters what inside info they've gleaned at the last cocktail party they attended.
It is ever more clear that the Washington establishment and the press corp that covers it have settled down in some big feather bed together. None of the bed's occupants wants to crowd any of his or her bedmates, so nothing that would cause any discomfort gets reported to the poor schleps out here who are paying the rent on the room they all occupy.
That would be us, the taxpayers.
This unwillingness to actually report anything of import is compounded by the media's desire to appear "fair". What the hell does that mean? By this campaign's standards, it means that John McCain is outed for having 8 homes, then we must be sure to point out that Barack Obama made a lot of money last year. If we point out that John McCain doesn't seem to have a handle on the economy, we must point out that Obama got a low-rate loan on his home back in Chicago. Not quite the same thing, but, you know, it's fair.
Instead of concentrating on all the non-news items of this campaign, the press could restore some of its former dignity by forcing all parties to talk about something novel, like the issues.
I would like to hear about John McCain's plan to give us all a tax credit of up to $5000 to purchase health insurance. I want to hear how that's going to work for the folks who don't have the $5000 to purchase it in the first place....will he see to it that the government helps those people in some other way? I want to hear how Obama will fund his plan for health care. I want to hear how these guys plan to help end the job drain in this country. I would like to hear responsible media types discuss these matters, not the silly trivia and personality drivel so many of their members seem to thrive on. The MSM fears that we will all get bored and switch channels. Some viewers will. That's why there's a game show network, folk.
I hear interviews with candidates and their surrogates in which totally inaccurate and deceptive information is delivered by the pricipals and never challenged in any way. Is this because the interviewers are afraid they won't be able to get the guests back on their program or because they really don't know the correct answers to the questions so they can't challenge the guests? I have a sinking feeling that its a combination of both problems.
Edward R. Murrow, David Brinkley, Walter Cronkite, John Chancellor and Dan Rather would not have been afraid to ask the tough questions. And if they were given B.S. for answers they would have known and challenged the B.S. Like so many other things, those days are over and those figures gone.
Wake up, MSM. People are spending more and more time on the internet because you no longer satisfy. Man up and start doing your job. I promise that if you do, I'll try to only dislike you.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Back To The Future With John McCain
Last night, I dreamt I was back in grade school. The popular kids were telling the rest of the class who to like and who not to like. The nasty, vindictive kids, who are always jealous of the cool guys were making up awful stories about them so that the rest of us wouldn't like them anymore. It seemed so real.
When I awoke this morning, I tried, as I usually do when I remember my dreams, to figure out what triggered this particular one. Then I remembered......shortly before falling asleep last evening, I saw the McCain campaign's anti-Obama ad. It's the ad that runs every hour on the hour here in Missouri.
You know, the one I am talking about....the one where people are chanting Obama's name and a very solemn voice tells us all that Obama is the most popular person in the world, BUT IS HE READY TO LEAD? No wonder I thought I was back in grade school.
The psychology behind the ad is really very good. You know how often most of us had less than kind thoughts about the "in crowd". They always made the rest of us feel a little unsure of ourselves. Sometimes we hated them, sometimes we envied them, sometimes we just wanted them to acknowledge us.
John McCain wants you to believe that Barack Obama is the 'in crowd" that snubbed you back in grade school. He wants you to believe that there is something wrong with the fact that Obama was hailed in Europe and the Middle East, that hundreds of thousands of people turned out to see him in his travels. John McCain wants you to believe that this is a very bad thing.
Amazing, isn't it? The past eight years have made us ugly Americans worldwide. The present occupant of the White House has, through his arrogance and downright stupidity, turned friend into foe from the North Pole to the South Pole. From the McCain campaign, only agreement with Bush policies and a foreshadowing of more of the same. However, that no-good Obama had the audacity to make the rest of the world give us a new look, a forgiving look.....to want our friendship and partnership again. The Bastard!
The rest of the free world wants a modified form of the old order restored. They liked the US when it was the guardian of liberty and free speech around the world. They liked our country when our word meant something. They liked us when we stood for something. In other words, they liked us a whole lot better before W and his henchmen took hold of our country.
I can only imagine what Europe and the Middle East will think if they wake up on the first Wednesday after the first Monday in November and find that we have elected a sad, befuddled e old man who is more of the same Bush crowd. They seem willing to consider the last eight years some sort of strange aberration on the part of the American people.
If we choose McCain as our next leader, they will, undoubtedly, think that we are past saving.
