A large part of our sitting legislators and our current president are in office because they made promises of reform, change, taking back Washington, etc.
“We need fundamental change in this country, and that's what I'd like to bring.” When Barack Obama said these words during the final presidential debate, he was talking about the “failed policies ... we've seen over the last eight years.”
There is a lot to say about Bush's failures. But I don't hear a fundamental shift in the way business is done in Washington from Obama, just a cyclical pendulum swing back to the left.
Obama is making the most of the dissatisfaction Americans feel toward Bush. But the need for change in our government goes much deeper than a switch to the other party can fix. When most of our latest batch of reformers won their seats, they got stuck in the same quagmiric system the previous agents of change found. This is not an eight-year-old problem.
But Obama wants us to think he's different. Has he shown that in the time he's been in the Senate? In what ways has he taken on corrupt Washington politics? I can't think of one. If you can, please let me know.
If Barack Obama is elected, he will have little incentive to make good on his promise of “fundamental change”. If he starts implementing liberal policies, people will be excited for a while because he's not Bush. If troops start coming home, people won't care much what is happening in Iraq. Approval ratings won't wait for that fundamental change, and soon it will be just another forgotten campaign slogan.
Now add that to a one-party government. On NPR October 27, Jonathan Rauch, senior writer for National Journal, explained why this leads to non-representative government and alienation of the other half of the country. The president is pressured to play to the middle of his own party, not the middle of the country.
Contrastingly, McCain knows instituting fundamental change is the only way forward he has open to him. He won't have the benefit of being able to do everything the opposite of how Bush did it. He'll have to act competently to impress us. There is no reason to doubt that he would continue reaching across the aisle just as he has in Congress. Since McCain doesn't owe his nomination to any right wing segments of the Republican party he has no reason to push a right wing agenda, he'll be everyone's president. In fact, Jonathan Rauch (see link above) argued that if Democrats want real progress on climate change and health care, they are better off with McCain.
But, if you want to be the "change" candidate, someone else has to be the status quo. One of Obama's favorite campaign lines is that electing McCain would be a third Bush term. This kind of attack works because, as it has so often been said, this is a Democrat's year. But the claim doesn't hold water. McCain has denounced the Bush Administration's failed policies in much more risky settings than Obama has. McCain blasted President Bush's handling of the Iraq war, for example, in the Republican primary debates.
More importantly, what most people dislike about Bush is not his conservatism, but his bully politics and ineffective leadership. There is no reason I know of to expect McCain to follow that example.
McCain has a whole career that shows he isn't another Bush. Although our government is now more polarized than it has been in since reconstruction (see Poole link below), McCain has consistently led collaborative bipartisan efforts to craft good and significant legislation such as election financing reform and climate change bills. Is it incidental that one of his strongest supporters was the Democratic vice presidential candidate eight years ago?
If you want a fun yet objective view of how the candidates are prone to vote (in a simplified linear format), Keith Poole et al. have statistically rated Obama, McCain, Hillary Clinton and George W Bush on a liberal-conservative continuum based on their voting records. Obama and Clinton are nearly equally liberal on the left wing of democrats. McCain is rated as a moderate republican. Bush is comfortably right wing. They call McCain's voting along the continuum “erratic.” I take that to reflect the fact that McCain worries less than most about whether a good bill falls on the liberal or conservative side before he votes for it.
Barack Obama has promise as a leader, he just isn't erratic. I would like him to show us, as a senator, what he means when he uses the word “change” before we elect him president. Right now, what this country needs is a new collaborative approach to government, not a liberal preponderance of power in the same old system.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
The Connection Between Legalizing Gay Marriage and Homosexual Curriculum in Public Schools
[This article was originally posted as a comment to the previous article on watchblog.com]
I believe gay marriage is linked to teaching explicit sexual material in public schools as well as promoting homosexual relationships as normal for students as young as kindergarten without consent of parents.
