I've been swimming 2-3 times per week, trying to get back in shape. I love exercising but it doesn't happen unless I have an easy to maintain routine and for the moment I've found it. Lunchtime lap swim at the community pool. It takes me about an hour to go, swim and come back and I love swimming, I grew up swimming. One of the other joys is listening to NPR there and on the way back, even though I plan to someday ride my bike (it's about two miles). I was thinking last week about what an exciting time we're living in. For better or worse, this is truly an exciting millennium so far. It's easy to get dismayed by the widening gap in ideology, lifestyle and economic status between Americans, but at the same time, these are the conditions from which great change can come.
Every day, driving to the pool, there's someone on the radio talking about the current economic situation. Every single person has a different piece of the puzzle. There is honest-to-god debate going on. The war in Iraq has been reduced, over the years, to a couple of soundbites and a position of either being for the war, okay with torture and willing to forgo civil liberties or being against the war, not okay with torture and unwilling to forgo civil liberties. But this current crisis is fresh and this time people and are not falling for the alarm bells and just handing over the keys to the store. This morning in the New York Times, there was a graphic of the Dow falling and a headline about yet another big bank consolidation. Then, this afternoon, the Dow falls even more and is blamed on the house not passing the bailout bill.
Now I understand that the banks want this to sound confusing so that we don't really understand what's happening. It's funny because I've been watching episodes of Hercule Poirot (from BBC) every day since landing at my mom's house and I now figure out the mysteries in the first few minutes. Let's look at the facts the way Poirot would:
1) The current disaster was predicted by many people over the last several years which means that the stage was being set for a certain disaster and we can only assume, either intentionally set or intentionally not averted.
2) Several big banks fail because of years of high-risk practices that have made many people in the industry very wealthy, leaving homeowners and taxpayers, high and dry.
3) The former CEO of one of the failed banks works with the Federal Reserve (a central bank created with precisely this kind of situation in mind) to devise a plan in which the federal government bails out these failed banks. They predict a massive collapse if that does not happen.
4) Nothing is done to help or protect homeowners that are losing their homes.
4) Republicans vote against the bill and the stock market crashes at precisely that moment.
There are a couple of things about this situation that are very suspicious. Hercule Poirot, a fictional character, could himself arrive from the 1930's and ask these questions:
First, if the current disaster was predicted, why was nothing done about it? The Republicans favor deregulation and do not support government run businesses. This explains why they are voting against the bail out bill and it explains why no regulations were put in place. Their policy is to allow business to operate in a free market which means if a business fails - and that includes banks - it is not the government's job to bail them out. Poirot might speculate that nothing was done to allow certain people to get very rich. In his world, almost all crime is motivated by money.
Second, the fact that it is big banks failing – banks that indulged in risky practices – instead of an overall economic collapse seems to indicate that in fact the economy is not failing, it is just these banks that are failing. But what has their demise produced? A massive consolidation of banks, increasing their financial power. The bail out plan would further empower these banks by wiping out their bad debt and giving them a superior advantage over all the other banks that acted responsibly. And who devised this plan? The former CEO of one of these failed banks. Poirot would definitely be interviewing Henry Paulson right now.
Third, the government already bailed out several institutions, promising each time that it would stop the bleeding, but it didn't. So what are the chances that Wall Street would hang on, even performing well last week and wait until this day to crash, perfectly coinciding with the rejection of the bill? It would be easy to wonder if perhaps there are people who can pull strings to make things happen, kind of like how the gas prices rise and fall to perfectly coincide with certain political movements in this country. And if that is the case, then who is to say that this entire event isn't the product of certain strings being pulled so that it will happen this way? We all know that Bush's Iraq invasion was planned and on the table shortly after he took office. He only needed an inciting incident to put the plan in place. Couldn't it be argued that this collapse is merely an inciting incident to allow a massive consolidation of power by the banking industry?
Someone commented on the article about the Citigroup acquisition that bigger, fewer banks would be easier to regulate. Is that why it was so easy to regulate them to avoid this disaster? Let me repeat a story of how I was robbed by Bank of America. Although only $1,300, it perfectly illustrates how powerless the "little man" becomes against a big bank. In a nutshell, the money was taken from my account and BofA claimed no responsibility for it, nor did they show any interest in figuring out how it was stolen. I relentlessly campaigned to get it back and eventually did, immediately moving my account to a small credit union. In the end, it really isn't about regulation, it's about power. These banks are already incredibly powerful and have more power over our money than we do. A friend of mine wrote a very interesting blog post looking at the situation not from an economic standpoint but for what it is really is, a power grab. What do you think?
Monday, September 29, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
Learnin' 'bout bizness
My head is spinning from the crazy headlines in the paper yesterday, not just words on the screen but actual insanity in the world. There may or may not be a presidential debate, the government just seized WaMu in the biggest bank seizure in our history, the longest-running senator in the senate (from Alaska of course!) is being prosecuted for accepting $188,000 in home renovations as a gift, the U.S. troops and Pakistan are shooting at each other, the settlers in the West Bank have decided to crank up the violence, North Korea has basically put itself back at the top of the terrorist list (in an apparent attempt to get some f'ing attention around here), and Sarah Palin has managed to make herself look ten times more clueless this week than she was last week. And yet, the thing that horrified me the most was an article about a school program, in California of all places (god help us) where teenagers get to make ads for milk.
In a time when our country is fighting a war in two countries, our economy hovers on collapse, civil liberties are being curiously erased under our noses and we're two months away from one of the most critical presidential votes in decades, our kids are being taught "business" by learning how to sell milk to each other. Goodby, the ad agency behind this stroke of genius, will undoubtedly still collect their multimillion dollar fee while the kids do their work for free. The justification for this hideous waste of the student's time is that they're learning about business even though ad people are notoriously clueless in business matters. One teacher reports that her kids were "surprised to find that the executives they met this week are in the business world but 'had no business degrees.'" The "business world"? What is that, the place where people have jobs?
The milk board doesn't have any qualms about describing what they get out of the deal. They want more teenagers to drink milk and why not use our schools as a medium to disseminate product propoganda? The executive director explains that “They are a mysterious demographic and we want to reach them with an authentic voice in an authentic way.” And teach them about business, right?
Al Gore says in his book The Assault on Reason that since the prevalence of television over reading and the radio, in this country, the national debate has ceased to exist (although is arguably on the rise via the Internet). Communication now happens in one direction, from those who have millions of dollars to the rest of us, through the television. Watching on average over four hours a day of TV, Americans are stimulating the part of the brain that experiences instead of the part that processes, evalauates and interacts. Images flashing on the TV have a cumulative effect similar to brainwashing. Eckhart Tolle says when people watch TV they're still thinking but they're thinking the thoughts of the television. In Wall-e, we saw a futuristic version of people so focused on watching a world that didn't exist that they became obsolete. At the same time, the trend in advertising is for brands to be more interactive. The article calls it a move "from a top-down lecture into a two-way conversation." So the discourse about issues like war and economics and international relations is being replaced by 30-second ads while brands are managing to create conversations about their products?
