Hi everybody!
I am a newly unemployed Silicon Valley engineer, of the senior hardware variety. I will try and not bore you with my sad story of losing a good job at a growing company.
I will try to interest you in my new me. I am a man of a certain age that is looking back at my lack of joy and I have decided enough of that. Paid work or not, I am focused on improving my health starting with my physical condition. I have tried many forms of exercise, and found all but one wanting: running.
Running for a couch potato is not easy. My first run will be both short, maybe a city block or less, and quite slow. Why choose running, considering my age, and weight? Well, my overall health is quite good. The basics, like blood pressure, blood panel and the like are all quite good. The reason I am going back to running is what running did for me. I felt free when I ran. I ran for several years in my late 20's and lost weight, built stamina. I just enjoyed the feeling of freedom that came only with running.
So, why did I stop? For reasons many runners know: injuries. I would hurt my back, my knees, my feet. Most of me felt the pain of running on many occasions. I tried as many things as I could come up with to keep me on the road: ice, better shoes, better socks, running on dirt tracks, running on grass. None of this stopped the injury that was sure to happen.
With that background, why in hell would I go back to running? Did I mention I felt free when I ran? This is the only time I have this feeling. Also, I have learned a lot about shoes and their affect on the runner. Humans have run barefoot for, well as long as we have existed until the invention of the shoe and later the running shoe. Our bodies are well optimized for barefoot running. We would not exist today if we needed shoes 100,000 years ago.
How is a tenderfoot like me going to go back to running, a source of joy and pain so long given up, and start over without shoes? Well, I did not say I would run for miles on my first outing. As well as not saying I would not wear protection of a sort. I found a website, http://www.invisibleshoe.com that sells kits and custom "shoes" for barefoot running. This footwear is as close to barefoot as is possible without having the sole of my foot touching the ground. See the website for more information and some videos on the topic.
I now believe the pain I had from running was caused by the pounding I took from heel strike running, the running form most shod runners use. Without the heel strike, I believe I can get back into running.
When I starting running, in my 20's, I would only run in the wee hours of the morning or after dark because I was embarrassed to be seen sucking so much wind and bouncing so much fat. Not only that, but I nearly vomited on my first two or three runs that were only 100 to 200 yards long. But after a number of months, I found I could run a mile or so without feeling like I was killing myself. I actually looked forward to the runs, mostly for stress relief and later for the feeling of freedom.
I suspect my ramp up on mileage will be slower, I will take my time so I can avoid injury. Having almost nothing on my feet does feel good.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Monday, April 20, 2009
World's Greatest Robbery
The most recent value of the derivatives market from the Bank for International Settlements in Switzerland, as of June 2008, is about 650 trillion dollars. If we take the value of all the stocks on all the stock markets, the value of all the publicly traded companies, and add them up, we get about 30 trillion dollars or less than 1/20 of the value of all outstanding derivative contracts.
What does this mean? These contracts are bets on the rise and fall of commodity prices, stock prices, weather; whether or not someone can pay someone else (a naked credit default swap) and anything else the wizards of Wall Street can bet upon.
In a worst case financial melt-down, the gaping maw of derivatives will consume all the world's wealth and still only be satisfied to the tune of 1/20 of all existing debt. The wealth consumed by the derivatives payouts is not destroyed, it is relocated, transferred from the many to the few who are on the payout end of these contracts.
If we do not zero-out the worst of these contracts, we will see the greatest wealth redistribution in history. When the trigger on a derivative is pulled, it is pulled based on some underlying asset, or ability to pay, failing a test written into the contract. Since the value of the contracts vastly exceeds the world's wealth, we have many bets with full value payout placed on the same base asset or action.
To survive this downturn, we must consider zeroing-out the worst of these derivative contracts. When Lehman Brothers failed, the underlying assets for 100's of billions of dollars worth of derivative contracts was destroyed. The shock waves from this, one of the smaller investment banks, failure caused world-wide lending to freeze-up solid. We can not afford one of the larger banks to collapse without first dealing with derivatives.
Once the nuclear weapon of the financial world, the derivative contract, is defused, we can start to unwind the failing banks and begin a true economic recovery.
What does this mean? These contracts are bets on the rise and fall of commodity prices, stock prices, weather; whether or not someone can pay someone else (a naked credit default swap) and anything else the wizards of Wall Street can bet upon.
In a worst case financial melt-down, the gaping maw of derivatives will consume all the world's wealth and still only be satisfied to the tune of 1/20 of all existing debt. The wealth consumed by the derivatives payouts is not destroyed, it is relocated, transferred from the many to the few who are on the payout end of these contracts.
If we do not zero-out the worst of these contracts, we will see the greatest wealth redistribution in history. When the trigger on a derivative is pulled, it is pulled based on some underlying asset, or ability to pay, failing a test written into the contract. Since the value of the contracts vastly exceeds the world's wealth, we have many bets with full value payout placed on the same base asset or action.
To survive this downturn, we must consider zeroing-out the worst of these derivative contracts. When Lehman Brothers failed, the underlying assets for 100's of billions of dollars worth of derivative contracts was destroyed. The shock waves from this, one of the smaller investment banks, failure caused world-wide lending to freeze-up solid. We can not afford one of the larger banks to collapse without first dealing with derivatives.
Once the nuclear weapon of the financial world, the derivative contract, is defused, we can start to unwind the failing banks and begin a true economic recovery.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Bankruptcy law blocks AIG recovery
The 2005 bankruptcy law passed by the Republican House, Senate and President is preventing the current administration from properly disposing of AIG. In short, the problematic change is to move the holders of derivative contracts to the head-of-the-line in a bankruptcy hearing.
