On Bailouts and Auto Manufacturers

Privitize profits...socialize losses.

This is corporate socialism. It's about the closest thing to Fascism we have in our current world, and the US is getting quite good at it. For the last 6 years, investment banks have made billions trading worthless paper in the form of bad home loan securities. They found willing buyers in the emerging global securities market. Foreign interests assumed these banks would never be so irresponsible to sell a security that could bankrupt them. They found a willing accomplice in the Bush administration. The Bush Crime Family had run out of ways to grow the economy legitimately, so they encouraged Fannie and Freddie to lower lending standards, thus increasing the demand for housing. Didn't matter if people could afford the loans so long as the property values kept increasing. They found a willing dupe in congressional Democrats. They were on the cusp of coming back to power, and didn't want to be blamed as the guys that ended the bubble-economy by pulling the plug. There's blame to go around. Please don't name one group without blaming all. No one gets out alive on this one.

Of course no matter who you blame, the one undeniable fact is that thousands of executives made enormous personal fortunes in commissions selling these new junk-bonds. They get to keep that money they "earned" even though this was nothing more than a legitimized ponzi scheme.

In the end we gave money to the wrong guys, and we have the wrong guy handing out the cash. Henry Paulson was one of these ponzi con-men as recently as 4 years ago. He knows the players. Many are his good friends. He feels bad for them...not you. He relates to them...not you. He doesn't know how to manage real cash...because he's never had to. He's always dealt with the theoretical. Real people's money is a mystery to Henry Paulson. The smallest denomination he is familiar with starts with an M, but he prefers B's. If you handed him $20, he'd look at it as if it was an alien artifact...because for him it would be.

So $350 billion later, we see executives at AIG getting bonuses this year. We see shareholders getting dividends after accepting $25 billion in taxpayer money. Privatize profits...socialize losses.

So what of the auto industry? Why not take out our wrath at the white collar bailout on the tiny auto bailout?

1. Because it's one of the few manufacturing industries we have remaining.
2. Because 3 million workers would be out of work.
3. Because the Chinese are drooling at the idea of buying the name Chevrolet or Buick and then stamping it on their own vehicles...made in China...with Chinese labor. They can ship them over tomorrow if that's OK with you? They get 30mpg and come in 12 colors.

Ain't that America, you and me?

Oh, and it's not the unions killing the big 3. It's the stupid decisions of their executives. If all three were union-free manufacturers, they would STILL have lobbied to keep fuel standards low. They would have still lobbied to keep emission standards low. They would have still lobbied to maintain the tax rebate on vehicles over 6000 lbs. The executives in essence created the gas guzzlers because they were profitable. They produced them and pimped them to a hungry nation, which became a gas-hungry nation. Basic economics...increase demand (gas) without increasing supply and prices will go up. In essence they produced themselves out of business. Toyota would still be kicking their ever loving ass because they realized gas came from a limited supply, not a magic panacea.

So why am I endorsing a bailout for the big 3 if I think they screwed up so bad? Because they are almost there. Their leadership did pull it's collective head out of arse 2 years ago and began retooling. They've crawled 50 miles through the desert over the last 2 years and are now 50 feet from the water. This isn't the time to push them down and tell them tough shit. This isn't the time to punish the workers because their executives were tools. This isn't the time to allow one of our last strong manufacturing industries to become a subsidiary of Lo-Pan inc. Besides, there's history behind this. Chrysler, Lee Iaccoca, and the $2 billion loan that was paid back with interest ring a bell? This will be a loan, to one of the most reliable industries we have. We will get the money back with a little extra, all the while keeping 3 million of our own employed. For once the profits will be socialized...the loses private.

Ruben Navarrette Jr. is blind with bias

OK, look, I am a liberal. I am married to a woman whose mother is from Leon, Mexico. I have a daughter who is 50/50 Irish-Mexican. I am in favor of amnesty for immigrants, guest worker programs, and border cooperation (instead of a stupid fence) between Mexico and the USA. All that being said, I can't stand Ruben Navarette Jr.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/22/navarrette/index.html

It's not because of his race, and it's not because of his politics (most of which I agree with) it's because he puts his ethnic identity above his own integrity. He can no longer see the forest for the trees. His latest commentary about Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is a perfect example of what I am talking about. All Navarrette sees is a HISPANIC AG about to be fired and he is leaping to his defense based solely on the fact that he is HISPANIC, not because he is GOOD, RIGHT, or INNOCENT.