In Massachusetts, gay marriage was legalized in 2004. Almost immediately, this became a premise for teaching about gay sex. Deb Allen, an 8th grade sex ed teacher in Brookline, Mass., gave an interview to NPR in September, 2004. Here is part of the transcript.
DEB ALLEN: In my mind, I know that, `OK, this is legal now.’ If somebody wants to challenge me, I’ll say, `Give me a break. It’s legal now.’
TOVIA SMITH: And, Allen says, teaching about homosexuality is also more important now. She says the debate around gay marriage is prompting kids to ask a lot more questions, like what is gay sex, which Allen answers thoroughly and explicitly with a chart.
DEB ALLEN: And on the side, I’m going to draw some different activities, like kissing and hugging, and different kinds of intercourse. Alright?
TOVIA SMITH: Allen asks her students to fill in the chart with yeses and nos.
DEB ALLEN: Alright. So can a woman and a woman kiss and hug? Yes. Can a woman and a woman have vaginal intercourse, and they will all say no. And I’ll say, `Hold it. Of course, they can. They can use a sex toy. They could use’—and we talk—and we discuss that. So the answer there is yes.
I’ve already discussed the David Parker case. There was another one as well. In 2006, Joey Wirthlin’s teacher read a book called King and King to her second grade class. The book is about a prince who rejects several princesses and ends up marrying another prince. The last page is a picture of the princes kissing with a heart covering their faces. The parents in both of these cases sued the schools to make it mandatory for teachers to notify parents when these subjects were taught and allow the students to opt out. They lost their case and appealed it. Here is an excerpt from the appellate court’s opinion.
“Joey has a more significant claim, both because he was required to sit through a classroom reading of King and King and because that book affirmatively endorses homosexuality and gay marriage. It is a fair inference that the reading of King and King was precisely intended to influence the listening children toward tolerance of gay marriage. ”
Still the appeal failed. One reason they gave was because gay marriage was legal in Massachusetts.
“Given that Massachusetts has recognized gay marriage under its state constitution, it is entirely rational for its schools to educate their students regarding that recognition.”
These were second graders. The case was not to stop all discussion about homosexual topics, it was to ensure parents knew when they were being addressed and had the right to opt their kids out.
That’s one for one in states where gay marriage has been legalized for longer than five months. Teachers and courts use the legalizing of gay marriage to justify teaching it in schools. These sentiments don’t have to be the majority. Each teacher gets to decide how they will present gay topics to their students where gay marriage is legal.
I believe gay marriage is linked to teaching explicit sexual material in public schools as well as promoting homosexual relationships as normal for students as young as kindergarten without consent of parents.
In Massachusetts, gay marriage was legalized in 2004. Almost immediately, this became a premise for teaching about gay sex. Deb Allen, an 8th grade sex ed teacher in Brookline, Mass., gave an interview to NPR in September, 2004. Here is part of the transcript.
DEB ALLEN: In my mind, I know that, `OK, this is legal now.’ If somebody wants to challenge me, I’ll say, `Give me a break. It’s legal now.’
TOVIA SMITH: And, Allen says, teaching about homosexuality is also more important now. She says the debate around gay marriage is prompting kids to ask a lot more questions, like what is gay sex, which Allen answers thoroughly and explicitly with a chart.
DEB ALLEN: And on the side, I’m going to draw some different activities, like kissing and hugging, and different kinds of intercourse. Alright?
TOVIA SMITH: Allen asks her students to fill in the chart with yeses and nos.
DEB ALLEN: Alright. So can a woman and a woman kiss and hug? Yes. Can a woman and a woman have vaginal intercourse, and they will all say no. And I’ll say, `Hold it. Of course, they can. They can use a sex toy. They could use’—and we talk—and we discuss that. So the answer there is yes.