In the film, The 11th Hour, a study is referenced that found college kids could identify 1,000 corporate logos but could not name 10 plants or animals native to their area. The film's interviewees all seem to agree on one seemingly radical idea. In a recent evaluation, it was determined that the earth provides goods and services worth $35 trillion a year, yet the combined economies of the world produced only half that at $18 trillion in 2006. That means the earth is twice as valuable to us as our economies and yet, every policy decision we make is to benefit the economy, not the earth. Even if it were possible to exist without nature or replace nature with technology, it would still cost us more than we have. Here's another radical idea. Wouldn't we be better off teaching our kids about how our planet works than blurring the lines between learning and selling, education and consumerism?
In a time when our country is fighting a war in two countries, our economy hovers on collapse, civil liberties are being curiously erased under our noses and we're two months away from one of the most critical presidential votes in decades, our kids are being taught "business" by learning how to sell milk to each other. Goodby, the ad agency behind this stroke of genius, will undoubtedly still collect their multimillion dollar fee while the kids do their work for free. The justification for this hideous waste of the student's time is that they're learning about business even though ad people are notoriously clueless in business matters. One teacher reports that her kids were "surprised to find that the executives they met this week are in the business world but 'had no business degrees.'" The "business world"? What is that, the place where people have jobs?
The milk board doesn't have any qualms about describing what they get out of the deal. They want more teenagers to drink milk and why not use our schools as a medium to disseminate product propoganda? The executive director explains that “They are a mysterious demographic and we want to reach them with an authentic voice in an authentic way.” And teach them about business, right?
Al Gore says in his book The Assault on Reason that since the prevalence of television over reading and the radio, in this country, the national debate has ceased to exist (although is arguably on the rise via the Internet). Communication now happens in one direction, from those who have millions of dollars to the rest of us, through the television. Watching on average over four hours a day of TV, Americans are stimulating the part of the brain that experiences instead of the part that processes, evalauates and interacts. Images flashing on the TV have a cumulative effect similar to brainwashing. Eckhart Tolle says when people watch TV they're still thinking but they're thinking the thoughts of the television. In Wall-e, we saw a futuristic version of people so focused on watching a world that didn't exist that they became obsolete. At the same time, the trend in advertising is for brands to be more interactive. The article calls it a move "from a top-down lecture into a two-way conversation." So the discourse about issues like war and economics and international relations is being replaced by 30-second ads while brands are managing to create conversations about their products?
In the film, The 11th Hour, a study is referenced that found college kids could identify 1,000 corporate logos but could not name 10 plants or animals native to their area. The film's interviewees all seem to agree on one seemingly radical idea. In a recent evaluation, it was determined that the earth provides goods and services worth $35 trillion a year, yet the combined economies of the world produced only half that at $18 trillion in 2006. That means the earth is twice as valuable to us as our economies and yet, every policy decision we make is to benefit the economy, not the earth. Even if it were possible to exist without nature or replace nature with technology, it would still cost us more than we have. Here's another radical idea. Wouldn't we be better off teaching our kids about how our planet works than blurring the lines between learning and selling, education and consumerism?
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The sky is falling!
About a year ago, when I was taking the bus down to San Jose every morning for my job, I subscribed to The Economist to have regular reading materials. I let my 6-month subscription lapse after noticing that every issue was filled with doom and gloom. At one point, though, I was going to blog about how little economists actually know and understand about how "the economy" works. I put it in quotes because what is it really? It's like the human body in that it's more complicated than anyone even realizes. We develop drugs to treat disease but because drugs only address symptoms, they have multitudes of side effects, some so severe that it's sometimes advisable not to even take the drug. Very little in medicine is holistic in that it addresses the health of the entire ecosystem (the body). This is how I see the economy being treated right now, like it has cancer and we're just going to give it a massive dose of chemo even though chemo has drastic side effects and, depending on the health of the subject, sometimes only makes things worse.
I had saved an in-depth interview with Ben Bernanke about the levers he was pulling a year ago. There must have been over 20 quotes that basically said that no one really knows how the whole thing works. He just either turns up or turns down the volume on various dials and sees what happens. The problem, he admitted, with that approach is that it takes time to see the results so every adjustment is followed by a period of growth or decline before another adjustment can be made. Even then, it's not reliable to assume that if raising interest rates was bad then lowering them must be good because everything affects something else. In every interview on NPR lately, I keep hearing that the system is far more complex than it used to be and "we're just discovering that now." The truth, I believe, is no one knows how it works. I wish I understood it just a little, because I feel like this whole thing is being grossly mishandled.
It eerily looks like the 9/11 scenario to me. In both instances, there were many warnings that a disaster was coming and nothing was done to prevent it from happening. I've been reading articles for a couple of years now about an impending housing crisis. These people making the loans knew there was a chance that the whole thing would blow up. They knew, but they didn't care. Why should they? There were huge profits to be made and like the Enron fiasco, some people still made out like bandits while the entire company lost their jobs and savings plans. Secondly, after the disaster, instead of investigating how it happened and figuring out how to prevent it from happening again, our leadership asked to have total control without any restrictions. This is no time for asking questions, they said! Instead, they invaded two countries, locked up hundreds of people without rights, restricted our civil liberties, skirted accountability and spent billions of dollars (not on our economy and infrastructure) and seven years later, we're still fighting the "war on terror" with no end in sight. How do we know this "bailout" won't be more of the same? I can't help wonder if this constant comparison to the Great Depression isn't just a way of scaring us into making a bad decision.
I heard the plan described as basically a way for these financial institutions to unload bad debt without any scrutiny and without having to make any promises in return about how they'll conduct business in the future. These are the same companies that have previously been treated with a "hands off" approach because the government shouldn't interfere, right? This is what we always hear about how the "free market" works and how it rights itself when unrestricted. Kind of like the explanation that when left to the market, the global warming crisis will just magically right itself without any interference from the government. So why does that approach suddenly get turned on its head when these companies, unfettered, behave badly and put everyone in a bad spot? Now they expect the government to bail them out? Bush says to just fork up the cash and not give any lectures. He threatens congress with being responsible for a total collapse of the economy if they don't ask fast enough, if they stop to ask questions or make demands, for instance. And yet no one's asking the question that should be asked which is why it's so difficult to afford a house in the first place.