His argument goes something like this, the AG is HISPANIC and everyone hates that he is Hispanic, so they are taking the first opportunity to make this political and whack him for what are, in reality, racist reasons. He even goes so far as generalizing anyone who wants to fire him as a "lynch mob are white liberals who resent Gonzales because they can't claim the credit for his life's accomplishments". What the fuck is he talking about? Did he not just sound just as racist against whites as any one of these idiot "Minute Men" who get on the news and generalize anyone of Hispanic descent as "these Mexicans"?

As of this moment this attorney general is the same one who approved the White House's torture policy. He's the same one who allowed his department to violate and ignore the constitutional rights of Americans even when they are spelled out in the onerous Patriot Act. They couldn't even follow that right-stripping standard!

We now know that in addition to both of these egregious offenses, he has perjured himself before congress in the US Attorney firing case. He told Congress (and Navarrette in an interview) this was about "performance", but there are numerous emails showing it was for political reasons. When confronted by an extremely kind Congress about this discrepancy, he lied yet again and said he knew nothing about the political portion of these dismissals. Emails have now emerged showing that he not only knew about the political nature of these firings, he also coordinated the communication between the President and the DOJ to make sure he was in the loop!

How many times should an Attorney General be allowed to lie before congress before being shit- canned? Oh right...the number should be zero, but because Ruben Navarrette can only see a Hispanic man (not just a man) being picked on, the number is apparently higher than two. Honestly, I am embarrassed this man is on the same side of the immigration fight as myself because his bias and obvious racism/hatred towards whites only makes me look like a dick for standing next to him.

Look, this Attorney General has put his loyalty to the President before his duty to the DOJ, the law, and the American people. Navarrette puts his race, before everything else. Neither can see how damaged they are because they refuse to look outside their fantasy world. The AG continues to state publicly this was about performance when it obviously was not. Navarrette continues to claim the call for Gonzales' resignation is racial when it so obviously is not.

I haven''t liked Gonzalez since his torture memo was released and we suddenly discovered we had a torture tsar in our midst at the White House. I have tried really hard to like Ruben Navarrette despite his obvious hatred of Caucasians, even ones with similar views to his. I learned today that was foolish. If he wants to generalize any white liberal into a "lynch mob", and defend an obvious perjurer based only on the color of his skin, how is he any different than the minute-men he rails against? Both sides only see color.

I'll continue to fight for fair immigration, but I don't think I'll associate myself with an obvious racist like Ruben Navarrette Jr.

Troop Surge

So now the battle lines are being drawn over what will happen with the President's new "surge" plan. I'm not sure why they are calling it a surge. A surge is by definition something temporary. In this case, the administration has no date or plan or timetable to remove this alleged "surge" in the future. The word that should be used is escalation. There is no doubt that this is what is about to happen. Just like Vietnam, we are going to throw more lives into the pit to hopefully fill it up instead of responsibly acknowledging the pit's danger and putting up a guard rail to stop troop loss.

As for the clear plan the President now tells he has, where is it? The plan he proposed on Wednesday is nothing more than a rehash of what we have been doing for the last 18 months. We will:

1. Fight Shiite death squads in Sadr City that are sponsored by Sadr. (We've done this continually)

2. Squeeze more enforcement troops into Baghdad proper. (We've done this three times)

3. Push the training of the Iraqi Army up the priority list (They keep saying this but we still only have 2 independent combat battalions after 4 years of training!)

4. Not leave till we achieve the amorphous "victory" the President stubbornly refuses to define clearly.

5. Spend money on infrastructure (9 billion of this money is unaccounted for already and in the pockets of contractors like Halliburton)

This further disappoints me because we have a plan on the table from the bi-partisan Baker Commission on Iraq that WOULD (not could) work. It's comprehensive, and would in effect allow us to claim victory by leaving a stable Iraq behind. Unfortunately the President threw the entire report (except for the word "forward" on the cover) in the curcular filer (trashcan). The only problem with the plan that I can see is that the President has determined in his black or white world that Iran and Syria are black, and may never be allowed to become white. He absolutely refuses to talk to them. The reality is that few nations are black or white. Almost all are a shade of gray.