And all those nasty, silly little people who hated the popular kids just because they were the popular kids will come out on top.
Friday, May 23, 2008
The Incivility of the Internet
I'm a commenter, if there is such a word, on several political blogs....Huffington Post and Crooks & Liars being the ones I visit most often.
I may quit, though. I don't like what's happening to me as a write my comments. In fact, I am beginning to sound a lot like some of the people that really bug me on the internet.
There are lots of folks who show up on the political blogs of the opposite party, throw a verbal molotov cocktail and watch the results. They are called trolls. I guess it's because they troll the internet looking for people of differing opinions to let them have it.
Some are "patriots", some are "conservatives", some are "religious". Many are just good people of differing views and those folks are welcome. It's the smugly patriotic, conservative and religious that I'd like to work over with a verbal hammer.
And sometime I do just that. After I let some nasty and intolerant nay-sayer have it, I hit the send button and sit back with a little smile on my face. I'm not sure that should be. It makes me feel good for about 30 seconds, but it adds to the incivility of the world at large
Some of the people I find the most infuriating don't know beans about politics, history, or much of anything. Jumping all over them should be satisfying, but it is really an unfair fight. They have their beliefs but couldn't begin tell tell you why they believe what they do. They've heard it on Rush, or Fox News, or Glen Beck. They don't question what they hear, they just believe their sources. They also seem to be under the misapprehension that the government has the best interests of the American people in mind at all times. In other words, they scare me to death.
After a while, I wonder why I would want to even engage them. There is no point, really. I am a stranger on the internet, in their minds some LIBERAL, probably a COMMUNIST. (Really, I promise you, they still use that term.) They would never believe anything I used as a counter argument in a discussion with them.
So, in order to save my skyrocketing blood pressure, my breath and my time, I am going to begin a short moratorium on commenting on the daily political happenings. I will like myself so much better....and feel better about my fellow man, too.
I may quit, though. I don't like what's happening to me as a write my comments. In fact, I am beginning to sound a lot like some of the people that really bug me on the internet.
There are lots of folks who show up on the political blogs of the opposite party, throw a verbal molotov cocktail and watch the results. They are called trolls. I guess it's because they troll the internet looking for people of differing opinions to let them have it.
Some are "patriots", some are "conservatives", some are "religious". Many are just good people of differing views and those folks are welcome. It's the smugly patriotic, conservative and religious that I'd like to work over with a verbal hammer.
And sometime I do just that. After I let some nasty and intolerant nay-sayer have it, I hit the send button and sit back with a little smile on my face. I'm not sure that should be. It makes me feel good for about 30 seconds, but it adds to the incivility of the world at large
Some of the people I find the most infuriating don't know beans about politics, history, or much of anything. Jumping all over them should be satisfying, but it is really an unfair fight. They have their beliefs but couldn't begin tell tell you why they believe what they do. They've heard it on Rush, or Fox News, or Glen Beck. They don't question what they hear, they just believe their sources. They also seem to be under the misapprehension that the government has the best interests of the American people in mind at all times. In other words, they scare me to death.
After a while, I wonder why I would want to even engage them. There is no point, really. I am a stranger on the internet, in their minds some LIBERAL, probably a COMMUNIST. (Really, I promise you, they still use that term.) They would never believe anything I used as a counter argument in a discussion with them.
So, in order to save my skyrocketing blood pressure, my breath and my time, I am going to begin a short moratorium on commenting on the daily political happenings. I will like myself so much better....and feel better about my fellow man, too.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Here's a Little Story You All Might Like
A young couple bought a house about 5 years ago. Credit wasn't all that great. Their agent told them to get qualified with a lender....gave them a couple of reputable names in the area. They used a friend of a parent instead. That should have been okay. They should have gotten a good deal. Well, the deal wasn't so good. They ended up with an interest-only loan that couldn't be refinanced for 24 months.
That type of loan is exactly what it sounds like. All the money you are paying every month covers only the interest on the money you borrowed. You aren't paying down your principle at all. The agent and the title company were alarmed because this wasn't a loan either saw here in the Midwest very often....not five years ago. We're too conservative for loans like these.
Interest-only loans work fine, if real estate is appreciating. The borrower is stil
getting the increased value of the home, so it's not a huge deal if he isn't paying down his original loan. He's still increasing his equity in the home.
