I caught a bit of an interview on NPR today. Terri Gross was interviewing a former Episcopal minister (also a woman) and the ex-minister was talking about how she noticed "compassion fatigue" when she got out of the ministering business. It was a huge load off of her, and she didn't even realize that she had it!
I identified with that. Not so much with compassion, but with some other things while I was in Yemen. It occurs to me that while I was there, I was always trying to be the model American and the model Christian. For many of the locals, I was the only one of either that they had ever met, and I might be the only one they ever meet. I was always conscious of having to set an example. I felt that if I did something to upset them or offend them they would most likely generalize that experience to include all Americans and Christians.
After a while, it became routine for me, but it was always there. When I got back, I knew I had to recuperate, but I couldn't really put my finger on what I was recuperating from. I think a big part of it was getting used to not sticking out anymore. I'm just another guy here, I'm not the Christian, the American, I'm just another person... The anonymity is really nice, all the pressure is gone. I don't think I realized what kind of strain that put on me until I got used to the idea that I wouldn't have to be an example any more. It was a huge weight off of me, and I feel much better because of it.
Oct 29, 2008
Some studio work
I continue to dig through the archives... Here's a type of work I did in school but really haven't done since. Working in a studio is a lot of fun, it's a totally different type of workflow. The models hated working with me, I would give them very little direction. I usually found the best expressions and poses when they were bored to tears. I got some decent shots, but I rarely got people to sit for me more than once... Anyway, as usual, you can find them here.
Oct 28, 2008
We have met the enemy and he is us...
Along with Doonsbury and Peanuts, Pogo is the definition of comic art. Walt Kelly was a master political satirist and artist. His strip, Pogo, ran for 3 or 4 decades and was perhaps the pinnacle of the comic art form. He is especially famous for his take on the dealings of the House Un-American activities committee. Unfortunately, the strip stopped in the 70's so many people aren't as familiar with it as some of the others. If you've never seen or read any of the strips, you can go here to get a taste for the humor and art that the strip represented. With any luck, Fantagraphics will get the total collection off the ground so we can appreciate this treasure of American literature that way it should be.
My favorite negative ad.
Despite everyone's supposed dislike of negative ads, they can be instructive. My current favorite one is from the RNC. In it, they detail how in bed Obama was with both Fannie and Freddie. It talks about how he supported them and how this whole financial collapse is due to people like him.
Of course the RNC can't trumpet McCain too much. Here's my favorite part... You see, McCain may not have accepted as much money from Fannie and Freddie as Obama did, but he has his own skeletons to worry about. McCain was, of course, a star in the whole Keating five messiness. The RNC is walking a fine line and hoping that people's memories don't go back that far. God, politics is dirty...
Of course the RNC can't trumpet McCain too much. Here's my favorite part... You see, McCain may not have accepted as much money from Fannie and Freddie as Obama did, but he has his own skeletons to worry about. McCain was, of course, a star in the whole Keating five messiness. The RNC is walking a fine line and hoping that people's memories don't go back that far. God, politics is dirty...
Job stuff
I've been looking around and trying to figure out what I want to do. I had mentioned before that I'd like to go to Turkey in the spring. I'll do that too, unless of course I can find a job that I like before then... Starting a regular life has some appeal, but it has to pay decently and it has to be something I enjoy. I have some applications out, we'll see what happens...
Great, now Syria....
Bush is only in power for a little longer, did he have to go and piss off Syria? There are already a lot of countries that won't allow Americans in because of our foreign policy, is Syria going to be next? How on earth am I going to get to Damascus now?
What? There was more than my travel plans at stake in that? Pssh, what could be so important? I kid....
What? There was more than my travel plans at stake in that? Pssh, what could be so important? I kid....
Oct 27, 2008
New Apple laptops
My father got a new laptop the other day. He has FINALLY gotten a Mac, now all I need to do is get mom switched over and I'll have my computer troubleshooting life taken care of... Anyway, I moaned and groaned a bit about the new macbooks because they dropped the firewire port off of them. I still don't like that, but my father had never heard of firewire, so the new one was fine for him.
I gotta say, the new macbooks are pretty sweet. I shouldn't really be surprised, Apple keeps doing this and it should be expected by now... It is noticeably zipper than mine despite having the same clock speed and amount of RAM. There have been enough improvements that the overall speed has noticeably improved. I didn't really care about the new manufacturing process, but the result really is nice. This is the first computer I've felt that I like to touch, the aluminum has a very nice tactile feel to it. The screen is nice and bright, and the keyboard is fine. I do like the trakpad, I already miss some of the multi-touch features. In short, I imagine that I will end up owning one of these sooner or later. I'll get around the firewire limitation somehow (damn you Steve Jobs). I didn't think my computer was all that bad until I used the new one...
He also got an internet thingy for his computer. Since he's out in the sticks, cable and DSL were out of the question. Satellite is just too expensive. This thing uses the phone company's network, a 3g one I suppose. It's not bad. It's not quite up to a cable modem type of speed, but it is a huge improvement over the dial up he was on before. So those of you out of reach of cable modems might want to look into this, it's an easy way to get into the 21st century...
I gotta say, the new macbooks are pretty sweet. I shouldn't really be surprised, Apple keeps doing this and it should be expected by now... It is noticeably zipper than mine despite having the same clock speed and amount of RAM. There have been enough improvements that the overall speed has noticeably improved. I didn't really care about the new manufacturing process, but the result really is nice. This is the first computer I've felt that I like to touch, the aluminum has a very nice tactile feel to it. The screen is nice and bright, and the keyboard is fine. I do like the trakpad, I already miss some of the multi-touch features. In short, I imagine that I will end up owning one of these sooner or later. I'll get around the firewire limitation somehow (damn you Steve Jobs). I didn't think my computer was all that bad until I used the new one...
He also got an internet thingy for his computer. Since he's out in the sticks, cable and DSL were out of the question. Satellite is just too expensive. This thing uses the phone company's network, a 3g one I suppose. It's not bad. It's not quite up to a cable modem type of speed, but it is a huge improvement over the dial up he was on before. So those of you out of reach of cable modems might want to look into this, it's an easy way to get into the 21st century...
Oct 19, 2008
Are churches "feminine?"