How can the order of payouts in bankruptcy make a difference? According to the International Bank of Settlements, BIS, in Switzerland, there are 1000 Trillion dollars in active CDO, and CDS derivative contracts. The world GDP is only 60 Trillion dollars. If we payoff the bad derivative bets before, say employees, creditors, or shareholders, we will have a massive movement of dollars from stakeholders to financial gamblers. A massive transfer of wealth from the tax payers to the owners of these derivative contracts. Unless the laws are changed back, we will be paying our tax dollars for generations to make good on these financial market creations.
Push your elected leaders to repeal the 2005 bankruptcy bill. We must not payout on Wall Street bets with our futures. Remember AIG has already sent about 90 Billion dollars to other banks, some outside of the US, to payoff these derivative bets. Once the derivative contracts are placed at the back-of-the-line in a bankruptcy hearing, we can start to properly unwind the failed financial institutions and start on the road to recovery.
How can the order of payouts in bankruptcy make a difference? According to the International Bank of Settlements, BIS, in Switzerland, there are 1000 Trillion dollars in active CDO, and CDS derivative contracts. The world GDP is only 60 Trillion dollars. If we payoff the bad derivative bets before, say employees, creditors, or shareholders, we will have a massive movement of dollars from stakeholders to financial gamblers. A massive transfer of wealth from the tax payers to the owners of these derivative contracts. Unless the laws are changed back, we will be paying our tax dollars for generations to make good on these financial market creations.
Push your elected leaders to repeal the 2005 bankruptcy bill. We must not payout on Wall Street bets with our futures. Remember AIG has already sent about 90 Billion dollars to other banks, some outside of the US, to payoff these derivative bets. Once the derivative contracts are placed at the back-of-the-line in a bankruptcy hearing, we can start to properly unwind the failed financial institutions and start on the road to recovery.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Repeal the Reagan tax cuts
Netflix CEO, Reed Hastings, has an excellent point, but misses the mark. Yes, the very wealthy use more of the commons than the rest of us and should pay a higher tax rate to pay for using the courts, roads, airports, police, fire, etc. What he should have added: Yes, CEOs use their membership on boards of directors to game more compensation for themselves. Yes, many CEOs are more interested in their own compensation than the health of the companies they are well paid to run.
But the real issue is: economic bubbles caused by top wage earners. The last time we entered a period of economic deflation was after three Republican administrations lowered the top marginal tax rates and reduced regulations. The current economic cliff we peer over was brought upon us by the last three Republican and one free-trading Democratic administrations that did very much the same thing. In both cases, the depression followed bubbles in stock and housing. America's experience and understanding the cause of the Great Depression and the current economic colapse shows that top tax rates that are too low cause economic instability, bubbles and ultimately major resessions and depressions.
I am not talking about taking wealth from the highest wage earners, I am suggesting that a system that allows massive capital movement from corporations to the top executives results in decisions that benefit management over the employer. When Reagan lowered the top marginal tax rate, he set into motion the fleecing of well capitalized companies and transfer of taxation from the top wage earners to the middle and lower income earners.
Remember the leveraged buyout mania of the 1980's? The top marginal tax rate of about 70% prevented the would-be corporate raider from profiting by buying and parting-out companies. If the raider had the cash to purchase the company, then there would still be profit, but a heavily taxed profit. The leveraged part of the LBO is: performing the buy-out with others peoples money. Once the cost of capital, from borrowing, was factored in, LBOs, in most cases, would not be profitable for the corporate raider. Leveraged buyout mania equals fleecing corporate America for the benefit of the very few, the corporate raiders.
The I'll-give-you-millions-if-I-am-on-your-board-of-directors, if-you-agree-to-give-me-millions-as-a-member-of-my-board-of-directors game, would not be played if most of the wages, above the top marginal rate level, were heavily taxed and went to the government. When this "game" is played, capital that would be used for employee health care, a war chest for economic down times, research and development for new products and services would go to the top executives. Now we have decisions made for personal gain, in violation of the fiduciary responsibilities of top management.
To say its not fair to heavily tax the very rich is to take the me point-of-view over the we point-of-view. When monies are taken, in the form of excessive compensation, from companies, there are consequences, namely, long term viability and competitiveness of the, now poorer, companies. What is more important, giving top management with whatever compensation they want, or insuring steady long-term growth for the corporation, all its employees and shareholders?
Cutting taxes never results in increased government revenue. The Reagan top marginal tax rate cut reduced tax revenue. This forced Reagan to raise taxes, mostly on the middle class in the form of doubling Social Security deductions, to make up for some of the tax revenue shortfall. Bush Senior also increased taxes, even with his pledge of "no new taxes" to make-up for the shortfall caused by his predecessor.
It's time to revisit the Reagan tax cuts. Tax cuts never fixed a road, never built an airport, put police on the beat or put out a fire. Starving the government, a long term goal of the far right, does not leave the lender of last resort, our federal government, much capital upon which to fight the economic depression our nation, and the rest of the world, is now facing.
Excessive top level management compensation weakens the companies run by these managers. Since management and the compensation committees who set the executive wages are compromised, corrupted, we the people have to step in and ensure the health of our jobs and of our country. Restoring Roosevelt, Teddy (the Republican one) that is, level taxation will restore buying power to America's corporations and give our government the capital it needs to fight the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
But the real issue is: economic bubbles caused by top wage earners. The last time we entered a period of economic deflation was after three Republican administrations lowered the top marginal tax rates and reduced regulations. The current economic cliff we peer over was brought upon us by the last three Republican and one free-trading Democratic administrations that did very much the same thing. In both cases, the depression followed bubbles in stock and housing. America's experience and understanding the cause of the Great Depression and the current economic colapse shows that top tax rates that are too low cause economic instability, bubbles and ultimately major resessions and depressions.