Fast forward. Kids refinance....probably with the same kind of company a couple of years later....another adjustable rate....maybe even paid all their closing costs on the new loan by rolling those costs into the new loan. More debt. Interest rate went from 6.5 percent to 11 percent when loan adjusted last year. The family lost the house this month. They couldn't make the new payments and didn't ask for help in time.
Result: They are going to be in a credit mess for 7 years.
You can bet that some financial institution made good upfront money on those two loans because the credit involved was not so great. The loan was then sold off in a package to a hedge fund or bank that bought riskier loans because they are lucrative and give their investors a good return. Loans get bought, repackaged and sold over and over, each entity taking a cut of the profit. The purchaser of the loan is willing to take the risk because the return is so good, unless it all hits the fan. It did.
The bank that forecloses will spend thousands of dollars to execute that foreclosure, and will try to stick it to the family whose house they just took. In this case the loan holder wanted an additional 40K from this family, until the family got a lawyer. The foreclosure went through, but the 40K was waived.
This is one case. One little house. One little family.
Many wouldn't think of the little family down the street with two incomes and a nice car as victims of predatory lending. Most of the people in the lending industry would have thought of these loans as a good way for young people to get started on the American dream of home ownership. The lender involved in this second adjustable rate mortgage that broke the bank would have said that the borrowers saw the "Truth in Lending" statement and knew exactly what they were getting involved in, and all of that would have been correct. Yet, something went terribly wrong.
A couple of very important factors were at work against these and lots of other homebuyers. One, was a real estate bubble that they couldn't imagine bursting, and the other was the symbiotic relationship between banks, their lobbyists, and the government.
In the spirit of full disclosure, let me say that I sold houses for over 20 years in the midwest.
I saw good markets and bad. Mostly good ones, though. The market in my town flattened out a few times, but home values never went down....not in 20 years. I, myself, couldn't have imagined this downturn, and I really tried to make sure my clients didn't get in over their heads by using the many good conservative lenders who want clean transactions, not mess.
Over the last few years that I sold homes, though, I saw some weird new "loan products." There were 105% loans, which are beyond scary. There were 80% first mortgages tied with 10 and 15% seconds so that buyers didn't have to pay private mortgage insurance to better qualify for more expensive homes. There were a lot of variations on these risky deals that only work in a market that is constantly appreciating. It's hard to believe that none of us in the housing industry, no one in the banking industry, and no one in government could see this coming.
This mess was built from the ground up from greed, unfounded optimism, and a total lack of oversight. Greed on the part of lenders for the big interest rates they would receive for taking the risk of lending to risky borrowers.....unfounded optimism on the part of buyers and their agents that the boom would never end.....and lack of oversight from a government where the banking industry's lobbyists succeeded in persuading regulators to cut all that nasty red tape that keeps banks from making freaky loans like these.
Now the financial industry will get bailed out. Even though lenders knew there were risks, they will get bailed out. Even though they fought hard to relax the rules of lending the government will bail them out, which means you and I will be doing the bailing. We pretty much have to if our economy is ever to get back on track, I guess.
However, I don't think that the few dollars the government is going to throw at the thousands and thousands of families who were in over their heads will even compare to the need. I also don't think that we will ever know the true extent of the government's complicity in writing this nightmare scenario to please the financial sector. And I don't think that a lot of these borrowers have any idea how long the seven years that they are stuck with crappy credit is going to seem. Unfortunately, they are going to find out.
That type of loan is exactly what it sounds like. All the money you are paying every month covers only the interest on the money you borrowed. You aren't paying down your principle at all. The agent and the title company were alarmed because this wasn't a loan either saw here in the Midwest very often....not five years ago. We're too conservative for loans like these.
Interest-only loans work fine, if real estate is appreciating. The borrower is stil
getting the increased value of the home, so it's not a huge deal if he isn't paying down his original loan. He's still increasing his equity in the home.
Fast forward. Kids refinance....probably with the same kind of company a couple of years later....another adjustable rate....maybe even paid all their closing costs on the new loan by rolling those costs into the new loan. More debt. Interest rate went from 6.5 percent to 11 percent when loan adjusted last year. The family lost the house this month. They couldn't make the new payments and didn't ask for help in time.
Result: They are going to be in a credit mess for 7 years.
You can bet that some financial institution made good upfront money on those two loans because the credit involved was not so great. The loan was then sold off in a package to a hedge fund or bank that bought riskier loans because they are lucrative and give their investors a good return. Loans get bought, repackaged and sold over and over, each entity taking a cut of the profit. The purchaser of the loan is willing to take the risk because the return is so good, unless it all hits the fan. It did.