I was chatting with my friend Dana last night and I mentioned that I was going to start going to a book club in an Episcopal church. She said, "Good, we need more men." By "we" she meant the Episcopal church. I'm not going to become one BTW.
I've never felt right being in church and I've never figured out the appeal. I'm not alone either, churches are predominantly attended by females. Would you believe mother's day is the day with the highest attendance? Not Easter, not Christmas, mother's day... It seems that that is the one day that women can reliably drag their husbands off to church.
I wonder why this is? I mean, I don't know why anyone goes to church, but why are more women drawn to it than men? Is there something inherently feminine about church? Or is there something that inherently appeals to women? I don't really know, think I'll do a little digging around and se if anyone has any theories. But first of all, I have to get some sort of idea as to why people go to church in the first place...
I've never felt right being in church and I've never figured out the appeal. I'm not alone either, churches are predominantly attended by females. Would you believe mother's day is the day with the highest attendance? Not Easter, not Christmas, mother's day... It seems that that is the one day that women can reliably drag their husbands off to church.
I wonder why this is? I mean, I don't know why anyone goes to church, but why are more women drawn to it than men? Is there something inherently feminine about church? Or is there something that inherently appeals to women? I don't really know, think I'll do a little digging around and se if anyone has any theories. But first of all, I have to get some sort of idea as to why people go to church in the first place...
Oct 17, 2008
Another ridiculous Obama ad
I just saw another Obama campaign ad talking about jobs shipped overseas. This one laments that workers in the Carolinas the sewed the American flag had their jobs sent overseas. They lost not only their jobs, but their "dignity" as well.
Where to start? OK, first of all, those people were either going to lose their jobs to increased mechanization or outsourcing. Odds are that the investment in new machinery was too expensive, so the company could either outsource the labor, or go out of business. Would Obama rather have had the company go under? The idea that we can force companies to keep employees when it is not viable and not to have any bad consequences is naive and comical...
Second of all, and this may be what gets me more wound up, is since when are companies responsible for the "dignity" of their workers? More importantly, since when is the federal government responsible? This has to be one of the more obvious examples of the government overstepping it's bounds. Dignity is up to the individual, not their employers and certainly not the government. I wish that there was at least the suggestion that the government cannot do certain things let alone hint that there are things that it shouldn't do....
Where to start? OK, first of all, those people were either going to lose their jobs to increased mechanization or outsourcing. Odds are that the investment in new machinery was too expensive, so the company could either outsource the labor, or go out of business. Would Obama rather have had the company go under? The idea that we can force companies to keep employees when it is not viable and not to have any bad consequences is naive and comical...
Second of all, and this may be what gets me more wound up, is since when are companies responsible for the "dignity" of their workers? More importantly, since when is the federal government responsible? This has to be one of the more obvious examples of the government overstepping it's bounds. Dignity is up to the individual, not their employers and certainly not the government. I wish that there was at least the suggestion that the government cannot do certain things let alone hint that there are things that it shouldn't do....
Oct 16, 2008
Problems with Obama and jobs
I keep hearing the ad where he says that companies that "send AMerican jobs overseas" will not get tax breaks. It's an odd thing to say and do really. First off, which tax breaks is he talking about? Why are there tax breaks to begin with? Don't get me wrong, I favor the least amount of taxes n general, but when certain industries or companies get "tax breaks," it's really just a way to pay back the donations that have flowed from them.
What it sounds like he is saying is that we should give tax breaks to companies that create jobs in the US, or at least they don't ship them out. Read the first paragraph again... Any time that companies or industries are given preferential treatment, it means that there is some serious lobbying going on and a fat bonus to the management of that company.
Here's what's going to happen... There will be some companies that it is easier to give jobs to Americans than others. Giving them a tax benefit is going to skew what types of industries and businesses will be profitable to start. Ideally, no government would distort things like that and ideally, companies can be started in whatever industry people can figure out how to make a profit, regardless where the labor is. We want more businesses, not fewer. Even businesses that rely totally on foreign labor do hire some people stateside, isn't that a good thing?
What it sounds like he is saying is that we should give tax breaks to companies that create jobs in the US, or at least they don't ship them out. Read the first paragraph again... Any time that companies or industries are given preferential treatment, it means that there is some serious lobbying going on and a fat bonus to the management of that company.
Here's what's going to happen... There will be some companies that it is easier to give jobs to Americans than others. Giving them a tax benefit is going to skew what types of industries and businesses will be profitable to start. Ideally, no government would distort things like that and ideally, companies can be started in whatever industry people can figure out how to make a profit, regardless where the labor is. We want more businesses, not fewer. Even businesses that rely totally on foreign labor do hire some people stateside, isn't that a good thing?
Things to remember about the great depression
I keep hearing comparisons to the great depressions when people talk about banks closing, markets tumbling, etc. It's important to remember that what we are experiencing is a financial meltdown, not an economic one... so far. The government has stepped in to "stabilize" markets. The result? Wild wild volatility (look for another big drop tomorrow) in the stock markets and an unknown effect on the financial institutions that they are trying so desperately to save.
One thing that we should remember about the great depression is how long it was and why it was that long. We have to remember that government cannot produce jobs, productivity, or wealth unless it takes it from somewhere else. Like it or not, it is the private sector that drives an economy. If you want to jump start the economy, make sure that businesses can make good decisions. This is a rather good podcast about the great depression. I found it quite illuminating, the key thing I got out of it was that the length of the depression can mostly be laid at the government's feet, more specifically at the feet of FDR and Keynes.
FDR, following the advice of Keynes, managed to inject so much uncertainty into markets that the private sector was unwilling to invest for a very long time. It's a lesson we should remember these days. Nobody has a good idea what kind of effect the latest shenanigans will have on wall street. And nobody is sure how it will impact the credit markets. Left to their own devices, they would have had to figure something out, now they're all waiting for the feds to figure things out instead. I can only hope that lessons have been learned and not forgotten...
One thing that we should remember about the great depression is how long it was and why it was that long. We have to remember that government cannot produce jobs, productivity, or wealth unless it takes it from somewhere else. Like it or not, it is the private sector that drives an economy. If you want to jump start the economy, make sure that businesses can make good decisions. This is a rather good podcast about the great depression. I found it quite illuminating, the key thing I got out of it was that the length of the depression can mostly be laid at the government's feet, more specifically at the feet of FDR and Keynes.