I am not talking about taking wealth from the highest wage earners, I am suggesting that a system that allows massive capital movement from corporations to the top executives results in decisions that benefit management over the employer. When Reagan lowered the top marginal tax rate, he set into motion the fleecing of well capitalized companies and transfer of taxation from the top wage earners to the middle and lower income earners.
Remember the leveraged buyout mania of the 1980's? The top marginal tax rate of about 70% prevented the would-be corporate raider from profiting by buying and parting-out companies. If the raider had the cash to purchase the company, then there would still be profit, but a heavily taxed profit. The leveraged part of the LBO is: performing the buy-out with others peoples money. Once the cost of capital, from borrowing, was factored in, LBOs, in most cases, would not be profitable for the corporate raider. Leveraged buyout mania equals fleecing corporate America for the benefit of the very few, the corporate raiders.
The I'll-give-you-millions-if-I-am-on-your-board-of-directors, if-you-agree-to-give-me-millions-as-a-member-of-my-board-of-directors game, would not be played if most of the wages, above the top marginal rate level, were heavily taxed and went to the government. When this "game" is played, capital that would be used for employee health care, a war chest for economic down times, research and development for new products and services would go to the top executives. Now we have decisions made for personal gain, in violation of the fiduciary responsibilities of top management.
To say its not fair to heavily tax the very rich is to take the me point-of-view over the we point-of-view. When monies are taken, in the form of excessive compensation, from companies, there are consequences, namely, long term viability and competitiveness of the, now poorer, companies. What is more important, giving top management with whatever compensation they want, or insuring steady long-term growth for the corporation, all its employees and shareholders?
Cutting taxes never results in increased government revenue. The Reagan top marginal tax rate cut reduced tax revenue. This forced Reagan to raise taxes, mostly on the middle class in the form of doubling Social Security deductions, to make up for some of the tax revenue shortfall. Bush Senior also increased taxes, even with his pledge of "no new taxes" to make-up for the shortfall caused by his predecessor.
It's time to revisit the Reagan tax cuts. Tax cuts never fixed a road, never built an airport, put police on the beat or put out a fire. Starving the government, a long term goal of the far right, does not leave the lender of last resort, our federal government, much capital upon which to fight the economic depression our nation, and the rest of the world, is now facing.
Excessive top level management compensation weakens the companies run by these managers. Since management and the compensation committees who set the executive wages are compromised, corrupted, we the people have to step in and ensure the health of our jobs and of our country. Restoring Roosevelt, Teddy (the Republican one) that is, level taxation will restore buying power to America's corporations and give our government the capital it needs to fight the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Song and Dance before November
The Federal Reserve Bank, a private institution, is spreading money around Wall Street to keep the financial system and therefore, the economy afloat. Even though The Fed is not a federal government institution, we, the tax payers, are on-the-hook for the massive lending via the new lending window. What's a lending window? Its a place and a method to borrow money directly from the Federal Reserve. Why is the Fed doing this? They believe the financial system is gummed up so badly that lending tens of billions of dollars is prudent and necessary to keep the investment banks solvent and prevent a total freeze on new loans.
Why don't we let the greedy bastards fail? This reason: the retail banks, investment banks and insurance companies are all tied together by the mostly complete elimination of the Glass-Stegal Act. This act of Congress, from about 1933, was written into law in reaction to the banking crisis of the Great Depression. Since the repeal, credit default swaps, a form of insurance that is not called insurance to skirt regulation, became a way to reduce risk on the part of a lender. If I lend a company, say 100,000 dollars, I can by a CDS, credit default swap, from another institution as a form of insurance in case the borrower defaults on the loan. If done correctly and with integrity, a CDS can be a good way to reduce risk associated with lending. The fishy part comes in a couple of ways: lenders can lend to less qualified borrowers and the sellers of the CDS can re-sell the credit default swap.
So we have a way to decouple risk from lending. The best example of this going wrong is in the meltdown of the sub-prime mortgage industry. The house of cards starts with a loan broker writing a loan to a borrower who will never be able to continue payment when the interest rate resets to the higher rate. Then the bank that lent the money re-sells the loan to another bank or investor, like a pension fund. Since the quality of the loan is no longer an issue, someone else approved it, the loan can be bundled with other debt and this new bundle carries the rating of, well, the best of the bundle, not a rating comenserate with the mix of loans it is comprised. So where does the CDS come in? In the chain of re-selling and re-packaging of these loans, each of the sellers can buy this, we do not call it insurance, CDS to cover the risk of the loan or loan bundle.
And this is bad because? We have removed and given the risk lending to unqualified customers to someone else. Here is where the scammers come into the picture. A loan broker lends money to someone who can never repay the loan. The broker gets a fat commision when escrow closes, a bank gets a loan which has a time bomb attached. A broker has a built-in conflict of interest, make the loan, and get a commision, do the right thing, deny the loan, make no commission.
Because of overuse of the credit default swap, we have a large, huge part of the financial industry playing a game of make money up front, pass the bad loans onto someone else.
How do we fix this mess? Bringing back Glass-Stegal is a start. We may have to nulify the CDS contracts to get risk sent back to the originator. This is extreme and will cause problems. Consider the fact that the dollar value of all the CDS contracts vastly exceeds the value of all lending!