The bank that forecloses will spend thousands of dollars to execute that foreclosure, and will try to stick it to the family whose house they just took. In this case the loan holder wanted an additional 40K from this family, until the family got a lawyer. The foreclosure went through, but the 40K was waived.
This is one case. One little house. One little family.
Many wouldn't think of the little family down the street with two incomes and a nice car as victims of predatory lending. Most of the people in the lending industry would have thought of these loans as a good way for young people to get started on the American dream of home ownership. The lender involved in this second adjustable rate mortgage that broke the bank would have said that the borrowers saw the "Truth in Lending" statement and knew exactly what they were getting involved in, and all of that would have been correct. Yet, something went terribly wrong.
A couple of very important factors were at work against these and lots of other homebuyers. One, was a real estate bubble that they couldn't imagine bursting, and the other was the symbiotic relationship between banks, their lobbyists, and the government.
In the spirit of full disclosure, let me say that I sold houses for over 20 years in the midwest.
I saw good markets and bad. Mostly good ones, though. The market in my town flattened out a few times, but home values never went down....not in 20 years. I, myself, couldn't have imagined this downturn, and I really tried to make sure my clients didn't get in over their heads by using the many good conservative lenders who want clean transactions, not mess.
Over the last few years that I sold homes, though, I saw some weird new "loan products." There were 105% loans, which are beyond scary. There were 80% first mortgages tied with 10 and 15% seconds so that buyers didn't have to pay private mortgage insurance to better qualify for more expensive homes. There were a lot of variations on these risky deals that only work in a market that is constantly appreciating. It's hard to believe that none of us in the housing industry, no one in the banking industry, and no one in government could see this coming.
This mess was built from the ground up from greed, unfounded optimism, and a total lack of oversight. Greed on the part of lenders for the big interest rates they would receive for taking the risk of lending to risky borrowers.....unfounded optimism on the part of buyers and their agents that the boom would never end.....and lack of oversight from a government where the banking industry's lobbyists succeeded in persuading regulators to cut all that nasty red tape that keeps banks from making freaky loans like these.
Now the financial industry will get bailed out. Even though lenders knew there were risks, they will get bailed out. Even though they fought hard to relax the rules of lending the government will bail them out, which means you and I will be doing the bailing. We pretty much have to if our economy is ever to get back on track, I guess.
However, I don't think that the few dollars the government is going to throw at the thousands and thousands of families who were in over their heads will even compare to the need. I also don't think that we will ever know the true extent of the government's complicity in writing this nightmare scenario to please the financial sector. And I don't think that a lot of these borrowers have any idea how long the seven years that they are stuck with crappy credit is going to seem. Unfortunately, they are going to find out.
Liberality and Tolerance: The Twain Should Meet
I hop around several of the top blogs and, usually, a great time is being had by all. Some of the articles and comments are so funny, I find myself sitting alone at my computer laughing out loud. Looks a little off-center, but it all makes the day a little shorter. The other day, however, was different.
One of the articles being discussed was the shocking death of an 11-year old girl, whose fundamentalist-Christian parents prayed for her recovery, from what turned out to be a diabetic coma, for over a month while the poor child suffered and died. My first thought was that someone should just take the parents out and shoot them. I've got to admit that where the welfare of kids is involved, I have very little sympathy for caretakers who don't do their job. However, I was unprepared for the reaction of nearly all of the other posters. You see, in the estimation of most of those who cared to answer, it was solely the fault of religion. Period. 'Nough said. Done.
Though the parents did not belong to any organized religion, they had a small prayer and bible group and home-schooled their children. To a lot of the liberal and progressive community that sounds an alarm. Many don't understand the mindset that parents are totally in charge of their children and can make all decisions for them, educational, spiritual, and physical. Admittedly, I am a little sceptical of a parents right to total control such as this myself.
Some of the posters used this argument, and I think this is a topic worth discussion. Are children the property of their parents until they reach legal majority? Should parents be able to withhold medical treatment because they feel they have such a right? Where do the parents'religious beliefs come in? Can it take precedence over a child's right to proper health care?
Yet the argument that my fellow posters put forth most often was that religion was the cause of it all. Yep, religion sucks and is the cause of every ill in the world today. Over and over and over the posters said the same thing in different words.