FDR, following the advice of Keynes, managed to inject so much uncertainty into markets that the private sector was unwilling to invest for a very long time. It's a lesson we should remember these days. Nobody has a good idea what kind of effect the latest shenanigans will have on wall street. And nobody is sure how it will impact the credit markets. Left to their own devices, they would have had to figure something out, now they're all waiting for the feds to figure things out instead. I can only hope that lessons have been learned and not forgotten...
Minnesota... really?
A student of mine in Yemen was telling me how much she wanted to go to the US. "Is there any place in particular that you'd like to go? I asked her. "Oh yes," she nodded her head enthusiastically, "I really want to go to Minnesota..."
Really. That caught me off guard. I was expecting NYC, California, maybe even Florida, but Minnesota? It turns out that she has a cousin living in Minnesota and is constantly regaled with stories about how beautiful the state is. The pictures really made her want to come even more.
Huh. I never really considered Minnesota an ugly place, but I always imagined it to be rather nondescript. That puzzled me for a while and I eventually forgot about it. Yesterday, as I was driving back to Gloucester from DC I remembered her. I was looking at some rather nondescript farmland a little after sunset. The leaves have just started to turn and a full moon was big and just over the tree line.
When I first got back, I was overwhelmed by all the green. All the different shades, all over the place, it was just too much. It took a week for that to wear off. I've missed two falls, and I've missed them. The view of that farm, the smell, and the light were beautiful. Coming from Yemen, I get it now. We live in a beautiful place...
Really. That caught me off guard. I was expecting NYC, California, maybe even Florida, but Minnesota? It turns out that she has a cousin living in Minnesota and is constantly regaled with stories about how beautiful the state is. The pictures really made her want to come even more.
Huh. I never really considered Minnesota an ugly place, but I always imagined it to be rather nondescript. That puzzled me for a while and I eventually forgot about it. Yesterday, as I was driving back to Gloucester from DC I remembered her. I was looking at some rather nondescript farmland a little after sunset. The leaves have just started to turn and a full moon was big and just over the tree line.
When I first got back, I was overwhelmed by all the green. All the different shades, all over the place, it was just too much. It took a week for that to wear off. I've missed two falls, and I've missed them. The view of that farm, the smell, and the light were beautiful. Coming from Yemen, I get it now. We live in a beautiful place...
Oct 15, 2008
GAHHH! New Apple laptops... No Firewire!
And no, that's not a good GAHH! Don't get me wrong, the new additions sound really nice. The aluminum case and the new graphics chips are great upgrades. I'm not to keen on the no button trackpad, but who knows, maybe I'd get used to it. Also, I think the new two tone look is fugly, but that obviously doesn't affect the usefulness. My gripe, and it's a big one, is that there is no firewire port on the macbook! Yeah, I guess I could spring for the macbook pro, but that's 2 grand and a larger computer. It's just a port Apple, $700 (and less) windows machines have this port, it's ridiculous that the new macbook doesn't have one.
I had been thinking about my next computer being an audio one. Without a firewire port, that looks doubtful. USB is fine, if a little slow, for transferring files, but audio and video uses really need a firewire port. I can't believe this... I may actually buy a windows computer for my audio work. I'd never get it near the internet, there's just too many problems with all the viruses and malware out there. The necessary anti-virus stuff causes even more problems as far as I can tell. ARGGH! Why couldn't they put that port on a reasonably priced machine?
I had been thinking about my next computer being an audio one. Without a firewire port, that looks doubtful. USB is fine, if a little slow, for transferring files, but audio and video uses really need a firewire port. I can't believe this... I may actually buy a windows computer for my audio work. I'd never get it near the internet, there's just too many problems with all the viruses and malware out there. The necessary anti-virus stuff causes even more problems as far as I can tell. ARGGH! Why couldn't they put that port on a reasonably priced machine?
Fascism vs. socialism
Just to pick up on my last post, it's important to remember the differences between these two evils. In socialism, the government is the supplier of goods and services. Under a fascist government, the government controls businesses in order to further the aims of the government. So, nationalized healthcare where the government is the only supplier of hospitals, doctors, medicines, etc. would be an example of a socialist program. The current bank issues don't really fall into that category, the banks still exist outside of the government, and there are plenty of banks that are not involved so you can choose one of them if you want.
Fascism is all about the vision of "the country" by the powers in charge. The basic philosophy can be summed up in that awful speech by Kennedy, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what can I do for my country." This was considered uplifting and inspiring at the time. People quickly figured out what it really meant when the government stopped asking and forced people to go die in Vietnam. Nationalism is intrinsically tied up in fascism. The belief that the state is the most important thing and that citizens exist to further the aims of the government is the driving force behind fascism. Can you see why I worry about this so much?
The purchasing of bank shares is rather ominous in my mind. There are some technical issues that need to be addressed. Will the treasury have voting shares in the bank ownership? If regulators feel that a bank is being mismanaged, will they need to bring suit against the treasury department? Can the same branch of the government sue itself?
More worrying to me is the political pressure that could be brought to bear in bank operations. It would be far better to allow those banks to go under. If banks are left alone, ones that are badly managed will go away either through bankruptcy or being bought out. There is the worry that banks that the government have a share in will no longer be as worried about little things like making a profit but will be used to further political ends. Sounds ridiculous? Look at Fannie and Freddy, economists have been warning us of the eventual collapse of those institutions for decades. Because they were tied to the government and had to follow government mandates, we all pay to bail them out.
Why does it matter? With enough government money being spread around, it impacts you and me in the long run. All of these things need to be paid for eventually. We could raise taxes, the government could just print more money (and then we get all the wonderful effects of inflation to deal with) or the government could just default on the loans. None of those things are good, and they're all avoidable. All we have to do is not fall into the trap of relying on the government to solve things. The line of what should be the realm of government and private enterprise has been dangerously blurred...
Fascism is all about the vision of "the country" by the powers in charge. The basic philosophy can be summed up in that awful speech by Kennedy, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what can I do for my country." This was considered uplifting and inspiring at the time. People quickly figured out what it really meant when the government stopped asking and forced people to go die in Vietnam. Nationalism is intrinsically tied up in fascism. The belief that the state is the most important thing and that citizens exist to further the aims of the government is the driving force behind fascism. Can you see why I worry about this so much?