I’ve already discussed the David Parker case. There was another one as well. In 2006, Joey Wirthlin’s teacher read a book called King and King to her second grade class. The book is about a prince who rejects several princesses and ends up marrying another prince. The last page is a picture of the princes kissing with a heart covering their faces. The parents in both of these cases sued the schools to make it mandatory for teachers to notify parents when these subjects were taught and allow the students to opt out. They lost their case and appealed it. Here is an excerpt from the appellate court’s opinion.
“Joey has a more significant claim, both because he was required to sit through a classroom reading of King and King and because that book affirmatively endorses homosexuality and gay marriage. It is a fair inference that the reading of King and King was precisely intended to influence the listening children toward tolerance of gay marriage. ”
Still the appeal failed. One reason they gave was because gay marriage was legal in Massachusetts.
“Given that Massachusetts has recognized gay marriage under its state constitution, it is entirely rational for its schools to educate their students regarding that recognition.”
These were second graders. The case was not to stop all discussion about homosexual topics, it was to ensure parents knew when they were being addressed and had the right to opt their kids out.
That’s one for one in states where gay marriage has been legalized for longer than five months. Teachers and courts use the legalizing of gay marriage to justify teaching it in schools. These sentiments don’t have to be the majority. Each teacher gets to decide how they will present gay topics to their students where gay marriage is legal.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Gay Marriage Laws Sacrifice Principles for Tolerance
Restricting rights is a bad precedent. But laws around the country legalizing gay marriage aren't about winning freedoms, they're about making divergent lifestyles seem normal. That means reeducation, starting in our public schools.
Most Americans accept the idea of giving lifetime gay couples access to benefits similar to those of married couples. What scares many is that this new found tolerance will go wild in sex education curriculum for teens.
For the small proportion of students who identify themselves as gay, learning how to perform anal sex may be validating, but for the rest of the students it will simply promote gender blindness in the name of tolerance. We don't need a blanket policy for all sex education. There are some things all students need to know. There are others that should be handled privately.
Gender blindness is a kind of institutionalized self deception. This is always disturbing. But the most disturbing self deception is the kind meant to remove the social and self conscious shame of casual sex. And the result won't be a healthy respect for human rights, but an anything goes mentality. No one wants to be seen as the intolerant one. For teens, peer pressure can outweigh self respect, wishes of their parents, or their own beliefs about propriety and wisdom. Can anyone who has gone to high school deny this?
This is not a call for abstinence only education, but neither should we be coaching kids to go out and have sex, gay or heterosexual. They don't need this kind of pressure from their teachers too. Training people to have sex should never have become the job of the public school system.
What the public schools can and should do is teach kids how to live in a diverse society. This goes hand in hand with fortifying self respect. Sex is a separate discussion. But in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is already legal, homosexual relationships have begun being taught to kindergartners as “normal” without the consultation of parents. Religious organizations have been targeted as well.
“But sexuality is a natural thing and teens shouldn't feel ashamed to explore it,” some may say. Ford forbid! Kids, by definition, don't need to feel comfortable talking about sex. They should blush at the subject. And teens are kids. Sexual maturity doesn't prepare someone to deal with issues of pregnancy, STDs, or the complex emotions of sexual relationships. Neither do demonstrations of putting condoms on bananas. A little shame is a good thing.
What did people do to deal with these issues before we became so enlightened? Well, these are only widespread problems for a promiscuous society. Self discipline is a lost value to many of us. It's what this country was built on. The decay of self discipline is nothing less than reverse evolution.
How can anyone who values a loving relationship, gay or straight, support legislation that would lead to policies that encourage young people to hump anything with a pulse? People who are fighting for that condition ought to be honest and differentiate themselves from those who really believe “you can't help how you were born”. Do we want a safe place for people to live with their loved ones, or do we want to be surrounded by people who use sex as a way to scratch an itch so we don't have to deal with our own shame?
Shame and self discipline are two things that keep our society from destroying itself. If these attributes have to be abolished to make room for gay marriage or anything else, then it's not worth it.