There has been some speculation that Wall Street should just take the hit. People say that this could go on for much longer than we think. Bailout after bailout after bailout. Has anyone actually done an analysis on the long-term effects of this approach? Certainly, a parent could tell you that bad behavior that goes unpunished, and in fact rewarded, only encourages more bad behavior. Wasn't this the argument when last year, the government made it more difficult for individuals to file for bankruptcy? Why should it be easier for financial institutions to be bailed out while the executives make out with salaries of $10 million and more? Oh no, though, they say this is all for the taxpayer. It's to protect us from total disaster. But don't ask how it works.
I had saved an in-depth interview with Ben Bernanke about the levers he was pulling a year ago. There must have been over 20 quotes that basically said that no one really knows how the whole thing works. He just either turns up or turns down the volume on various dials and sees what happens. The problem, he admitted, with that approach is that it takes time to see the results so every adjustment is followed by a period of growth or decline before another adjustment can be made. Even then, it's not reliable to assume that if raising interest rates was bad then lowering them must be good because everything affects something else. In every interview on NPR lately, I keep hearing that the system is far more complex than it used to be and "we're just discovering that now." The truth, I believe, is no one knows how it works. I wish I understood it just a little, because I feel like this whole thing is being grossly mishandled.
It eerily looks like the 9/11 scenario to me. In both instances, there were many warnings that a disaster was coming and nothing was done to prevent it from happening. I've been reading articles for a couple of years now about an impending housing crisis. These people making the loans knew there was a chance that the whole thing would blow up. They knew, but they didn't care. Why should they? There were huge profits to be made and like the Enron fiasco, some people still made out like bandits while the entire company lost their jobs and savings plans. Secondly, after the disaster, instead of investigating how it happened and figuring out how to prevent it from happening again, our leadership asked to have total control without any restrictions. This is no time for asking questions, they said! Instead, they invaded two countries, locked up hundreds of people without rights, restricted our civil liberties, skirted accountability and spent billions of dollars (not on our economy and infrastructure) and seven years later, we're still fighting the "war on terror" with no end in sight. How do we know this "bailout" won't be more of the same? I can't help wonder if this constant comparison to the Great Depression isn't just a way of scaring us into making a bad decision.
I heard the plan described as basically a way for these financial institutions to unload bad debt without any scrutiny and without having to make any promises in return about how they'll conduct business in the future. These are the same companies that have previously been treated with a "hands off" approach because the government shouldn't interfere, right? This is what we always hear about how the "free market" works and how it rights itself when unrestricted. Kind of like the explanation that when left to the market, the global warming crisis will just magically right itself without any interference from the government. So why does that approach suddenly get turned on its head when these companies, unfettered, behave badly and put everyone in a bad spot? Now they expect the government to bail them out? Bush says to just fork up the cash and not give any lectures. He threatens congress with being responsible for a total collapse of the economy if they don't ask fast enough, if they stop to ask questions or make demands, for instance. And yet no one's asking the question that should be asked which is why it's so difficult to afford a house in the first place.
There has been some speculation that Wall Street should just take the hit. People say that this could go on for much longer than we think. Bailout after bailout after bailout. Has anyone actually done an analysis on the long-term effects of this approach? Certainly, a parent could tell you that bad behavior that goes unpunished, and in fact rewarded, only encourages more bad behavior. Wasn't this the argument when last year, the government made it more difficult for individuals to file for bankruptcy? Why should it be easier for financial institutions to be bailed out while the executives make out with salaries of $10 million and more? Oh no, though, they say this is all for the taxpayer. It's to protect us from total disaster. But don't ask how it works.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Building a more secure world, with guns
The industrial war machine is one of those things that the people in power like to say is too complicated for us, mere citizens of the world, to understand. I've heard that wars boost the economy, or at least that's what we're told in the U.S., although I imagine it only works if your country is involved in a war elsewhere. War on a nation's own soil doesn't seem to boost anything except the death toll. The U.S. had made it a special kind of a habit to be continuously involved in a war somewhere, anywhere but here.
Our country has been at war with one country or another since its inception with only short 5,10 or 15 year breaks, not including all the covert activities. In fact, the longest period of "peace" was after the Civil War, probably only because we were too broke and had too few young men to fight anyone. Not since the Civil War has there been war waged against the U.S., which probably makes us one of safest countries on the planet. We've never been invaded and yet our military spending far exceeds that of any other country. The entire world spent $1.2 trillion last year and the U.S. accounted for almost half of that. Apparently, though, we're so rich that it doesn't even constitute 4% of our GDP, putting us pretty low on the list of spending as a percentage of GDP. North Korea tops that list at a whopping 22%, yikes!
In the last two years, the U.S. has tripled the number of tanks, helicopters, missiles, jets and warships sold to the international community. At about $32 billion (so far this year), it's still just a drop in the bucket compared to the $583 billion we're spending, but likely represents quite a hike for the buyers. The biggest sales were to Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Iraq and Pakistan. The Pentagon says the deals are to solidify relationships and make the world safer. We can only assume the arms to Afghanistan are to help fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda but 2008 has been the deadliest year yet for U.S. troops there. We've already lost more soldiers this year than all of last year so the proliferation of weapons doesn't appear to making anyone safer. (Poor Australia has probably had to stock up because they're sitting next to Indonesia, which is now a terrorist hot spot.)
Just as I don't believe violence as a strategy leads to peace, it's also hard to believe that having more weapons in the world makes it a safer place. Even a child could figure that one out. It does, however, seem to ensure that there is always a war going on. It would be difficult to wage war on your neighbors without weaponry. Selling our technology to other countries also ensures the need to keep innovating better weapons, to stay ahead of the curve, thus keeping the war machine alive. We have managed to lose far less soldiers in each war but the death toll remains frighteningly high for those whose country we occupy. The U.S. does not keep that count and the whole world is trying to figure out how many Iraqis have died since the invasion. The figures inhabit a terrifying range of 90,000 to 1.5 million civilians and combatants. The Bush administration maintains the lowest number, of course. "Every other source, from the WHO to the surveys of Iraqi households, puts the average well above the Saddam-era figure" of 29,000 per year making our occupation more dangerous than Saddam's.
This latest round of wars, however, are different for the U.S. than previous ones. For one thing, we don't really know who the enemy is which makes it difficult to determine whether we're succeeding to defeat that enemy. Especially as this new kind of war seems to generate a steady supply of new enemies as it progresses; more effective war insurance! Another difference is the number of people who die from non-combat related causes. I just read that 16 soldiers were electrocuted to death because of faulty wiring in their living quarters. One while taking a shower, another while washing the humvee! The contractor responsible, KBR of Houston, who I have no doubt is boosting our economy, was paid "despite the problems, and was hired as recently as 2007 to repair its own faulty electrical work." Finally, because of the duration of the war and the relatively low death toll, most of young men and women are coming home and are physically handicapped and/or mentally damaged. What will be the long-term effect on that generation?