The purchasing of bank shares is rather ominous in my mind. There are some technical issues that need to be addressed. Will the treasury have voting shares in the bank ownership? If regulators feel that a bank is being mismanaged, will they need to bring suit against the treasury department? Can the same branch of the government sue itself?
More worrying to me is the political pressure that could be brought to bear in bank operations. It would be far better to allow those banks to go under. If banks are left alone, ones that are badly managed will go away either through bankruptcy or being bought out. There is the worry that banks that the government have a share in will no longer be as worried about little things like making a profit but will be used to further political ends. Sounds ridiculous? Look at Fannie and Freddy, economists have been warning us of the eventual collapse of those institutions for decades. Because they were tied to the government and had to follow government mandates, we all pay to bail them out.
Why does it matter? With enough government money being spread around, it impacts you and me in the long run. All of these things need to be paid for eventually. We could raise taxes, the government could just print more money (and then we get all the wonderful effects of inflation to deal with) or the government could just default on the loans. None of those things are good, and they're all avoidable. All we have to do is not fall into the trap of relying on the government to solve things. The line of what should be the realm of government and private enterprise has been dangerously blurred...
It's late and I'm not thinking straight...
I'll write more on the bank thing later, but I do want to say something now about the ongoing banking thing. I've heard some people worried about the "socialist" implications of the government owning parts of banks. I think the thing we need to worry about more is fascism. The government using private businesses to accomplish aims that are important to it. Surely the government knows what's best, surely they will do what is in the best interest of us all. We should always worry when the government starts to exert new controls. At what point do those ownership shares get subjected to the political process? Be afraid, be very afraid...
Oct 14, 2008
Been up in NoVA
I managed to have a good time up here. Saw friends from my DC area days, it was good to see everyone. I ended up staying several days more than I thought I would. Mom came up (Rick usually goes to Gloucester) and there was a long weekend, so I stuck around...
I got two job offers while I was up here. My old job wants me back. I'm conflicted about that. One of the reasons I left was to start a new life, do something different. On the other hand, I would get paid quite a bit better there than anywhere near mom's place. I was also offered (I'm not sure how seriously) a gig teaching photography in a workshop setting. That would be a nice add on to a regular job, but it would never work on its own... I'll see where that goes...
There were some bad things too though. One of the guys that I worked with at Penn became a widow. That's rough. I think he's flying back to Ghana, so he won't be around for a while. I met with a friend of mine on saturday along with his wife and kids. The next morning, she had a stroke! This really surprised us all, she's only 40ish... Anyway, she seems to be recovering, but I'm wishing them well. Get well soon Cindy!
So it was a mixed bag, I am glad I came up. Now, back to my normal routine...
I got two job offers while I was up here. My old job wants me back. I'm conflicted about that. One of the reasons I left was to start a new life, do something different. On the other hand, I would get paid quite a bit better there than anywhere near mom's place. I was also offered (I'm not sure how seriously) a gig teaching photography in a workshop setting. That would be a nice add on to a regular job, but it would never work on its own... I'll see where that goes...
There were some bad things too though. One of the guys that I worked with at Penn became a widow. That's rough. I think he's flying back to Ghana, so he won't be around for a while. I met with a friend of mine on saturday along with his wife and kids. The next morning, she had a stroke! This really surprised us all, she's only 40ish... Anyway, she seems to be recovering, but I'm wishing them well. Get well soon Cindy!
So it was a mixed bag, I am glad I came up. Now, back to my normal routine...
Oct 5, 2008
They'll break your heart
That's what my uncle told me in 1983 when I informed him I was a Cub's fan. This was easily the best Cubs team I've ever seen, they were the best team in the league. They then proceeded to give the worst possible performance I have ever seen in the post-season. It's one thing to lose, it's quite another to never show up. I know that in the grand scheme of things, this isn't a big deal, but it still sucks. I'm not thinking of next year, It's hockey season now. Hopefully my Caps will take my mind off of this...
Oct 4, 2008
Riddle me this...
What are we improving with the bailout? The thing that "sold" the bailout package was the fear that credit would be hard to come by. Of course, banks are still lending, and if you have good credit, there are banks that will lend to you. Well, then we started to hear horror stories about not only large organizations failing because credit had been cut off, but smaller businesses too. I heard worries that companies wouldn't be able to make payroll because of a credit crunch. Really? No, REALLY?
I'm really hoping that it isn't a common business practice to use credit to cover regular operating coasts. I understand the need for credit, especially for buying inventory. A company buys things and then they have 30 days to pay for it. Thats a really short term form of credit, and it's between two businesses, banks are not usually involved. Businesses can get loans based on outstanding bills, and I can understand that being cut off when there's a credit crunch. But really, credit shouldn't be used for regular things like payroll. I can only think of two reasons to do that.
1) Businesses really are strapped for cash and credit is what they need to grease the wheels.
2) Credit is so cheap that you might as well make use of it.
I'm guessing that #2 is the more likely. So here's the question, do we really want to revert back to a point where credit was so cheap and easy that it is used as a matter of course? Wouldn't we be better off if businesses were required to mostly operate out of cash flow? I'm still wondering what the long term consequences of this bill will be. I'm wondering if the old status quo (which is what we are trying to get back to) is what caused so many people to go into excessive debt and make so many businesses reliant on credit.
For example, I've been lead to believe that California is having trouble finding someone to give them loans. Here's the thing, California has an enormous debt. before all of this stuff happened, they never considered the possibility of the state not being able to get a loan. Now that the credit markets have shrunk, they can't borrow any more. Isn't that a good thing? Under the old system, they were able to go further and further into debt, how is that better? My gut feeling (and this stuff is still too diffuse to go on anything other than gut feelings) is that propping up bad debt is going to lead to even more bad debt. We should take the hit, write off the bad debt, and start again with the more conservative credit system that is developing...
I'm really hoping that it isn't a common business practice to use credit to cover regular operating coasts. I understand the need for credit, especially for buying inventory. A company buys things and then they have 30 days to pay for it. Thats a really short term form of credit, and it's between two businesses, banks are not usually involved. Businesses can get loans based on outstanding bills, and I can understand that being cut off when there's a credit crunch. But really, credit shouldn't be used for regular things like payroll. I can only think of two reasons to do that.