My personal take on the loss of this child is that she died because of superstition and, well, stupidity. Not to put too fine a point on it, these folks really don't sound all that smart. Religious belief is not always grounded in superstition and blind faith. Media reports of incidents such as this and other similar tragedies makes it seem that there are a lot more of these fanatics than there actually are. Most parents, regardless of whether they study the bible or home school their child would have had that girl to a doctor, if not immediately, then certainly within a couple of days. Only the fringe of the fringe would have allowed such a thing to happen, or feel they had a right to experiment with their child's health and its relation to their faith in such a way. Blaming all religous people and all religion seems a tad harsh.
Why were these people choosing prayer? Was it because of their strong faith? Did they have a distrust of the outside world that kept them from seeking assistance? Did they have no health insurance? Did they live in one of the many rural counties in this country that has little or no access to doctors, so prayer was all they felt they had? We'll probably never know because stories like this one are like smoke...they fade quickly. On to some other story.
However, there should be some discussion of at least two of the basics in this story. Should the seeming neglect of a child's health be allowed as a relgious right? And should their obvious error indict all people of faith?
Many of my blogger friends would answer no to the first question and yes to the second. However, the vehemence of the attacks that were made on all things religous
in so many of the posts makes one wonder what type of "religious" experiences these poor people are trying to forget. I would suggest that they pray for the child and her family, but I'm guessing most would find my suggestion offensive.
One of the articles being discussed was the shocking death of an 11-year old girl, whose fundamentalist-Christian parents prayed for her recovery, from what turned out to be a diabetic coma, for over a month while the poor child suffered and died. My first thought was that someone should just take the parents out and shoot them. I've got to admit that where the welfare of kids is involved, I have very little sympathy for caretakers who don't do their job. However, I was unprepared for the reaction of nearly all of the other posters. You see, in the estimation of most of those who cared to answer, it was solely the fault of religion. Period. 'Nough said. Done.
Though the parents did not belong to any organized religion, they had a small prayer and bible group and home-schooled their children. To a lot of the liberal and progressive community that sounds an alarm. Many don't understand the mindset that parents are totally in charge of their children and can make all decisions for them, educational, spiritual, and physical. Admittedly, I am a little sceptical of a parents right to total control such as this myself.
Some of the posters used this argument, and I think this is a topic worth discussion. Are children the property of their parents until they reach legal majority? Should parents be able to withhold medical treatment because they feel they have such a right? Where do the parents'religious beliefs come in? Can it take precedence over a child's right to proper health care?
Yet the argument that my fellow posters put forth most often was that religion was the cause of it all. Yep, religion sucks and is the cause of every ill in the world today. Over and over and over the posters said the same thing in different words.
My personal take on the loss of this child is that she died because of superstition and, well, stupidity. Not to put too fine a point on it, these folks really don't sound all that smart. Religious belief is not always grounded in superstition and blind faith. Media reports of incidents such as this and other similar tragedies makes it seem that there are a lot more of these fanatics than there actually are. Most parents, regardless of whether they study the bible or home school their child would have had that girl to a doctor, if not immediately, then certainly within a couple of days. Only the fringe of the fringe would have allowed such a thing to happen, or feel they had a right to experiment with their child's health and its relation to their faith in such a way. Blaming all religous people and all religion seems a tad harsh.
Why were these people choosing prayer? Was it because of their strong faith? Did they have a distrust of the outside world that kept them from seeking assistance? Did they have no health insurance? Did they live in one of the many rural counties in this country that has little or no access to doctors, so prayer was all they felt they had? We'll probably never know because stories like this one are like smoke...they fade quickly. On to some other story.
However, there should be some discussion of at least two of the basics in this story. Should the seeming neglect of a child's health be allowed as a relgious right? And should their obvious error indict all people of faith?
Many of my blogger friends would answer no to the first question and yes to the second. However, the vehemence of the attacks that were made on all things religous
in so many of the posts makes one wonder what type of "religious" experiences these poor people are trying to forget. I would suggest that they pray for the child and her family, but I'm guessing most would find my suggestion offensive.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid
Every day that we are closer to the end of the George Bush era seems to signal a new reason to be a little more on edge. Certainly it isn't the fear of the unknown. It couldn't be any worse than the known we've been experiencing for the past 7+ years.
Shall I name it? It's the fear that these folks will never leave.
I am not one of the conspiracy theorist who think Bush and Company will find a pretext to establish martial law, cancel the election and just keep on keepin' on. No, I fear worse than that.