How do we know that the weapons we're selling to those countries will not fall into enemy hands and be used against us? How many times have we supported governments that have later become our enemies? We all know the story of how Osama Bin Laden came to power in the aftermath of being trained by the U.S. as a rebel to fight the Soviet invasion. Haven't we learned that lesson yet? It seems like the best way to defeat an enemy would be to disarm them by stopping the flow of weapons in their direction. Is that not something the international community is capable of?
No, apparently not. Russia and other European countries are also vying for big ticket sales to India and Brazil. In addition to the numbers above for "sophisticated" weapons, the U.S. also sells less sophisticated weapons and those numbers are already $96 billion this year, up from $58 billion in 2005. Then, added to that is the $4.5 billion in aid given to countries to buy weapons (presumably from us) and doesn't include the weapons we give away. According to this article, "The United States has long been the top arms supplier to the world. In the past several years, however, the list of nations that rely on the United States as a primary source of major weapons systems has greatly expanded." Expanded? Clearly, the world is buying because we're selling, not the other way around.
Again, I ask: Isn't it possible that the world would be safer if the U.S. didn't sell weapons to everyone else? It seems that we are in a unique position to stem the flow but the response from the Pentagon is if they don't buy from us, they'll buy from someone else. But countries are buying from us because we make the best and because we're selling. And what exactly would be the harm in the arms being bought from someone else? I would love to know. I think Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it best when he told a congressional committee Wednesday that the U.S. is "running out of time" to win the war in Afghanistan. "We can't kill our way to victory," he said, "and no armed force anywhere, no matter how good, can deliver these keys alone. It requires teamwork and cooperation."
Our country has been at war with one country or another since its inception with only short 5,10 or 15 year breaks, not including all the covert activities. In fact, the longest period of "peace" was after the Civil War, probably only because we were too broke and had too few young men to fight anyone. Not since the Civil War has there been war waged against the U.S., which probably makes us one of safest countries on the planet. We've never been invaded and yet our military spending far exceeds that of any other country. The entire world spent $1.2 trillion last year and the U.S. accounted for almost half of that. Apparently, though, we're so rich that it doesn't even constitute 4% of our GDP, putting us pretty low on the list of spending as a percentage of GDP. North Korea tops that list at a whopping 22%, yikes!
In the last two years, the U.S. has tripled the number of tanks, helicopters, missiles, jets and warships sold to the international community. At about $32 billion (so far this year), it's still just a drop in the bucket compared to the $583 billion we're spending, but likely represents quite a hike for the buyers. The biggest sales were to Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Iraq and Pakistan. The Pentagon says the deals are to solidify relationships and make the world safer. We can only assume the arms to Afghanistan are to help fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda but 2008 has been the deadliest year yet for U.S. troops there. We've already lost more soldiers this year than all of last year so the proliferation of weapons doesn't appear to making anyone safer. (Poor Australia has probably had to stock up because they're sitting next to Indonesia, which is now a terrorist hot spot.)
Just as I don't believe violence as a strategy leads to peace, it's also hard to believe that having more weapons in the world makes it a safer place. Even a child could figure that one out. It does, however, seem to ensure that there is always a war going on. It would be difficult to wage war on your neighbors without weaponry. Selling our technology to other countries also ensures the need to keep innovating better weapons, to stay ahead of the curve, thus keeping the war machine alive. We have managed to lose far less soldiers in each war but the death toll remains frighteningly high for those whose country we occupy. The U.S. does not keep that count and the whole world is trying to figure out how many Iraqis have died since the invasion. The figures inhabit a terrifying range of 90,000 to 1.5 million civilians and combatants. The Bush administration maintains the lowest number, of course. "Every other source, from the WHO to the surveys of Iraqi households, puts the average well above the Saddam-era figure" of 29,000 per year making our occupation more dangerous than Saddam's.
This latest round of wars, however, are different for the U.S. than previous ones. For one thing, we don't really know who the enemy is which makes it difficult to determine whether we're succeeding to defeat that enemy. Especially as this new kind of war seems to generate a steady supply of new enemies as it progresses; more effective war insurance! Another difference is the number of people who die from non-combat related causes. I just read that 16 soldiers were electrocuted to death because of faulty wiring in their living quarters. One while taking a shower, another while washing the humvee! The contractor responsible, KBR of Houston, who I have no doubt is boosting our economy, was paid "despite the problems, and was hired as recently as 2007 to repair its own faulty electrical work." Finally, because of the duration of the war and the relatively low death toll, most of young men and women are coming home and are physically handicapped and/or mentally damaged. What will be the long-term effect on that generation?
How do we know that the weapons we're selling to those countries will not fall into enemy hands and be used against us? How many times have we supported governments that have later become our enemies? We all know the story of how Osama Bin Laden came to power in the aftermath of being trained by the U.S. as a rebel to fight the Soviet invasion. Haven't we learned that lesson yet? It seems like the best way to defeat an enemy would be to disarm them by stopping the flow of weapons in their direction. Is that not something the international community is capable of?
No, apparently not. Russia and other European countries are also vying for big ticket sales to India and Brazil. In addition to the numbers above for "sophisticated" weapons, the U.S. also sells less sophisticated weapons and those numbers are already $96 billion this year, up from $58 billion in 2005. Then, added to that is the $4.5 billion in aid given to countries to buy weapons (presumably from us) and doesn't include the weapons we give away. According to this article, "The United States has long been the top arms supplier to the world. In the past several years, however, the list of nations that rely on the United States as a primary source of major weapons systems has greatly expanded." Expanded? Clearly, the world is buying because we're selling, not the other way around.
Again, I ask: Isn't it possible that the world would be safer if the U.S. didn't sell weapons to everyone else? It seems that we are in a unique position to stem the flow but the response from the Pentagon is if they don't buy from us, they'll buy from someone else. But countries are buying from us because we make the best and because we're selling. And what exactly would be the harm in the arms being bought from someone else? I would love to know. I think Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it best when he told a congressional committee Wednesday that the U.S. is "running out of time" to win the war in Afghanistan. "We can't kill our way to victory," he said, "and no armed force anywhere, no matter how good, can deliver these keys alone. It requires teamwork and cooperation."
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
No worse than the other guy
Sunday morning, someone asked me if I'd read the front-page article about Sarah Palin in the New York Times. "It read like an op-ed piece," she said, "not like a serious news article." Curious, I went home and read it, a five-page “expose” on Palin’s dealings with colleagues as gathered from "60 Democrats and Republicans." I didn't think it was very interesting, frankly, and it only confirmed what I already thought: This woman is not a contender for our highest office. (Although now she is reminding me more of Nicole Kidman's character in To Die For than Dolores Umbridge.)