1) Businesses really are strapped for cash and credit is what they need to grease the wheels.
2) Credit is so cheap that you might as well make use of it.
I'm guessing that #2 is the more likely. So here's the question, do we really want to revert back to a point where credit was so cheap and easy that it is used as a matter of course? Wouldn't we be better off if businesses were required to mostly operate out of cash flow? I'm still wondering what the long term consequences of this bill will be. I'm wondering if the old status quo (which is what we are trying to get back to) is what caused so many people to go into excessive debt and make so many businesses reliant on credit.
For example, I've been lead to believe that California is having trouble finding someone to give them loans. Here's the thing, California has an enormous debt. before all of this stuff happened, they never considered the possibility of the state not being able to get a loan. Now that the credit markets have shrunk, they can't borrow any more. Isn't that a good thing? Under the old system, they were able to go further and further into debt, how is that better? My gut feeling (and this stuff is still too diffuse to go on anything other than gut feelings) is that propping up bad debt is going to lead to even more bad debt. We should take the hit, write off the bad debt, and start again with the more conservative credit system that is developing...
Where credit is due
Well, it looks like ALL of the local representatives in the house voted against the bailout. I'd like to thank them for that. Unfortunately for them, their parties (that's right both dems and republicans) were 100% behind the bill, so I'm still not going to vote for their parties...
Oct 3, 2008
I've been thinking about this all wrong
I've been bitching and moaning for a while about how I don't really like either candidate. This bailout bill is the straw that broke the camel's back. Neither of the candidates even said, "Well, maybe we should think about this..." let alone thought that the bailout was a bad idea. Both parties were all gung-ho to pass this as soon as possible. That is an amazing amount of money that has just been handed over to the federal government and there was only token debate about how much power was being given essentially to one man.
I've had it, but what to do? I, along with everyone else, have been looking at the voting options as a two horse race. It occurred to me today that that isn't so. There are a handful of other parties on the ballot in Virginia, how does this platform sound?
"We defend America's traditional civil liberties and personal freedoms as the foundation of a tolerant society. We believe in the protection of people from dishonest business through liability in the courts. We endorse a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade as prescribed by America's Founding Fathers. Unlike the two major parties, for whom the only debate is whether the government should be enormous or merely huge, we believe the size and scope of government must be substantially reduced. Individuals should have sovereignty over their own lives as long as they do not interfere with the rights of others."
Guess what party that is? It's the Libertarian party. It basically fits my sensibilities to a tee and I'm willing to bet it fits a lot of other people's too, they just don't know about this party. I've known about them, but I never really thought about voting for them. Why not?
Well, there is zero chance that any of their policies will ever get written into law. Zero. Things like real free trade (not what passes for that in all of the trade bills coming out of the congress) and the elimination of all of the unnecessary federal bureaucracy just don't have any political traction and probably won't any time soon. Other things like the abolition of the federal income tax are so big that the idea is a little scary. But that'll never happen either.
As it turns out, that's probably a good thing. Knowing that the huge stuff won't get done is fine. Right now, I'd be happy with resistance to the crazy things that are going on right now. A Libertarian would not have voted to invade Iraq (see Ron Paul) and a libertarian wouldn't have voted for this enormous bailout. it would be nice if someone was fighting for me instead of selling me out.
Of course the big reason I wasn't going to vote for a Libertarian is because they weren't going to win. Especially after the Nadar issue that got W elected, third party votes have been seen as throwing away your vote, at best.
This is the killer, the guy isn't going to win, so why bother? Of course one of the other guys is going to win, so why bother voting for them? Especially if I don't like either of them. Something struck me today, voting for these guys could actually make a difference, even if they don't win. Counting votes is the only way people know that that outlook exists in the population at large. This vote will actually mean more than just another vote for the big two, it will show that someone does care about things that the candidates are ignoring. I believe that most of the people that don't vote are sick of the big two. Politics is stupid, politics is inherently corrupt, etc. If people realize that there is another choice and vote that way, things can be accomplished. Even if I am the only one in my district to vote this way, it might get someone to say, "Libertarians, who are they?" That chance is worth a lot more to me than "throwing away" my vote on Obama or McCain.
So for me, this makes a lot of sense. If you are disgusted by the bailout and Iraq, a libertarian vote makes a lot of sense. A democratic vote may communicate your dislike of the Iraq situation, but it is also tacit approval of Obama's financial largess to very wealthy people. If you want to say no to interventionist wars, bailouts, ever increasing debt, and government intrusions into things like sexuality, vote Libertarian. It's gotta start somewhere, so I'm voting libertarian down the line...
I've had it, but what to do? I, along with everyone else, have been looking at the voting options as a two horse race. It occurred to me today that that isn't so. There are a handful of other parties on the ballot in Virginia, how does this platform sound?
"We defend America's traditional civil liberties and personal freedoms as the foundation of a tolerant society. We believe in the protection of people from dishonest business through liability in the courts. We endorse a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade as prescribed by America's Founding Fathers. Unlike the two major parties, for whom the only debate is whether the government should be enormous or merely huge, we believe the size and scope of government must be substantially reduced. Individuals should have sovereignty over their own lives as long as they do not interfere with the rights of others."
Guess what party that is? It's the Libertarian party. It basically fits my sensibilities to a tee and I'm willing to bet it fits a lot of other people's too, they just don't know about this party. I've known about them, but I never really thought about voting for them. Why not?
Well, there is zero chance that any of their policies will ever get written into law. Zero. Things like real free trade (not what passes for that in all of the trade bills coming out of the congress) and the elimination of all of the unnecessary federal bureaucracy just don't have any political traction and probably won't any time soon. Other things like the abolition of the federal income tax are so big that the idea is a little scary. But that'll never happen either.
As it turns out, that's probably a good thing. Knowing that the huge stuff won't get done is fine. Right now, I'd be happy with resistance to the crazy things that are going on right now. A Libertarian would not have voted to invade Iraq (see Ron Paul) and a libertarian wouldn't have voted for this enormous bailout. it would be nice if someone was fighting for me instead of selling me out.
Of course the big reason I wasn't going to vote for a Libertarian is because they weren't going to win. Especially after the Nadar issue that got W elected, third party votes have been seen as throwing away your vote, at best.