I know some of you are saying "Aren't they evil?" and my answer would be no. They are just nations. A nation is neither good or evil. They are generally only interested in pursuing their interests to the exclusion of all else. Diplomacy is the art of talking other nations into agreeing that their interests are the same, or benefit, from aligning themselves with your own interests. In order to do that one must talk with their adversaries. Demonizing Iran and Syria, and cutting them off from dialogue is a foolish move that makes the United States (not Iran and Syria) appear childish and foolish. With just a little cooperation between the US and Iraq's neighbors, we could fix Iraq. Further, if it was successful and allowed these nations to take some credit for the fix, we might just be able to get help on the Lebanese and Palestinian issue as well. These problems are all intertwined.

I am writing my letters this morning to all my representatives asking them to oppose the escalation "surge" plan. I think it's time to finally say no to this President about something and make him learn to adapt. The time for letting King George dictate policy without oversight or consequence is over. It's time to kick the Democrats in the pants and make sure they keep that backbone someone lent them. The only thing things will change is if the American people care enough to not just be a poll respondent, but if they communicate regularly with their elected representatives. We have the power, and only we can end this war.

New Lyceum

New Lyceum
Guliani vs. Obama for Prez in 2008.

That would be a dignified and ethical debate I would like to see. Either choice would bring some dignity and leadership back to government. We haven't had a real, dynamic leader in a long time. Reagan would probably be the last I can think of.

The election I would sit out would be:

Gingrich vs. Clinton

I can't think of two more insincere career politicos. There would be zero substance in this debate, and either choice would bring you more of the same.

What we will probably get is:

McCain vs Clinton

McCain wins because not only does every Republican hate Hillary, but so do most Democrats. Hillary might get some women to change their vote just to vote for a woman, but not enough to beat the national dislike for her.

Election I would REALLY REALLY like to see:

Specter vs Feingold

Graham vs Gore

Unfortuinately neither of these matchups would happen because although the men have integrity, they have almost zero charisma (except for Lindsey Graham who just sounds too girly for most men to vote for).

Pat Robertson...Idiot

So this morning it's reported that Pat Robertson thinks we should assasinate the President of Venezuela Hugo Chavez. Apparently Chavez has made a lot of political hay in his nation by accusing the US of trying to assasinate hi. Robertson's answer, oblige him. Here's what rubs me the wrong way. Who the hell is Pat Robertson? How many times is this guy going to speak on behalf of the United States as if anyone would listen to his advice?

This is the guy who want's to kill/nuke anything that doesn't fit into his Christian/White-only world. He wanted the State Department nuked in 2003. He wanted Liberal Supreme Court Justices to drop dead in 2004. He believes "activist judges" (i.e. liberal judges) are more dangerous to the USA than Al Queda. Finally, let's not forget that this man thinks we are at war with Islam, not terrorism. He wants us to target Muslims instead of just terrorists.

In this case, he accused Chavez of being a Communist AND a Muslim supporter (OK, the Communist thing is probably true). Now I don't want to get too far into Chavez's politics. He is completely insane, and that's enough. Encouraging his paranoia when he sits on a huge oil reserve is probably a bad idea, especially if we ever get threatened by OPEC. Why is an American preacher, with no political power, speaking for you, me, and this nation? How does he even presume to have a clue what is best for us?

I have noticed this trend that Christian Conservatives and NeoCons have this arrogant blind-eye. They believe their opinion is superior to everyone else's and refuse to see any other option or even accept that their adversary might be as smart as them. They have lost the ability to say "I was wrong" or "Those (insert demeaning liberal term here) have it right on this issue.".

Anyway, I know he won't listen, but you can at least send an email to his lackeys here.

Ayn Rand and the contradictions of Objectivism

I was slumming through a few of my lesser visited forums the other day when a friend of mine brought up an old thread about Ayn Rand and he bemoaned how misunderstood she was. Keeping in mind that he is in his early 20's and that Rand tends to hook every 20-something at some point with her siren song, I gave him this perspective by looking back from 40 to 20...

Ayn Rand is a great portrait of self-contradiction. I love her only for the twisted logic that was her life. Atlas Shrugged is interesting, but I think I made a resolution to never read it again after I hit 30.