What I found more interesting than the article, though, were the 1,051 comments (before commenting was closed). There were three types of responses. Those from people who already didn't like Palin and this just confirmed it, those who weren't sure what to think and are now horrified and those who think Palin is unjustly being crucified by the liberal press. The last category is of the most interest to me because it exposes the questions.
Some people simply cannot tolerate the ugliness of politics and I am one of those people so I understand that they may feel compelled to stick up for the person they feel is being picked on. But Sarah Palin seems to be a bully in every sense of the word, not someone to feel sorry for. It is precisely seen as one of her strengths, like it was for Hilary Clinton, a woman who can fight with the men. Then there are those who say the article is just a gossip piece and scoff at the Times for spending so many resources to only come up with this. I have to agree with this although I’m inclined to believe it’s because Palin doesn’t have much to offer but gossip. Mayor of a town only twice as large as my high school and governor of a state the size of the county I grew up in, it’s hard to believe she has much substantive experience to really dig into.
This isn't a news story, just a waste bin of mindless small town gossip. You could write a story like this about every mayor in America.
— White River, Arkansas
I'd love to point to Mayor Villairagosa in Los Angeles who has tackled issues the magnitude of which are actually comparable to those of a higher office. But what I find most troubling is the pervasive belief that all politicians are corrupt. An alarming number of comments sarcastically feign horror at a politician who "hires friends" and "fires enemies" and so in that regard, she is no different than Obama.
I am a registered Democrat and don't see Palin as being any more or less qualified than Obama. They both have huge experience holes. I do believe that the transcendent issue of our time is ENERGY. She seems to be the only person in the group of four who understands how to truly produce more energy.
— Bill, Pennsylvania
Sarah Palin is no worse than anyone on the other side. In fact, I think she may be better. So I will vote McCain with her on the ticket.
— Roy Pendergraft, San Antonio, Texas
Do you think your favorite Democrats are different or better???
— S charles, Northern, NJ
I actually interpreted what was being questioned is how one comes to BE labeled a friend or an enemy, not whether it makes sense to hire friends and fire enemies. Can you imagine the new ads for McCain/Palin: "No worse than the other guy, maybe even better." I suppose it is naïve of me to expect something better from the President but I don’t intend to simply relinquish the standards of our government laid down by our constitution because “that’s just the way people are" and refuse to believe that this type is behavior is required in our current government.
Well it appears that Palin runs a very tight ship. I am not at all surprised about the findings in this article. I am a teacher and my previous school underwent a change of guard in my last year. When the new principal came in she brought new cronies, new policies, and singled out her favorite teachers. Some of the teachers deserved the accolades and some didn't. Some policies were absurd, some weren't. Most of the cronies were incompetent.
The bottom line is that business is not as professional as anyone would like to make it seem. Especially in the government. Taxpayer money is the easiest checkbook to throw around. I'm not letting Palin off the hook, I'm just not surprised. A lot of people get jobs because they "know" somebody.
I'm sure we have all been victims of workplace unfairness at some point or other. I'm sure most of us have even participated in it. Most of this behavior is human nature. Do I think Palin will act any differently if elected to the White House? No. Do I think that she will be the first president or vice-president to use her power to get back at people? No again. I don't want Palin in office at all. But this article isn't making me like her any less. I'm more concerned about her policies.
— Toussaint, NY
While I agree that corruption is not a new idea, it’s certainly not ideal. We’re supposed to have a choice here! Are we not? And while I’ve been in really frustrating and annoying work situations where incompetent people were rewarded, good ideas were shot down and people played dirty, I fought them. I didn’t just say “that’s the way it is” and go about my business. To my detriment, perhaps, but I didn’t vote those people into their positions and the future of our country was not at stake. To compare the Vice Presidency to a teacher’s job or my marketing job is a joke. To say that it doesn’t matter how she behaves only what she produces is also absurd. I learned first hand that no matter how good a person’s direction, it is meaningless if we cannot learn to achieve these things in a way that is respectful and that builds roads and bridges to more progress.
Several readers suggest that the Times has yet to do such in-depth reporting on Obama, because surely they would find the same kind of gossip about him. Some simply dismiss the Times as pro-Obama and say they "will do anything to make this woman look bad." Two readers end by saying "no wonder your stock is tanking" and "look at your revenues," suggesting that the paper is going bankrupt because of their unfair reporting. Isn't it contradictory to accuse the paper of being biased and then making reference to their financial status? If fairness were truly the bottom line, their finances wouldn't matter.
It is nice but who is reading your paper, only the people who would rather vote for a pig than for a Republican. Have you ever done such a lengthy research on Obama's record?
— Igor Dolgachev, Ann Arbor, MI
I look forward to seeing similar in depth investigation of Joe Biden and, for that matter, Barack Obama.
— Dennis from the Bronx, NYS
You know there are times when I really feel like just saying goodbye to the NYT! You cannot simultaneously deride her lack of experience and also meticulously cut up her record. I am not saying that she is the most experienced but I have never read an article like this as critical of Obama or excoriating him like you did Palin. Your bias is so clear it is despicable.
— tom, Bronxville, new york
i will donate $1,000.xx to the charity of JO BECKER, PETER S. GOODMAN AND MICHAEL POWELL's collective choice if they can point me to a New York Times story in the last twelve months similar in tone, depth, length and quotes from critics about either Senator Obama or Senator Biden.
— michael schrage, cambridge
Clearly, it isn't more in-depth articles people want, they just want the bashing to be even. Don't make Sarah Palin look bad if you aren't going to equally discredit the other candidates. Is it really our desire to see all of our candidates dragged in the mud until it’s impossible to believe in a leader that we can respect? It's funny because I doubt these people are as upset about McCain bashing Obama because that's just fair politics for one candidate to trash and lie about another. I, for one, am more upset about our presidential candidates engaging in this type of behavior than I am the press. The press has always been inflammatory. I might be wrong but I thought it was their role to ask the brazen questions and uncover the truth, not to present a fairly balanced scorecard of all candidates with equal amounts of ugly and pretty. Our candidates, however, are supposed to convince us why we should vote for them. It is NOT their job to slander the other candidates.
In another article about the investigation into a firing by Sarah Palin that several Republicans are suing to halt, one of the attorneys says:
"There is no nonpartisan reason to complete this investigation until after the election," said Anchorage attorney Kevin G. Clarkson. "We just want to take the politics out of it and bring fairness back into it."