This is the killer, the guy isn't going to win, so why bother? Of course one of the other guys is going to win, so why bother voting for them? Especially if I don't like either of them. Something struck me today, voting for these guys could actually make a difference, even if they don't win. Counting votes is the only way people know that that outlook exists in the population at large. This vote will actually mean more than just another vote for the big two, it will show that someone does care about things that the candidates are ignoring. I believe that most of the people that don't vote are sick of the big two. Politics is stupid, politics is inherently corrupt, etc. If people realize that there is another choice and vote that way, things can be accomplished. Even if I am the only one in my district to vote this way, it might get someone to say, "Libertarians, who are they?" That chance is worth a lot more to me than "throwing away" my vote on Obama or McCain.
So for me, this makes a lot of sense. If you are disgusted by the bailout and Iraq, a libertarian vote makes a lot of sense. A democratic vote may communicate your dislike of the Iraq situation, but it is also tacit approval of Obama's financial largess to very wealthy people. If you want to say no to interventionist wars, bailouts, ever increasing debt, and government intrusions into things like sexuality, vote Libertarian. It's gotta start somewhere, so I'm voting libertarian down the line...
They did it
They passed the bailout bill. I'm willing to bet that the one the House passed is actually worse than the one they rejected. SIGH. There wasn't any party opposition at all, both were of the opinion that they needed to get it done RIGHT NOW! The parties are looking more and more alike, and not in good ways. It's really frustrating that both houses were willing to sign away so much money with so little research. Once again, I'm hoping that this is the action that really rouses the ire of a lot of Americans. My biggest fear is that people are going to get away with this. The people that actually ran these banks into the ground are getting a free pass and by the time most of the people that voted on it come up for re-election, everyone will have forgotten about this. What a waste of money...
Oct 2, 2008
Greed
If I hear "This whole mess is caused by greedy capitalism run amok" one more time, I am going to scream. I don't know how many times I have seen the terms Laissez Faire and greed together lately.
First of all, there is a huge difference between Laissez Faire and corporitism. Laissez Faire puts the emphasis on competition. Businesses thrive and fail on their own merits. This is rarely ever mentioned in government circles, what is usually put into place is corporitism. That puts the emphasis on protecting a certain business or sector. Often times, this is masked behind "protecting" the consumer by various means. In any case, a company or group of companies benefit at the expese of all of us. This is what Republicans are famous for. People on the left tend to mistakenly refer to those things as "free market" policies. Here's a hint, if it benefits a business, it isn't free market. Businesses hate free market reforms, it means less money for them.
The next thing I would like to address is this; if you think that government regulations had nothing to do with this debacle, you're delusional. People will always try to make as much money as they can. Is that greedy? When you sell your house, do you sell it for as much as you can get? When you work, do you pick a job that benefits you the most? (Benefits and profits are essentially the same thing, see here for an explanation...) Congratulations! You're a greedy capitalist!
People work on Wall Street to make money. That sounds obvious, but think just a little bit, people come from all over the world to make big bucks in NYC's financial sector. Think what you want about those people, but their activities have enormous repercussions throughout the world. Their "greed" propels most of the jobs in the US and probably the world.
You can't legislate away greed. They will do what makes them the most money for the resources that go into it (capital, time, etc.). Government regulations have shaped what is profitable and generally distorted the entire financial sector. Without going into too mucuh detail, the existence of Fannie and Freddie, tax codes that pertain to real estate, mandates to lend to certain groups of people, and of course the Fed's monetary policies over the last decade have all come together in the perfect storm.
Once again, this mess can be laid at the feet of government meddling. The economy is not a machine that you can steer. A better analogy would be that the economy is like water flowing downhill. You can try to divert it, and you can try to make it work for you, but it will flow all the same. What we are seeing is the flooding caused by government diversions and dams. The bailout will make things worse long term, who knows what unintended consequence will come out of this intervention. It's best to allow things to die a natural death, clean up after, and then get back to work without government distortions in the market...
PS. Im not saying that the people and companies involved in this collapse weren't idiots. Companies make mistakes every day. Most banks did not make these mistakes, but a handful of large ones did. Whenever you hear the phrase "too big to fail" you can be sure we are operating under corporitism. The banks that exposed themselves to this kind of risk should go under, no bailout should be considered..
First of all, there is a huge difference between Laissez Faire and corporitism. Laissez Faire puts the emphasis on competition. Businesses thrive and fail on their own merits. This is rarely ever mentioned in government circles, what is usually put into place is corporitism. That puts the emphasis on protecting a certain business or sector. Often times, this is masked behind "protecting" the consumer by various means. In any case, a company or group of companies benefit at the expese of all of us. This is what Republicans are famous for. People on the left tend to mistakenly refer to those things as "free market" policies. Here's a hint, if it benefits a business, it isn't free market. Businesses hate free market reforms, it means less money for them.
The next thing I would like to address is this; if you think that government regulations had nothing to do with this debacle, you're delusional. People will always try to make as much money as they can. Is that greedy? When you sell your house, do you sell it for as much as you can get? When you work, do you pick a job that benefits you the most? (Benefits and profits are essentially the same thing, see here for an explanation...) Congratulations! You're a greedy capitalist!
People work on Wall Street to make money. That sounds obvious, but think just a little bit, people come from all over the world to make big bucks in NYC's financial sector. Think what you want about those people, but their activities have enormous repercussions throughout the world. Their "greed" propels most of the jobs in the US and probably the world.
You can't legislate away greed. They will do what makes them the most money for the resources that go into it (capital, time, etc.). Government regulations have shaped what is profitable and generally distorted the entire financial sector. Without going into too mucuh detail, the existence of Fannie and Freddie, tax codes that pertain to real estate, mandates to lend to certain groups of people, and of course the Fed's monetary policies over the last decade have all come together in the perfect storm.
Once again, this mess can be laid at the feet of government meddling. The economy is not a machine that you can steer. A better analogy would be that the economy is like water flowing downhill. You can try to divert it, and you can try to make it work for you, but it will flow all the same. What we are seeing is the flooding caused by government diversions and dams. The bailout will make things worse long term, who knows what unintended consequence will come out of this intervention. It's best to allow things to die a natural death, clean up after, and then get back to work without government distortions in the market...