Enough for now.
Why don't we let the greedy bastards fail? This reason: the retail banks, investment banks and insurance companies are all tied together by the mostly complete elimination of the Glass-Stegal Act. This act of Congress, from about 1933, was written into law in reaction to the banking crisis of the Great Depression. Since the repeal, credit default swaps, a form of insurance that is not called insurance to skirt regulation, became a way to reduce risk on the part of a lender. If I lend a company, say 100,000 dollars, I can by a CDS, credit default swap, from another institution as a form of insurance in case the borrower defaults on the loan. If done correctly and with integrity, a CDS can be a good way to reduce risk associated with lending. The fishy part comes in a couple of ways: lenders can lend to less qualified borrowers and the sellers of the CDS can re-sell the credit default swap.
So we have a way to decouple risk from lending. The best example of this going wrong is in the meltdown of the sub-prime mortgage industry. The house of cards starts with a loan broker writing a loan to a borrower who will never be able to continue payment when the interest rate resets to the higher rate. Then the bank that lent the money re-sells the loan to another bank or investor, like a pension fund. Since the quality of the loan is no longer an issue, someone else approved it, the loan can be bundled with other debt and this new bundle carries the rating of, well, the best of the bundle, not a rating comenserate with the mix of loans it is comprised. So where does the CDS come in? In the chain of re-selling and re-packaging of these loans, each of the sellers can buy this, we do not call it insurance, CDS to cover the risk of the loan or loan bundle.
And this is bad because? We have removed and given the risk lending to unqualified customers to someone else. Here is where the scammers come into the picture. A loan broker lends money to someone who can never repay the loan. The broker gets a fat commision when escrow closes, a bank gets a loan which has a time bomb attached. A broker has a built-in conflict of interest, make the loan, and get a commision, do the right thing, deny the loan, make no commission.
Because of overuse of the credit default swap, we have a large, huge part of the financial industry playing a game of make money up front, pass the bad loans onto someone else.
How do we fix this mess? Bringing back Glass-Stegal is a start. We may have to nulify the CDS contracts to get risk sent back to the originator. This is extreme and will cause problems. Consider the fact that the dollar value of all the CDS contracts vastly exceeds the value of all lending!
Enough for now.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Secret trade agreement between senior Democrats and Bush
I have just heard about this today, 15May07, and I am quite mad about this agreement.
I am laying down the gauntlet on these agreements. I will refuse to vote for anyone who votes for, or approves of these agreements. Even if this means a defeat for a Democrat.
- Why secret? If this agreement is so good for middle class Americans, why not provide the text of the agreement? Why is the mainstream media reporting that this is a good agreement, with no details provided publicly?.
- This country is moving in the wrong direction with respect to trade. Once the tariffs were dropped and the top marginal tax rates reduced, America started to and still is exporting manufacturing jobs. Thank you Ronald Reagan. The situation is so bad that we no longer make shoes, clothing, computers and once the Chinese cars start coming to America, automobiles. The cost of many of the imported goods is not less due to the reduced cost of manufacturing. Case in point: running shoes. Did the price of Nike shoes drop when manufacturing was moved to China? The prices, if anything, have gone up.
- I cannot believe that Democrats would be a party to an agreement that will hurt workplace standards enforcement, one of the details talked about in the press. Once the government, and only the government can initiate workplace abuse investigations, there will be no workplace investigations or enforcement. The ability to report workplace violations is one of the ways the unions have to ensure the safety of its members on-the-job. In China, the company controls the unions. So enforcement actions can be stopped before the infraction is reported. If the inspector can be fired for doing his job, then he will do what the company wants. In the US, I believe that the Bush Justice Department will not initiate any action that will reflect poorly on any company that has ties to the White House.
- I am sick and tired of the Republicans and some Democrats selling out the middle class with trade agreements that only help the extremely rich, the investment bankers (like Rhom Immanuel(sp?)), and the corporate raiders. NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO all protect the interests of the international corporations, and ultra rich at the expense of the middle class.
I am laying down the gauntlet on these agreements. I will refuse to vote for anyone who votes for, or approves of these agreements. Even if this means a defeat for a Democrat.
Monday, May 07, 2007
Long time, no post
Time to rectify this problem.
I recently discovered Linkedin.com. Quite an interesting service. I suspect for most this service is just for fun, to see how many connections one can make. In the long term, Linkedin maybe useful for professional networking. What do I mean by that? Job seeking, looking for or creating business opportunities, activities that have money as one of the motivations.
I received an email from a friend from Cal who I have not seen in, well let's just say, in a long time. I am so happy to hear from Dave and that he is doing well. My first college buddy contact period. And due to Linkedin!
I recently discovered Linkedin.com. Quite an interesting service. I suspect for most this service is just for fun, to see how many connections one can make. In the long term, Linkedin maybe useful for professional networking. What do I mean by that? Job seeking, looking for or creating business opportunities, activities that have money as one of the motivations.
I received an email from a friend from Cal who I have not seen in, well let's just say, in a long time. I am so happy to hear from Dave and that he is doing well. My first college buddy contact period. And due to Linkedin!
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
UK bomb plot is propaganda
British papers have reported that the "bombers" were no where near ready to perform their terrorist deeds. The people arrested in the UK did not have airplane tickets. Many of them did not have passports.
Even though a 12 year old boy without a ticket got on a plane in Gatwick, I doubt that a non-white adult would be able to get into an airport without passport or ticket.
So if the bombers were as far away from committing the crimes as the papers report, why were they arrested? What could these people be charged with? They were UK citizens. They committed no crime by not having a passport. They did not even have bomb making materials.