Good lord! It's no wonder the public is so confused, these people can't stop talking out of both sides of their mouths! They want the investigation to stop because they think it's going to unfairly affect the election? But they ALSO think it's somehow totally unrelated and the public doesn't need to know the truth about her until AFTER the election? I am sickened by the ever-present reference that politics is inherently dirty and, according to the above quote, the OPPOSITE of fair. It seems to confirm that people really believe there is no difference between any candidate, they’re all corrupt egomaniacs, so it really is a mere popularity contest. If it doesn't matter what a person stands for and what they've actually accomplished, it only comes down to is whether you personally think they're neat. Which is so interesting in light of McCain's claim that the Obama supporters are just a bunch of glassy-eyed sycophants, implying that his supporters are meat-and-potatoes issues people. From the fainting spells the Republicans are having over Palin I'd say the opposite is true, but of course she wasn't in the picture then.
I just watched the Sarah Palin special on CNN: sorry, but I can't see anything wrong or that would disturb me - seems to be just a fine woman, and with a spine! So would you please stop bashing her now?
— Richard Streiff, California
I agree. I’m tired of hearing about her! On another note, I caught a little speech by Jill Biden who comes across as a truly lovely person — genuine, likeable and intelligent. She is the perfect antidote to all this ugliness.
What I found more interesting than the article, though, were the 1,051 comments (before commenting was closed). There were three types of responses. Those from people who already didn't like Palin and this just confirmed it, those who weren't sure what to think and are now horrified and those who think Palin is unjustly being crucified by the liberal press. The last category is of the most interest to me because it exposes the questions.
Some people simply cannot tolerate the ugliness of politics and I am one of those people so I understand that they may feel compelled to stick up for the person they feel is being picked on. But Sarah Palin seems to be a bully in every sense of the word, not someone to feel sorry for. It is precisely seen as one of her strengths, like it was for Hilary Clinton, a woman who can fight with the men. Then there are those who say the article is just a gossip piece and scoff at the Times for spending so many resources to only come up with this. I have to agree with this although I’m inclined to believe it’s because Palin doesn’t have much to offer but gossip. Mayor of a town only twice as large as my high school and governor of a state the size of the county I grew up in, it’s hard to believe she has much substantive experience to really dig into.
This isn't a news story, just a waste bin of mindless small town gossip. You could write a story like this about every mayor in America.
— White River, Arkansas
I'd love to point to Mayor Villairagosa in Los Angeles who has tackled issues the magnitude of which are actually comparable to those of a higher office. But what I find most troubling is the pervasive belief that all politicians are corrupt. An alarming number of comments sarcastically feign horror at a politician who "hires friends" and "fires enemies" and so in that regard, she is no different than Obama.
I am a registered Democrat and don't see Palin as being any more or less qualified than Obama. They both have huge experience holes. I do believe that the transcendent issue of our time is ENERGY. She seems to be the only person in the group of four who understands how to truly produce more energy.
— Bill, Pennsylvania
Sarah Palin is no worse than anyone on the other side. In fact, I think she may be better. So I will vote McCain with her on the ticket.
— Roy Pendergraft, San Antonio, Texas
Do you think your favorite Democrats are different or better???
— S charles, Northern, NJ
I actually interpreted what was being questioned is how one comes to BE labeled a friend or an enemy, not whether it makes sense to hire friends and fire enemies. Can you imagine the new ads for McCain/Palin: "No worse than the other guy, maybe even better." I suppose it is naïve of me to expect something better from the President but I don’t intend to simply relinquish the standards of our government laid down by our constitution because “that’s just the way people are" and refuse to believe that this type is behavior is required in our current government.
Well it appears that Palin runs a very tight ship. I am not at all surprised about the findings in this article. I am a teacher and my previous school underwent a change of guard in my last year. When the new principal came in she brought new cronies, new policies, and singled out her favorite teachers. Some of the teachers deserved the accolades and some didn't. Some policies were absurd, some weren't. Most of the cronies were incompetent.
The bottom line is that business is not as professional as anyone would like to make it seem. Especially in the government. Taxpayer money is the easiest checkbook to throw around. I'm not letting Palin off the hook, I'm just not surprised. A lot of people get jobs because they "know" somebody.
I'm sure we have all been victims of workplace unfairness at some point or other. I'm sure most of us have even participated in it. Most of this behavior is human nature. Do I think Palin will act any differently if elected to the White House? No. Do I think that she will be the first president or vice-president to use her power to get back at people? No again. I don't want Palin in office at all. But this article isn't making me like her any less. I'm more concerned about her policies.
— Toussaint, NY
While I agree that corruption is not a new idea, it’s certainly not ideal. We’re supposed to have a choice here! Are we not? And while I’ve been in really frustrating and annoying work situations where incompetent people were rewarded, good ideas were shot down and people played dirty, I fought them. I didn’t just say “that’s the way it is” and go about my business. To my detriment, perhaps, but I didn’t vote those people into their positions and the future of our country was not at stake. To compare the Vice Presidency to a teacher’s job or my marketing job is a joke. To say that it doesn’t matter how she behaves only what she produces is also absurd. I learned first hand that no matter how good a person’s direction, it is meaningless if we cannot learn to achieve these things in a way that is respectful and that builds roads and bridges to more progress.
Several readers suggest that the Times has yet to do such in-depth reporting on Obama, because surely they would find the same kind of gossip about him. Some simply dismiss the Times as pro-Obama and say they "will do anything to make this woman look bad." Two readers end by saying "no wonder your stock is tanking" and "look at your revenues," suggesting that the paper is going bankrupt because of their unfair reporting. Isn't it contradictory to accuse the paper of being biased and then making reference to their financial status? If fairness were truly the bottom line, their finances wouldn't matter.
It is nice but who is reading your paper, only the people who would rather vote for a pig than for a Republican. Have you ever done such a lengthy research on Obama's record?
— Igor Dolgachev, Ann Arbor, MI
I look forward to seeing similar in depth investigation of Joe Biden and, for that matter, Barack Obama.
— Dennis from the Bronx, NYS
You know there are times when I really feel like just saying goodbye to the NYT! You cannot simultaneously deride her lack of experience and also meticulously cut up her record. I am not saying that she is the most experienced but I have never read an article like this as critical of Obama or excoriating him like you did Palin. Your bias is so clear it is despicable.
— tom, Bronxville, new york
i will donate $1,000.xx to the charity of JO BECKER, PETER S. GOODMAN AND MICHAEL POWELL's collective choice if they can point me to a New York Times story in the last twelve months similar in tone, depth, length and quotes from critics about either Senator Obama or Senator Biden.
— michael schrage, cambridge
Clearly, it isn't more in-depth articles people want, they just want the bashing to be even. Don't make Sarah Palin look bad if you aren't going to equally discredit the other candidates. Is it really our desire to see all of our candidates dragged in the mud until it’s impossible to believe in a leader that we can respect? It's funny because I doubt these people are as upset about McCain bashing Obama because that's just fair politics for one candidate to trash and lie about another. I, for one, am more upset about our presidential candidates engaging in this type of behavior than I am the press. The press has always been inflammatory. I might be wrong but I thought it was their role to ask the brazen questions and uncover the truth, not to present a fairly balanced scorecard of all candidates with equal amounts of ugly and pretty. Our candidates, however, are supposed to convince us why we should vote for them. It is NOT their job to slander the other candidates.