Rand's Nutshell Objectivism: "Do what you need to fulfill yourself, but try to do it following my philosophy. Oh! And buy my books so I can be fulfulled."

Gotta love her selling an entire philosophy just to live comfortably. "Elron" Hubbard is another author who came up with a brilliant scheme. Sell Scientology, to sell books. Want the secret of the universe?..buy our texts for $100k I hold Rand in much higher regard, but as I get older, I also become more supercilious.

I don't dismiss everything Rand promoted, but I definitely see strong contradictions in her philosophy that can not be resolved in a simple manner. Her very insistence that total individualism is the nadir of human accomplishment while depending on a social structure to print, distribute, and pay for her lifestyle is a complete piss-off. She wishes to eschew the need for others, but can only do so within a social system her philosophy must ultimately deny.

Personal janitor's philosophy/opinion to follow....warning!: Objectivism is empty if you remove it from a civilized world. Man is still at his core a stupid beast striving to be more. He was incapable of that "more" until he submitted to the safety, organization, and rules a societal structure demands. To proclaim (as Rand does) that she no longer is beholden to those rules because others can toil while she only pursues that which she holds important is a bankrupt philosophy. Bankrupt because it is not universal. For objectivism to work, society must always have some whom are willing to remain within the rules and socialization and benignly ignore objectivist disruption. In other words, we are back to the two-class conundrum of Lang's Metropolis... Slaves and (in this case) willfully ignorant masters.

She was virtuous if nothing else. She did do her best to live by her philosophy her entire life. She followed her virtues explicitly, even dying alone. The problem was the, philosophy was not completely self-contained.

I am not saying there is no admiration. I was a big fan of Rand in my youth, like so many others. The problem is that her "path" is not fruitful. It has no destination. It's spiritual stock with little value. I know of no "old" Objectivists. One of the reasons I am a Buddhist is because it provides what Objectivism lacks (basic social acknowledgments and true pluralism) while still demanding personal responsibility and self-awareness (a la Objectivism) from the individual.

I do miss all the people I used to debate Rand with. The Lyceum is rather empty these days. What ever happened to the people who could read criticism of their own philosophy and actually LISTEN to it and take it to heart? We have lost something since 9/11. Too much fear. Too much partisanship. Too many civil liberties and religious freedoms lost. Looking back, I realize that even I have been tugged into more extreme positions than I once held, if only to protect a few of the values I hold dear.

Even the lowly Janitor gets to talk with an instructor from time to time.

George Bush should be impeached

Follow me here, even if you are a Republican. We Impeached a sitting President for getting a blowjob in the White House. How does that compare to a President that killed 1700 soldiers? Whichever of the pat Bush "smirk and shoot" excuses you use, he should be impeached. Either he was:

A: Stupid enough to be duped into believing questionable intelligence from unreliable sources. Thus he's guilty of gross incompetence.

B: Deceitful enough that the British story of fabricated intelligence and coerced analysts is true. Thus, he's guilty of fraud.

No matter your party, you must admit that the Democrats had the fortitude to vote against their own boy Clinton when he lied to the American public. They had the ethical cajones to put it to a hearing and vote. The question I have is, where are the Republicans? It is screamingly obvious at this point that this administration's execution of preemptive warfare was so completely flawed that negligence is whispered in the Capitol. Why have no Republicans come forward to question the decision making in the White House? Shouldn't a decision that cost the USA billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and unestimated global credibility get equal treatment?

It's time we as a nation demand a review of this President. He will not offer one unless forced. This is the first President with an ego so large he is incapable of admitting he ever made any mistakes as President! Certainly a child of priveledge, who has never been held accountable for anything in his entire life should at least be called to the mat to explain the deaths of 1700 American soldiers?

I know we are supposed to trust that our President knows best, but I have not been able to do that since learning that WMD's are as scarce in Iraq as a secure police station. There comes a moment when we must stand up as citizens, and demand from our representatives that they hold themselves and our President accountable for their decisions. In this case, we are allowing the man who could quite possibly do more to harm our nation than any President in 20 years to pass through his term unscathed. At least we stopped that guy who got the blow job from doing anything productive his last year in office. Whew!

Time to stand up people, get pissed, no matter your party. Demand accountability.