How better to frighten the public than to bust a terroist plot involving airplanes and mythical gel explosives? Now we give up more rights, freely, to fly. That bottle of water might be the makings of a bomb. That cup of Starbucks coffee might hide dangerous chemicals, other than caffeine.
Remember the shoe bomber, Richard Reid? We still have our shoes inspected years after that lout as busted.
Once we have given up a freedom, we seem to never get it back.
Even though a 12 year old boy without a ticket got on a plane in Gatwick, I doubt that a non-white adult would be able to get into an airport without passport or ticket.
So if the bombers were as far away from committing the crimes as the papers report, why were they arrested? What could these people be charged with? They were UK citizens. They committed no crime by not having a passport. They did not even have bomb making materials.
How better to frighten the public than to bust a terroist plot involving airplanes and mythical gel explosives? Now we give up more rights, freely, to fly. That bottle of water might be the makings of a bomb. That cup of Starbucks coffee might hide dangerous chemicals, other than caffeine.
Remember the shoe bomber, Richard Reid? We still have our shoes inspected years after that lout as busted.
Once we have given up a freedom, we seem to never get it back.
Monday, August 07, 2006
Conservative Name Callers
Why do conservatives resort to name calling when talking about liberals? Why are so many of the conservative talkers draft dodgers who feel qualified to comment on the actions of war hero's? Why do they spout the same propaganda as if they are reading from the same playbook?
If a conservative is going to use an economic argument to support the conservative case, why do many call liberals socialists at best, and communists at worst? Some even group liberals in the terrorists, as if questioning the President's policies on war and taxes is somehow un-American?
Isn't conservative philosophy strong enough to stand on its on merits?
If a conservative is going to use an economic argument to support the conservative case, why do many call liberals socialists at best, and communists at worst? Some even group liberals in the terrorists, as if questioning the President's policies on war and taxes is somehow un-American?
Isn't conservative philosophy strong enough to stand on its on merits?
Friday, August 04, 2006
It's a Class War, stupid
Remember when Presidential candidate Clinton said "It's the economy, stupid"? Or when candidate Reagan said "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" These men spoke to Americans on topics that are in our daily lives. These phrases united Americans around issues that matter.
The current Republicans are speaking about gay marriage, abortion, etc.; the hot button issues of our generation. How do these affect our daily lives? Unless you are gay, or pregnant, these are at best philosophical issues. Why are these issues repeated endlessly on talk radio, on conservative television and by members on the floor of Congress? A couple of reasons come to mind: divide and conquer, and reframe the debate.
Since registered Democrats out number registered Republicans, the Republicans must campain on issues that will split the Democrats into groups that will or will not vote on the party line. Those that cross party lines help Republican candidates win office and stay in office. Few registered Republicans will cross party lines for these hot button issues. How do I know this? Because these are the issues the Republicans have chosen to run on. They would not pick issues that are of little importance that would hurt themselves politically, would they?
The genius, evil genius that is, of these hot button issues is not only do they divide and conquer, they reframe the debate, move the issues from ones the Republicans are traditionally weak to traditional strengths.
Why don't they talk about issues that affect us? I believe that this will bring our attention to the real issues the Republicans are advocating: rule by the extremely wealthy, creation of an American aristocracy, remove the American government as a force to restrict corporate power.
Two major signs of this hidden platform are: suppression of minimum wage, and elimination of the inheritance tax. This Republican Congress has chosen not to raise the minimum wage. This base level pay for the working poor has not been raised nationally since the Clinton administration. Since inflation happens whether or not the minimum wage is increased, the working poor have in-effect had their wage cut bit-by-bit over the last nine years. The situation for the working poor is so bad, that many are working two or more jobs, mostly without medical benefits, just to make ends meet. The effects of the parents being away from home most of the day and night are felt by the children who are raised by grandparents or placed in substandard day-care. To be poor and sick, in America, is to be at the mercy of a system that has little to offer.
Why was the inheritance tax created in the first place? America was to be a different place from the countries of Europe. America was to be the land of opportunity, not the land of aristocracy. If the extremely wealthy pass on all their wealth to the next generation, we will have the makings of a ruling class. We do not want to be in the land of the new Golden Rule: the one with the gold rules. This tax is not only to protect America, it is fair. Much of the money in the hands of the extremely wealthy was generated by capital gains which are taxed at a lower rate than wages. The extremely wealthy also have access to investments that are tax free. America is the place where these people have gained their wealth and owe a debt to the system the allowed them to accumulate such riches.
Lee Atwater, George H.W. Bush's political adviser and Karl Rove's mentor, said the Democrats would win if the Democrats would just talk about class issues, in other words, to attack the country club set.
The extremely wealthy, the Paris Hilton set, live in a world apart from the rest of us. They have access to the best money can buy. So what if America does not have universal health care, the Paris Hilton's can afford the most expensive doctors and hospitals on the planet. So what if the working classes do not have an adequate or any retirement plan, the Paris Hiltons's already live off of their inheritance. So what if the streets are not safe, the Paris Hilton's can afford their own security force and armored cars.
This is how the extremely wealthy live. The ones who care about the rest of us are obvious by their generosity. For example: Bill and Melinda Gates, and Warren Buffet. These three people have at least 60 billion dollars in assets that they have pleged to a foundation that will help all of us, and will fight disease that afflict the most poor as the first order of business. The less generous hoard their wealth and hide behind managers who run their businesses. The Waltons of Walmart come to mind. If they gave, not just provided at what they think is a fair price, health care for all their employees, the Waltons would still be billionairs and their employees would have something real to be happy about.