PS. Im not saying that the people and companies involved in this collapse weren't idiots. Companies make mistakes every day. Most banks did not make these mistakes, but a handful of large ones did. Whenever you hear the phrase "too big to fail" you can be sure we are operating under corporitism. The banks that exposed themselves to this kind of risk should go under, no bailout should be considered..
voting
I just saw an ad on youtube about voting. In it, they were essentially saying that if you don't vote, you don't care about the economy, education, terrorism, civil rights, etc. Using guilt to make people vote is weird. You see, I care about all of those things, but I don't get to vote on them. We do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic. At the national level, we never get to vote on issues, we can only vote on who our proxy is.
This is the challenge to those people that say that it's vital to vote, it's out most important right... People aren't that stupid. We all know what we can vote for, it's one or the other. For a lot of people, neither choice is worth picking, so why is it worth voting? There's a reason that only half the people who can vote typically do...
The more I think about it, the trip and wait in line may not be worth it to me to vote for president. As I've said before, I don't see a lot of what I consider important in either candidate. On the other hand, this whole bailout mess has me feeling vengeful. If any of my representatives vote for it (Both Obama and McCain voted for it BTW), I will vote against them. On the other hand, if they have the balls to stand up and vote no, I will vote for them. The more local the representative, the more important any individual vote is. Pay attention to the voting on this bill and make sure we tell them what we think of their vote!
This is the challenge to those people that say that it's vital to vote, it's out most important right... People aren't that stupid. We all know what we can vote for, it's one or the other. For a lot of people, neither choice is worth picking, so why is it worth voting? There's a reason that only half the people who can vote typically do...
The more I think about it, the trip and wait in line may not be worth it to me to vote for president. As I've said before, I don't see a lot of what I consider important in either candidate. On the other hand, this whole bailout mess has me feeling vengeful. If any of my representatives vote for it (Both Obama and McCain voted for it BTW), I will vote against them. On the other hand, if they have the balls to stand up and vote no, I will vote for them. The more local the representative, the more important any individual vote is. Pay attention to the voting on this bill and make sure we tell them what we think of their vote!
New scans
Some new scans. Turns out that not only was their chemistry off, it was very different the days I took it in. That means a lot more work than there should be. I've also notices more pinks than the original scans. After a more careful look, I think that they had routinely clipped the red channel making most pinkish things just red... Anyway, I'll continue to go through this as I can...
Wealth disparity
There are a lot of people that complain that there is too much control held by wealthy people. I don't really think it's that big a deal, if there is buying of power I don't think the people buying it are as bad as the ones selling it...
Anyway, if you are someone that worries about power being controlled by a few people with money, you should be livid at the prospect of $700 billion being handed over to the treasury secretary. Talk about too much power in someone's hands! The money part of this whole debacle is infuriating, but the power issue is really scary IMO. I'll give Paulson the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's a decent, upstanding guy, but no one should have that kind of discretion with that amount of other people's money without their say so. To me, this is the last piece of W's legacy, government power gone amuck. I'm really hoping that this whole mess will finally wake people up. Government needs to be reigned in, there has to be hard limits on what they can do. I hope that this isn't too expensive a lesson to learn...
Anyway, if you are someone that worries about power being controlled by a few people with money, you should be livid at the prospect of $700 billion being handed over to the treasury secretary. Talk about too much power in someone's hands! The money part of this whole debacle is infuriating, but the power issue is really scary IMO. I'll give Paulson the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's a decent, upstanding guy, but no one should have that kind of discretion with that amount of other people's money without their say so. To me, this is the last piece of W's legacy, government power gone amuck. I'm really hoping that this whole mess will finally wake people up. Government needs to be reigned in, there has to be hard limits on what they can do. I hope that this isn't too expensive a lesson to learn...
More info on the bailout...
In the aptly titled "A Tourniquet for a Hemorrhaging Economy," Andrew Leonard goes through the ridiculousness that is this bailout bill from the senate. What was once a 3 page plan is now 451 pages long. Here are some of the goodies in it:
Sec. 105. Energy credit for geothermal heat pump systems.
Sec. 111. Expansion and modification of advanced coal project investment credit.
Sec. 113. Temporary increase in coal excise tax; funding of Black Lung Disability Trust Fund.
Sec. 115. Tax credit for carbon dioxide sequestration.
Sec. 205. Credit for new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles.
Sec. 405. Increase and extension of Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund tax.
Sec. 309. Extension of economic development credit for American Samoa.
Sec. 317. Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track facility.
Sec. 501. $8,500 income threshold used to calculate refundable portion of child tax credit.
Sec. 503 Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children.
This is for Wall Street? Clearly, it's an attempt to throw enough bones to the House to get them to pass this thing. I'm hoping against hope that they don't fall for it. This bill will cost considerably more than $700 billion after all of the costs are added up.
Sec. 105. Energy credit for geothermal heat pump systems.
Sec. 111. Expansion and modification of advanced coal project investment credit.
Sec. 113. Temporary increase in coal excise tax; funding of Black Lung Disability Trust Fund.
Sec. 115. Tax credit for carbon dioxide sequestration.
Sec. 205. Credit for new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles.
Sec. 405. Increase and extension of Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund tax.
Sec. 309. Extension of economic development credit for American Samoa.
Sec. 317. Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track facility.
Sec. 501. $8,500 income threshold used to calculate refundable portion of child tax credit.
Sec. 503 Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children.
This is for Wall Street? Clearly, it's an attempt to throw enough bones to the House to get them to pass this thing. I'm hoping against hope that they don't fall for it. This bill will cost considerably more than $700 billion after all of the costs are added up.
Oct 1, 2008
The senate has done it..
They passed their version of the bailout bill. Some of the additions are comical. There is a tax benefit for bicycle commuting in there as well as an extension for a renewable energy tax credit... These are clearly needed to help save the economy and help wall street... Gah, this better not pass the house.
Wow...
Warren, over at Coyote Blog pulls no punches when talking about the bailout. Here's his response to a democratic friend of his lamenting the republicans not getting together to pass the bailout...