In another article about the investigation into a firing by Sarah Palin that several Republicans are suing to halt, one of the attorneys says:
"There is no nonpartisan reason to complete this investigation until after the election," said Anchorage attorney Kevin G. Clarkson. "We just want to take the politics out of it and bring fairness back into it."
Good lord! It's no wonder the public is so confused, these people can't stop talking out of both sides of their mouths! They want the investigation to stop because they think it's going to unfairly affect the election? But they ALSO think it's somehow totally unrelated and the public doesn't need to know the truth about her until AFTER the election? I am sickened by the ever-present reference that politics is inherently dirty and, according to the above quote, the OPPOSITE of fair. It seems to confirm that people really believe there is no difference between any candidate, they’re all corrupt egomaniacs, so it really is a mere popularity contest. If it doesn't matter what a person stands for and what they've actually accomplished, it only comes down to is whether you personally think they're neat. Which is so interesting in light of McCain's claim that the Obama supporters are just a bunch of glassy-eyed sycophants, implying that his supporters are meat-and-potatoes issues people. From the fainting spells the Republicans are having over Palin I'd say the opposite is true, but of course she wasn't in the picture then.
I just watched the Sarah Palin special on CNN: sorry, but I can't see anything wrong or that would disturb me - seems to be just a fine woman, and with a spine! So would you please stop bashing her now?
— Richard Streiff, California
I agree. I’m tired of hearing about her! On another note, I caught a little speech by Jill Biden who comes across as a truly lovely person — genuine, likeable and intelligent. She is the perfect antidote to all this ugliness.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Stretching for peace
I found myself in a yoga class tonight, here in the suburbs, and it occurred to me that I've been in a yoga class every September 11 since 2001. I think unconsciously I gravitate towards a place, towards people, that I know are peace-loving. It's a funny term, given Bush's constant use of "freedom haters" and "freedom lovers" when he should have been talking about peace. Freedom doesn't mean much when people are killing and dying for it. Anyway, I find it interesting that yoga is always the same. In every country, in every town, a yoga class is always about finding inner peace and radiating it out to the world. Yoga has become one of the largest counter-culture communities in a world that prefers war and violence to peace and love. It is amazing web of individuals who travel all over the world spreading that message of love and peace. Even if the towns are different from one another, within the walls of a yoga class, everyone is the same. A woman in the class had on a shirt that said "My religion is simple, my religion is kindness." Her husband's shirt simply said "peace." It was exactly the place to be on this day.
Just as the past seven years have been, the week was filled with irony as "In three reports delivered to Congress on Wednesday, the department’s inspector general, Earl E. Devaney, found wrongdoing by a dozen current and former employees of the Minerals Management Service, which collects about $10 billion in royalties annually and is one of the government’s largest sources of revenue other than taxes." Whoa, the second largest source of revenue? Who knew that? I certainly didn't. It sheds quite another light on the idea that this country is addicted to oil. Even more ironic is our pal Palin's comment in an interview tonight that she is ready to lead and in fact, ready to be president! She says "“You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war.” What kind of reform is she talking about I wonder. Moral reform? I think that's the platform George W. Bush rode in on and look where that got us. Enron, Guantanamo, and now this, "a culture of ethical failure, a dysfunctional organization that has been riddled with conflicts of interest, unprofessional behavior and a free-for-all atmosphere for much of the Bush administration’s watch."
Reports describe government employees taking gifts and accepting vacations, having sex with and taking drugs with oil company employees. Sounds fun! All this while taking in the second largest haul for the government. Suddenly people are wondering if pushing for offshore drilling is such a hot idea and Palin's talking about drilling in Alaska. This is one of those stories that makes me think, finally, people will hear the truth. Finally, people will see what a mess Bush has made. Palin called them "blunders" as if someone tripped over the dog or spilled milk. I wouldn't describe what's happened in our country for the last seven years as a series of blunders, I'd call it a culture of ethical failure.
Just as the past seven years have been, the week was filled with irony as "In three reports delivered to Congress on Wednesday, the department’s inspector general, Earl E. Devaney, found wrongdoing by a dozen current and former employees of the Minerals Management Service, which collects about $10 billion in royalties annually and is one of the government’s largest sources of revenue other than taxes." Whoa, the second largest source of revenue? Who knew that? I certainly didn't. It sheds quite another light on the idea that this country is addicted to oil. Even more ironic is our pal Palin's comment in an interview tonight that she is ready to lead and in fact, ready to be president! She says "“You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war.” What kind of reform is she talking about I wonder. Moral reform? I think that's the platform George W. Bush rode in on and look where that got us. Enron, Guantanamo, and now this, "a culture of ethical failure, a dysfunctional organization that has been riddled with conflicts of interest, unprofessional behavior and a free-for-all atmosphere for much of the Bush administration’s watch."
Reports describe government employees taking gifts and accepting vacations, having sex with and taking drugs with oil company employees. Sounds fun! All this while taking in the second largest haul for the government. Suddenly people are wondering if pushing for offshore drilling is such a hot idea and Palin's talking about drilling in Alaska. This is one of those stories that makes me think, finally, people will hear the truth. Finally, people will see what a mess Bush has made. Palin called them "blunders" as if someone tripped over the dog or spilled milk. I wouldn't describe what's happened in our country for the last seven years as a series of blunders, I'd call it a culture of ethical failure.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Back to school
It's well into September already and I only posted three measly times last month, my all time low. I intend, this month, to get back on track. It's so hard to do. Everything worth doing has be done all the time: eating healthy, exercise, loving your friends/partner/family, forgiving yourself, writing and even gardening. Without practice and dedicated attention, these things wither - body, relationships, mental health, passion and the plants. I'm settled now, for the time being, in the suburbs. I have a one bedroom apartment to myself and although it's quite nice, I'm still very aware of not wanting to get comfortable, or maybe to not get too used to not having to work. What if making a living is like those other things and without practice I will cease to do it?
The suburbs are dreadful and even my mother thinks so. She's here because of me. In 1980, my parents got jobs in this area and bought a house in the place they could afford that was also a good area to raise kids. Many of the parents of the kids I went to school with left when the kids graduated. The others, like my mom, still work for the Navy and have to stay until they retire. Many stay here after retirement but a lot of them are anxious to go somewhere else. The food is dreadfully average and if you ask a barista if they have organic milk, they look at you like you just vomited. It's always been Republican country but the demographic seems to have changed. People drive huge SUVs with license plates that say "LUVRKIDS," right next to a sticker of a little girl praying. Many of my friends don't believe the stories of people here chopping down mature trees and paving the front yard in order to park the boat, RV or 4-wheelers there. Every night someone buzzes by one of those "mini motorcycles" and we can hear it coming for ten minutes before it passes by. It's a concrete paradise! Some of the American flags in the yards are bigger than the one at the USA gas station.