So, where am I going in this "essay"? Remember a couple of things when you go to vote Democrat: there are more working class people than Paris Hilton's, anyone working for a pay check is part of the working class, no matter how big the check; the ultra rich care not about us, we are the "mythical little man" according to them; they will still be rich even if the minimum wage is raised, or we have national health coverage or both; low taxes with high government spending do not hurt the ultra rich, the working classes will pay the bill for all the accumulated debt; personal happiness in countries with higher taxes strangely enough is greater, much greater than in America.
The ultra rich do care who is in Congress. The members of Congress write America's laws, set tax policy, set the rules for corporations, decide which government benifits it will give to the public, or take away from the public. If the federal government cannot be reduced in size, say the proponents of the ultra rich, at least it can be reduced in influence, influence of corporate power. Congress can and does limit corporate power. This is a good thing! We do not want to return to the days of child labor, no pay for overtime, summary firings. Why should we continue to support representatives who believe that unleashing the corporation is the American way?
The ultra rich do not care about our happiness or welfare, so why should we continue to support representatives in Congress that care more for the ultra rich than the rest of us?
Vote Democrat and install representatives into Congress who do care for our happiness and welfare!
The current Republicans are speaking about gay marriage, abortion, etc.; the hot button issues of our generation. How do these affect our daily lives? Unless you are gay, or pregnant, these are at best philosophical issues. Why are these issues repeated endlessly on talk radio, on conservative television and by members on the floor of Congress? A couple of reasons come to mind: divide and conquer, and reframe the debate.
Since registered Democrats out number registered Republicans, the Republicans must campain on issues that will split the Democrats into groups that will or will not vote on the party line. Those that cross party lines help Republican candidates win office and stay in office. Few registered Republicans will cross party lines for these hot button issues. How do I know this? Because these are the issues the Republicans have chosen to run on. They would not pick issues that are of little importance that would hurt themselves politically, would they?
The genius, evil genius that is, of these hot button issues is not only do they divide and conquer, they reframe the debate, move the issues from ones the Republicans are traditionally weak to traditional strengths.
Why don't they talk about issues that affect us? I believe that this will bring our attention to the real issues the Republicans are advocating: rule by the extremely wealthy, creation of an American aristocracy, remove the American government as a force to restrict corporate power.
Two major signs of this hidden platform are: suppression of minimum wage, and elimination of the inheritance tax. This Republican Congress has chosen not to raise the minimum wage. This base level pay for the working poor has not been raised nationally since the Clinton administration. Since inflation happens whether or not the minimum wage is increased, the working poor have in-effect had their wage cut bit-by-bit over the last nine years. The situation for the working poor is so bad, that many are working two or more jobs, mostly without medical benefits, just to make ends meet. The effects of the parents being away from home most of the day and night are felt by the children who are raised by grandparents or placed in substandard day-care. To be poor and sick, in America, is to be at the mercy of a system that has little to offer.
Why was the inheritance tax created in the first place? America was to be a different place from the countries of Europe. America was to be the land of opportunity, not the land of aristocracy. If the extremely wealthy pass on all their wealth to the next generation, we will have the makings of a ruling class. We do not want to be in the land of the new Golden Rule: the one with the gold rules. This tax is not only to protect America, it is fair. Much of the money in the hands of the extremely wealthy was generated by capital gains which are taxed at a lower rate than wages. The extremely wealthy also have access to investments that are tax free. America is the place where these people have gained their wealth and owe a debt to the system the allowed them to accumulate such riches.
Lee Atwater, George H.W. Bush's political adviser and Karl Rove's mentor, said the Democrats would win if the Democrats would just talk about class issues, in other words, to attack the country club set.
The extremely wealthy, the Paris Hilton set, live in a world apart from the rest of us. They have access to the best money can buy. So what if America does not have universal health care, the Paris Hilton's can afford the most expensive doctors and hospitals on the planet. So what if the working classes do not have an adequate or any retirement plan, the Paris Hiltons's already live off of their inheritance. So what if the streets are not safe, the Paris Hilton's can afford their own security force and armored cars.
This is how the extremely wealthy live. The ones who care about the rest of us are obvious by their generosity. For example: Bill and Melinda Gates, and Warren Buffet. These three people have at least 60 billion dollars in assets that they have pleged to a foundation that will help all of us, and will fight disease that afflict the most poor as the first order of business. The less generous hoard their wealth and hide behind managers who run their businesses. The Waltons of Walmart come to mind. If they gave, not just provided at what they think is a fair price, health care for all their employees, the Waltons would still be billionairs and their employees would have something real to be happy about.
So, where am I going in this "essay"? Remember a couple of things when you go to vote Democrat: there are more working class people than Paris Hilton's, anyone working for a pay check is part of the working class, no matter how big the check; the ultra rich care not about us, we are the "mythical little man" according to them; they will still be rich even if the minimum wage is raised, or we have national health coverage or both; low taxes with high government spending do not hurt the ultra rich, the working classes will pay the bill for all the accumulated debt; personal happiness in countries with higher taxes strangely enough is greater, much greater than in America.
The ultra rich do care who is in Congress. The members of Congress write America's laws, set tax policy, set the rules for corporations, decide which government benifits it will give to the public, or take away from the public. If the federal government cannot be reduced in size, say the proponents of the ultra rich, at least it can be reduced in influence, influence of corporate power. Congress can and does limit corporate power. This is a good thing! We do not want to return to the days of child labor, no pay for overtime, summary firings. Why should we continue to support representatives who believe that unleashing the corporation is the American way?