I fear that they have so beaten down the American psyche that frightened citizens throughout this land will go to the polls to elect someone who will protect them from Al-Quaida, aka the Middle Eastern Boogey Men. They will elect another one just like the other one. That someone? A rather confused, rather senior senator who has decided to sell his soul to become president during his few remaining years.
And John McCain is playing along with the scheme. The Bush Administration would love to see McCain become president since he has become a toothless old lion who will continue the failed policies that have this country in its worst disarray in half a century, perhaps ever.
What is it about the vanity of a politician like McCain that allows him to believe that he is anointed to become the next president regardless of his lack of knowledge in so many fields?
He has admitted that he knows and understands little about the economy, especially the economic problems that have come to full fruition in the past few months. A sane person with no such expertise would be looking for an exit strategy from this race so as not to be linked with the financial mess that may take years to repair. Instead he blusters on, agreeing with plans to bail out Wall Street Financial entities, but having little interest in bailing out individuals who are losing homes. Since he admittedly knows little about economic policy, it's kind of hard to feel that this is the best course.
Let's look at his stand on the war in Iraq. George should love it. It's an echo of his policy, or lack thereof. STAY THE COURSE. Be loyal to the Iraqis, don't leave the job undone. Not very original, but certainly very jingoistic. John's message is that our allies will never be able to rely on our word if we don't stick out this unending mess. There's also the undercurrent of his feeling that the dark forces will have won if we pack up our troops and leave. In other words, his foreign policy is about the same as his domestic plan...weak.
This is where I get the feeling that John will just be the same old same old. When we start invoking loyalties that don't exist to a people who wish we would get out of their country, I can't tell where the Bush Administration ends and the John McCain candidacy begins. Does this man believe this claptrap? All this flagwaving, gut-testing claptrap?
According to their scenario, the world's opinion of us will diminish if we stop interfering in the internal affairs of another country, get our financials in order, clean our house, move forward as a nation and meet the challenges of the 21st century. No mention of our worldwide fall from a position of leadership to one of derision because we have chosen to ignore the urgings of good friends and not such ones to do these things.
Well, they've certainly succeeded in making most of us afraid. Unfortunately, we're afraid of them.
Shall I name it? It's the fear that these folks will never leave.
I am not one of the conspiracy theorist who think Bush and Company will find a pretext to establish martial law, cancel the election and just keep on keepin' on. No, I fear worse than that.
I fear that they have so beaten down the American psyche that frightened citizens throughout this land will go to the polls to elect someone who will protect them from Al-Quaida, aka the Middle Eastern Boogey Men. They will elect another one just like the other one. That someone? A rather confused, rather senior senator who has decided to sell his soul to become president during his few remaining years.
And John McCain is playing along with the scheme. The Bush Administration would love to see McCain become president since he has become a toothless old lion who will continue the failed policies that have this country in its worst disarray in half a century, perhaps ever.
What is it about the vanity of a politician like McCain that allows him to believe that he is anointed to become the next president regardless of his lack of knowledge in so many fields?
He has admitted that he knows and understands little about the economy, especially the economic problems that have come to full fruition in the past few months. A sane person with no such expertise would be looking for an exit strategy from this race so as not to be linked with the financial mess that may take years to repair. Instead he blusters on, agreeing with plans to bail out Wall Street Financial entities, but having little interest in bailing out individuals who are losing homes. Since he admittedly knows little about economic policy, it's kind of hard to feel that this is the best course.
Let's look at his stand on the war in Iraq. George should love it. It's an echo of his policy, or lack thereof. STAY THE COURSE. Be loyal to the Iraqis, don't leave the job undone. Not very original, but certainly very jingoistic. John's message is that our allies will never be able to rely on our word if we don't stick out this unending mess. There's also the undercurrent of his feeling that the dark forces will have won if we pack up our troops and leave. In other words, his foreign policy is about the same as his domestic plan...weak.
This is where I get the feeling that John will just be the same old same old. When we start invoking loyalties that don't exist to a people who wish we would get out of their country, I can't tell where the Bush Administration ends and the John McCain candidacy begins. Does this man believe this claptrap? All this flagwaving, gut-testing claptrap?
According to their scenario, the world's opinion of us will diminish if we stop interfering in the internal affairs of another country, get our financials in order, clean our house, move forward as a nation and meet the challenges of the 21st century. No mention of our worldwide fall from a position of leadership to one of derision because we have chosen to ignore the urgings of good friends and not such ones to do these things.
Well, they've certainly succeeded in making most of us afraid. Unfortunately, we're afraid of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)