"I find it surprising that you take this administration on faith in its declaration of emergency in the financial sector. You've lamented for years about the "rush to war" and GWB's scare tactics that pushed, you felt, the nation into a war it should not be fighting, all over threats of WMD's that we could never find. You lamented Democrats like Hillary Clinton "falling for this" in Congress
But now the mantra is the same - rush, rush, hurry, hurry, fear, fear, emergency, emergency. Another GWB declared crisis in which the country needs to give the administration unlimited power without accountability and, of course, stacks of taxpayer dollars to spend. A decision that has to be made fast, without time for deliberation. Another $700 billion commitment. And here the Democrats go again. Jeez, these guys may have the majority in Congress but it is sure easy for GWB to push their buttons when he wants to. Heck, Pelosi is acting practically as the Republican Whip to get GWB's party in line.
This is Iraq without the body bags, and without the personal honor of brave soldiers in the trenches to give the crisis some kind of dignity."
So Warren, what do you really think? I think he overstates why dems are chomping at the bit for this bailout, but still, it makes one wonder. You'd think we'd learn by now....
"I find it surprising that you take this administration on faith in its declaration of emergency in the financial sector. You've lamented for years about the "rush to war" and GWB's scare tactics that pushed, you felt, the nation into a war it should not be fighting, all over threats of WMD's that we could never find. You lamented Democrats like Hillary Clinton "falling for this" in Congress
But now the mantra is the same - rush, rush, hurry, hurry, fear, fear, emergency, emergency. Another GWB declared crisis in which the country needs to give the administration unlimited power without accountability and, of course, stacks of taxpayer dollars to spend. A decision that has to be made fast, without time for deliberation. Another $700 billion commitment. And here the Democrats go again. Jeez, these guys may have the majority in Congress but it is sure easy for GWB to push their buttons when he wants to. Heck, Pelosi is acting practically as the Republican Whip to get GWB's party in line.
This is Iraq without the body bags, and without the personal honor of brave soldiers in the trenches to give the crisis some kind of dignity."
So Warren, what do you really think? I think he overstates why dems are chomping at the bit for this bailout, but still, it makes one wonder. You'd think we'd learn by now....
Kids these days (drugs)
About a week ago, I read an article in the local paper about how more and more kids that use drugs recreationally are using prescription drugs instead of "street" drugs. To me, this is just another chink in the armor of the idea that drug laws are designed to "protect" people. Over the years, drugs like cocaine and heroin have been totally demonized while alcohol has mostly escaped criticism. If you look at the history of the legislation, it's clear that there was a real racial motive to banning those "dangerous" drugs. Now there are legal drugs that are at least as addictive and powerful as the illegal ones, so what's a drug moralist to do?
"Street drugs" are dangerous of course, but the government's efforts in the "War on Drugs" have been an overwhelming disaster. We have an enormous number of people in jail and with criminal records for what is really a personal decision. In other words, we have taken people with problems and thrown them in jail "for their own good." I'm not going to get into the amount of money spent doing this...
Anyway, more and more people aren't using those dangerous drugs, they're using the dangerous drugs in their medicine cabinet. All powerful drugs are dangerous, not just the ones that are sold on the street. Are we going to start demonizing those now? Probably not. We do need to understand that the new generation isn't drawing the cut and dried divide between illegal and legal drugs like previous generations did. I actually think that's a healthier attitude. It can go either way, "All drugs are the same, so I can take anything I want!" or "All drugs are the same, so I should be careful with all of them." are equally likely. What we need to do is educate more people on the dangers of not only heroin, meth, and cocaine but prescription pills and alcohol. With enough education, we should be able to cut back on punishing people that are self medicating for various problems. They have enough problems without the threat of incarceration...
"Street drugs" are dangerous of course, but the government's efforts in the "War on Drugs" have been an overwhelming disaster. We have an enormous number of people in jail and with criminal records for what is really a personal decision. In other words, we have taken people with problems and thrown them in jail "for their own good." I'm not going to get into the amount of money spent doing this...
Anyway, more and more people aren't using those dangerous drugs, they're using the dangerous drugs in their medicine cabinet. All powerful drugs are dangerous, not just the ones that are sold on the street. Are we going to start demonizing those now? Probably not. We do need to understand that the new generation isn't drawing the cut and dried divide between illegal and legal drugs like previous generations did. I actually think that's a healthier attitude. It can go either way, "All drugs are the same, so I can take anything I want!" or "All drugs are the same, so I should be careful with all of them." are equally likely. What we need to do is educate more people on the dangers of not only heroin, meth, and cocaine but prescription pills and alcohol. With enough education, we should be able to cut back on punishing people that are self medicating for various problems. They have enough problems without the threat of incarceration...
Technorati Tags:
drugs, libertarian, war on drugs
It's going to pass eventually...
My pleasure over the bailout not passing was short lived. There can be little doubt that something will get passed. Companies were making lots of money on morgages, and they spread it around. I have no doubt that many senators benefited from campaign contributions from those companies. For example, over the last decade, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have given over 170 million in lobbying money. Interestingly, Obama is number two on their list of how much money they have given senators over the last 20 years. That's with only one election and 4 years in office... Read about it here. I mention this just to show how common it is, I'm sure McCain is just as dirty...
Anyway, do you think that the senators will be coming to the rescue of such a "generous" special interest group? There's no doubt. The new bill sounds like it is loaded with a bunch of crap that has nothing to do with the bailouts either. All sorts of stuff about alternative energy, tax breaks, etc. In short, it's the same political shenanigans you can always expect from that body... Bleh, our tax dollars, flushed to special interests again...
Anyway, do you think that the senators will be coming to the rescue of such a "generous" special interest group? There's no doubt. The new bill sounds like it is loaded with a bunch of crap that has nothing to do with the bailouts either. All sorts of stuff about alternative energy, tax breaks, etc. In short, it's the same political shenanigans you can always expect from that body... Bleh, our tax dollars, flushed to special interests again...
Technorati Tags:
bailout, obama, freddie mac, fannie mae
If you want something done right...
I started rescanning some of the pictures I had developed in Yemen last night. I wondered why I had so many problems trying to correct those initial scans. Turns out that not only did their scanner suck, but they didn't seem to keep their chemistry in balance either. The negs are much less contrasty than they should be. With just a little bit of work, and a better scanner, I getting more detail and the colors are much much better. This will be slow going for me, I'm still trying to scan that large batch of negs. So I will do my own stuff after I've done the days alloted scanning for profit. Still, there aren't a lot of images, and it is certainly worth the effort. This is my first real attempt at scanning color negs. It would have been nice to have properly developed ones, but oh well...