The ultra rich do not care about our happiness or welfare, so why should we continue to support representatives in Congress that care more for the ultra rich than the rest of us?
Vote Democrat and install representatives into Congress who do care for our happiness and welfare!
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Midterm Elections
Please vote in the midterm elections.
If you care about the American experiment in democracy: vote and vote Democratic. Why? As long as the House and Senate are held by the Republicans, there will be no investigations into anything this President does.
Remember when the House of Representatives was Republican and the President a democrat, the House would investigate anything the President did, important or not. Most of the investigations were of a trivial, personal nature. This did not stop the Limbaughs of the world from proclaiming the downfall of America and blaming the President for this decline.
Where is the fire in the Republican belly to protect the Constitution? As long as the President is a Republican, there is no fire, no investigation, no Constitution. Even Republicans are sworn to protect the Constitution. Where are they now?
Again, vote in November. And vote Democrat.
If you care about the American experiment in democracy: vote and vote Democratic. Why? As long as the House and Senate are held by the Republicans, there will be no investigations into anything this President does.
Remember when the House of Representatives was Republican and the President a democrat, the House would investigate anything the President did, important or not. Most of the investigations were of a trivial, personal nature. This did not stop the Limbaughs of the world from proclaiming the downfall of America and blaming the President for this decline.
Where is the fire in the Republican belly to protect the Constitution? As long as the President is a Republican, there is no fire, no investigation, no Constitution. Even Republicans are sworn to protect the Constitution. Where are they now?
Again, vote in November. And vote Democrat.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Bush is responsible
Bush is the President. Never forget that fact. Even though Bush, and the "friends of Bush" push that Michael Brown, "Brownie", is responsible for the Katrina hurricane response disaster, "Scooter" Libby is responsible for outing an undercover CIA agent working on weapons of mass destruction proliferation, Karl Rove is responsible for arm twisting in the House and Senate to ensure that Bush never has to veto a piece of legislation, remember that these people either report to Bush or report to other top level people who report directly to Bush.
Bush is the Commander in Chief. Never forget that fact. He wanted to be a "wartime" President. Now we can see why he desired this title. Once America is at war, we all rally around the Commander in Chief. We cannot criticize Bush because we would be undermining the war effort by questioning our Commander in Chief. We cannot call any of Bush's actions, even those not related to the war, into question again because we would be seen as undermining the war effort and giving comfort to the enemy. Also, Bush claims special wartime powers, like holding prisoners of war with no access to due process or even humane treatment.
Now we know why the war America is in, the war on terror, is a war against an emotion. Since we will never be done fighting against an emotion, the war can go on forever. This way the wartime powers and wartime freedom from investigation can continue for Bush forever. Do not think this is a poor play on words. The White House picked the phrase, war on terror, quite specifically. They could have called it a war on Al Qaida, the people responsible for the attacks on 9/11. They could have called it anything more specific, but this would not have met the requirement of perpetual war for perpetual wartime powers.
Bush learned an important lesson when his father lost his re-election. The lesson was: the Gulf war ended too soon. Once 41's role as Commander in Chief during a war was over, 41 would now have to run on his domestic record, one that conservatives did not like. To keep the public from looking into their own pocket book, or at the economy in general, a war would have to be on-going through the election. Wars also have a stimulating effect on the economy, so the fighting would have an additional upside in the polls.
Since Bush is the Commander in Chief, he has a great deal of influence over the Generals in the Pentagon. He can tell Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, to instruct the military to do things that help with the political side of the war, such as, keeping the number of troops in Iraq down so that opposition to the war will be minimized. Or as many have predicted, the troop levels will be reduced prior to the mid-term Congressional elections. Of course this has the added benefit of boosting popularity for the Republican members.
Bush wanted to invade Iraq before he was appointed President by the very same Justice's that his father appointed to the Supreme Court. He told a reporter long before the election that Saddam would have to be removed. One of the first matters of business that the new President and his staff discussed was how to invade Iraq and remove its president. This matter is part of the public record in several books by ex-members of the Bush administration, including a book written about the Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neil.
Bush chose to be a wartime President. The 9/11 attacks were the Pearl Harbor of our generation that Bush used to justify the Iraq war. Bush's stratagem worked. He got re-elected, so he can continue with his raiding of the treasury, packing the Supreme Court, and breaking the New Deal, with Social Security as his first target.
Remember Bush is responsible for his actions.
And Bush should remember that Truman stated "The buck stops here", meaning that the President cannot push responsibility for decisions off onto someone else.
Bush is the Commander in Chief. Never forget that fact. He wanted to be a "wartime" President. Now we can see why he desired this title. Once America is at war, we all rally around the Commander in Chief. We cannot criticize Bush because we would be undermining the war effort by questioning our Commander in Chief. We cannot call any of Bush's actions, even those not related to the war, into question again because we would be seen as undermining the war effort and giving comfort to the enemy. Also, Bush claims special wartime powers, like holding prisoners of war with no access to due process or even humane treatment.
Now we know why the war America is in, the war on terror, is a war against an emotion. Since we will never be done fighting against an emotion, the war can go on forever. This way the wartime powers and wartime freedom from investigation can continue for Bush forever. Do not think this is a poor play on words. The White House picked the phrase, war on terror, quite specifically. They could have called it a war on Al Qaida, the people responsible for the attacks on 9/11. They could have called it anything more specific, but this would not have met the requirement of perpetual war for perpetual wartime powers.