I went to the Farmer's Market on Saturday and made a lot of new friends. It wasn't as fun as the one in San Francisco but that's to be expected. One of the vendors told me that more people are coming to these days, that it's in vogue. The checker at Trader Joe's told me more people bring their own bags these days too. So I'm encouraged by that. I brought home from the Farmer's Market, the sweetest tomatoes, the crispiest cucumbers and the tastiest chard I've ever had. I also found pastured eggs (for half as much as they are in San Fran), raw milk cheese and homemade avocado cilantro hummus (yum!). I'm going to try the yoga studio soon and check out the new pool at the community center and, yes, I'm going to blog about something interesting. I'm kind of floored over this Sarah Palin thing and still formulating what to say about her except the fact that she is Dolores Umbridge from Harry Potter. Ironic, considering that she tried to ban the Harry Potter books from the library in the town she was mayor of.
Dolores Umbridge, if you don't recall, is the woman who showed up from the Ministry of Magic in the last film and dismantled everything that was good about Hogwarts. Under the guise of spreading the truth, her main objective was to put to bed the rumors that something bad was about to happen. She took over the Dark Arts class and banned the useful books that actually taught magic and insisted that they instead study from these 1950's style books with innocuous illustrations. She took over the school and fired teachers that she didn't like and established hundreds of rules limiting the freedom of the kids, including free speech and the right to assemble. It's precisely what Sarah Palin has already done in her "leadership" positions.
Umbridge, played with delightful malice by Imelda Staunton, was adorable. She smiled and wore pink and had an office decorated with kitties but behind closed doors was not above torturing students to get to the truth. Nor was she above pitting the students against each other, turning them all in to spies, or lying to get what she wanted, kind of like what Sarah Palin did at the Republican Convention. See, most people don't really want to know the truth, they WANT to believe what they're told. You can tell them out-and-out lies and they won't look it up online to see if it's true. Even if it's later revealed to be a lie in the media, they'll chalk it up to the fact that the press is liberal (another Republican "distortion") or liars themselves.
The good news is that Dolores Umbridge was eventually sacked, after people started to believe Harry that you-know-who was back, but things got really bad before that. The bad news is that the religious right doesn't watch Harry Potter movies (magic is evil) so they won't see for themselves how dangerous Ms. Palin aka Ms. Umbridge is. Nor will their children learn the valuable lesson of how important it is to think for (and stand up for) yourself. The one thing I know most people can understand, however, is the potential for malice in politics. Just because Palin is on McCain's team, recruited to help him win, doesn't mean she's on his side. Look what happened to Kennedy! All I'm saying is that McCain should watch his back, I wouldn't trust that woman. If I were McCain, I would be sure to resist seduction by Palin and I sure wouldn't go hunting with her.
The suburbs are dreadful and even my mother thinks so. She's here because of me. In 1980, my parents got jobs in this area and bought a house in the place they could afford that was also a good area to raise kids. Many of the parents of the kids I went to school with left when the kids graduated. The others, like my mom, still work for the Navy and have to stay until they retire. Many stay here after retirement but a lot of them are anxious to go somewhere else. The food is dreadfully average and if you ask a barista if they have organic milk, they look at you like you just vomited. It's always been Republican country but the demographic seems to have changed. People drive huge SUVs with license plates that say "LUVRKIDS," right next to a sticker of a little girl praying. Many of my friends don't believe the stories of people here chopping down mature trees and paving the front yard in order to park the boat, RV or 4-wheelers there. Every night someone buzzes by one of those "mini motorcycles" and we can hear it coming for ten minutes before it passes by. It's a concrete paradise! Some of the American flags in the yards are bigger than the one at the USA gas station.
I went to the Farmer's Market on Saturday and made a lot of new friends. It wasn't as fun as the one in San Francisco but that's to be expected. One of the vendors told me that more people are coming to these days, that it's in vogue. The checker at Trader Joe's told me more people bring their own bags these days too. So I'm encouraged by that. I brought home from the Farmer's Market, the sweetest tomatoes, the crispiest cucumbers and the tastiest chard I've ever had. I also found pastured eggs (for half as much as they are in San Fran), raw milk cheese and homemade avocado cilantro hummus (yum!). I'm going to try the yoga studio soon and check out the new pool at the community center and, yes, I'm going to blog about something interesting. I'm kind of floored over this Sarah Palin thing and still formulating what to say about her except the fact that she is Dolores Umbridge from Harry Potter. Ironic, considering that she tried to ban the Harry Potter books from the library in the town she was mayor of.
Dolores Umbridge, if you don't recall, is the woman who showed up from the Ministry of Magic in the last film and dismantled everything that was good about Hogwarts. Under the guise of spreading the truth, her main objective was to put to bed the rumors that something bad was about to happen. She took over the Dark Arts class and banned the useful books that actually taught magic and insisted that they instead study from these 1950's style books with innocuous illustrations. She took over the school and fired teachers that she didn't like and established hundreds of rules limiting the freedom of the kids, including free speech and the right to assemble. It's precisely what Sarah Palin has already done in her "leadership" positions.
Umbridge, played with delightful malice by Imelda Staunton, was adorable. She smiled and wore pink and had an office decorated with kitties but behind closed doors was not above torturing students to get to the truth. Nor was she above pitting the students against each other, turning them all in to spies, or lying to get what she wanted, kind of like what Sarah Palin did at the Republican Convention. See, most people don't really want to know the truth, they WANT to believe what they're told. You can tell them out-and-out lies and they won't look it up online to see if it's true. Even if it's later revealed to be a lie in the media, they'll chalk it up to the fact that the press is liberal (another Republican "distortion") or liars themselves.
The good news is that Dolores Umbridge was eventually sacked, after people started to believe Harry that you-know-who was back, but things got really bad before that. The bad news is that the religious right doesn't watch Harry Potter movies (magic is evil) so they won't see for themselves how dangerous Ms. Palin aka Ms. Umbridge is. Nor will their children learn the valuable lesson of how important it is to think for (and stand up for) yourself. The one thing I know most people can understand, however, is the potential for malice in politics. Just because Palin is on McCain's team, recruited to help him win, doesn't mean she's on his side. Look what happened to Kennedy! All I'm saying is that McCain should watch his back, I wouldn't trust that woman. If I were McCain, I would be sure to resist seduction by Palin and I sure wouldn't go hunting with her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)