Bush learned an important lesson when his father lost his re-election. The lesson was: the Gulf war ended too soon. Once 41's role as Commander in Chief during a war was over, 41 would now have to run on his domestic record, one that conservatives did not like. To keep the public from looking into their own pocket book, or at the economy in general, a war would have to be on-going through the election. Wars also have a stimulating effect on the economy, so the fighting would have an additional upside in the polls.
Since Bush is the Commander in Chief, he has a great deal of influence over the Generals in the Pentagon. He can tell Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, to instruct the military to do things that help with the political side of the war, such as, keeping the number of troops in Iraq down so that opposition to the war will be minimized. Or as many have predicted, the troop levels will be reduced prior to the mid-term Congressional elections. Of course this has the added benefit of boosting popularity for the Republican members.
Bush wanted to invade Iraq before he was appointed President by the very same Justice's that his father appointed to the Supreme Court. He told a reporter long before the election that Saddam would have to be removed. One of the first matters of business that the new President and his staff discussed was how to invade Iraq and remove its president. This matter is part of the public record in several books by ex-members of the Bush administration, including a book written about the Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neil.
Bush chose to be a wartime President. The 9/11 attacks were the Pearl Harbor of our generation that Bush used to justify the Iraq war. Bush's stratagem worked. He got re-elected, so he can continue with his raiding of the treasury, packing the Supreme Court, and breaking the New Deal, with Social Security as his first target.
Remember Bush is responsible for his actions.
And Bush should remember that Truman stated "The buck stops here", meaning that the President cannot push responsibility for decisions off onto someone else.
Friday, January 27, 2006
Block Alito Nomination to Supreme Court
Call, email, or fax your senator and ask them to vote no on the nomination of Alito to the Supreme Court.
Why?
If you value your freedom, you will not want Alito's brand of justice setting the course for America. Alito favors the "big guy" 85% of the time. If you are a private individual opposing a corporation, or the government, you will lose most of the time. Alito will pick some legal technicality that gives the case to the "big guy." If your lawyer files a poor brief on your behalf, you will lose. If Alito feels that a jury should not decide your case, you lose your day in court.
More than Roe v. Wade is at stake. Alito believes in the “unitary president.” Even though some apologists have stated this means that we have only one president at a time, don't be fooled. The unitary president theory is held by those who believe that the president should not have any oversight. Also, they believe that the president can add signing statements to bills from the congress he approves. These signing statements are the president's interpretation of the law in the bill. The Constitution explicitly states that the Judiciary interprets the law, not the president, or Congress.
If the president can add a signing statement to a law, he can change that law to mean anything he chooses. If you don't think that the president would not use this power, think again. Even without the powers of the unitary presidency, Bush's interpretation of the war powers Congress gave him includes the power to wire-tap anyone. All constitutional scholars that I have heard, state that Bush is wrong and the law he is breaking is in FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Currently, Bush has the power to declare anyone as an enemy combatant and send them off to a prison on foreign soil without any access to any legal representation. With no constitutional legal protections, this person can remain in prison forever, or until the president feels enough time has been spent or enough information has been extracted.
We still have time to put a limit on the president's power. Tell all your friends and relatives that Alito is not just a conservative, tell them that Alito is so far out that even some Republicans are upset about the nomination.
The time to act is now. Block Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court even if this means to support a filibuster to get the public to realize this person will move America in the wrong direction for generations.
Monday, December 19, 2005
MPAA strikes again
The MPAA again is pushing to "close the analog hole." Dog-gone-it, didn't they learn from the Sony decision fallout that home taping of TV shows is a good thing? Most movies now make money because of the VCR and later the DVD player.
I think they are pushing to kill time-shifting. Why? Well, they feel that congress can save their business model of providing filler that people will watch so these same people will be glued to the TV when the paid content, commercials, air. Most people who time-shift programming will fast forward over the commericals to watch the "filler."
If we are a capitalist, free market, country, why is it when a business model is threatened by changing consumer habits or new technology, that the powerfull run to congress with bills that favor the incumbent businesses to the detriment of the rest of us? Duh, it's the golden rule, the one with the gold rules.
The bill, H.R. 4569, is in the judiciary committee. Please contact your representitive unless you have no use for the VCR, a recording DVD player, a Tivo, or other video hardware that has an analog port.
I think they are pushing to kill time-shifting. Why? Well, they feel that congress can save their business model of providing filler that people will watch so these same people will be glued to the TV when the paid content, commercials, air. Most people who time-shift programming will fast forward over the commericals to watch the "filler."
If we are a capitalist, free market, country, why is it when a business model is threatened by changing consumer habits or new technology, that the powerfull run to congress with bills that favor the incumbent businesses to the detriment of the rest of us? Duh, it's the golden rule, the one with the gold rules.
The bill, H.R. 4569, is in the judiciary committee. Please contact your representitive unless you have no use for the VCR, a recording DVD player, a Tivo, or other video hardware that has an analog port.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Why call it Red WRX?
Simple, I own a Red 2003 Subaru WRX. Red is not a common color for Subaru, and is a discontinued color for the WRX. I got a good price on an unusual car as a end of model year sale.
Sweet.
Sweet.
First Post
Well, I guess it's time for me to start blogging.
Why share ideas, thoughts, words, images with the world? Because the blog is there? Lame, I know. Once the idea of writing for other's enjoyment sinks in, I'll get on with it and contribute in a more meaningful manner.
Enjoy,
Steve
Why share ideas, thoughts, words, images with the world? Because the blog is there? Lame, I know. Once the idea of writing for other's enjoyment sinks in, I'll get on with it and contribute in a more meaningful manner.
Enjoy,
Steve
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