Most Americans accept the idea of giving lifetime gay couples access to benefits similar to those of married couples. What scares many is that this new found tolerance will go wild in sex education curriculum for teens.
For the small proportion of students who identify themselves as gay, learning how to perform anal sex may be validating, but for the rest of the students it will simply promote gender blindness in the name of tolerance. We don't need a blanket policy for all sex education. There are some things all students need to know. There are others that should be handled privately.
Gender blindness is a kind of institutionalized self deception. This is always disturbing. But the most disturbing self deception is the kind meant to remove the social and self conscious shame of casual sex. And the result won't be a healthy respect for human rights, but an anything goes mentality. No one wants to be seen as the intolerant one. For teens, peer pressure can outweigh self respect, wishes of their parents, or their own beliefs about propriety and wisdom. Can anyone who has gone to high school deny this?
This is not a call for abstinence only education, but neither should we be coaching kids to go out and have sex, gay or heterosexual. They don't need this kind of pressure from their teachers too. Training people to have sex should never have become the job of the public school system.
What the public schools can and should do is teach kids how to live in a diverse society. This goes hand in hand with fortifying self respect. Sex is a separate discussion. But in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is already legal, homosexual relationships have begun being taught to kindergartners as “normal” without the consultation of parents. Religious organizations have been targeted as well.
“But sexuality is a natural thing and teens shouldn't feel ashamed to explore it,” some may say. Ford forbid! Kids, by definition, don't need to feel comfortable talking about sex. They should blush at the subject. And teens are kids. Sexual maturity doesn't prepare someone to deal with issues of pregnancy, STDs, or the complex emotions of sexual relationships. Neither do demonstrations of putting condoms on bananas. A little shame is a good thing.
What did people do to deal with these issues before we became so enlightened? Well, these are only widespread problems for a promiscuous society. Self discipline is a lost value to many of us. It's what this country was built on. The decay of self discipline is nothing less than reverse evolution.
How can anyone who values a loving relationship, gay or straight, support legislation that would lead to policies that encourage young people to hump anything with a pulse? People who are fighting for that condition ought to be honest and differentiate themselves from those who really believe “you can't help how you were born”. Do we want a safe place for people to live with their loved ones, or do we want to be surrounded by people who use sex as a way to scratch an itch so we don't have to deal with our own shame?
Shame and self discipline are two things that keep our society from destroying itself. If these attributes have to be abolished to make room for gay marriage or anything else, then it's not worth it.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Why I'm voting for John McCain
I consider myself a thoughtful person. I would never vote a straight ticket even if I supported every democrat or every republican on the ballot. For those of you thoughtful people who still haven't decided who to vote for, I would like to give you several reasons I'm voting for John McCain.
His arguments are pragmatic, not ideological. John McCain doesn't owe his nomination to the far right, the religious right, or any other segment. He doesn't have any campaign money (which is why he's on public financing) so he won't owe his election to big money. This means if he is elected president, he will be everyone's president. McCain won the Republican primary because his ideas make sense. They aren't partisan and they aren't sugar-coated. He bashed President Bush in the Republican debates, he told Michigan auto workers their industrial jobs might never come back. His ideas are convincing because they have the ring of reality.
John McCain has demonstrated commitment to work across the aisle. The best evidence of this is that one of his biggest supporters was the Democratic vice presidential candidate eight years ago. McCain has a record of working with anyone to get smart and collaborative legislation passed. Barak Obama has said bipartisanship is an important value to him. I have no reason to doubt his commitment, I just want to see it in action. A large part of our sitting legislators and our current president are there because they made promises of reform, change, taking back Washington, etc. I would like to see exactly what Obama means when he says it, and he can show us as a U.S. Senator first.
McCain's views on the issues show good judgment and forethought. Even if you are against the war in Iraq, you can appreciate John McCain's understanding of the issues involved. He voted to invade with most other Senators. But he criticized its execution all along. McCain knows the cost of torture and the value of diplomacy. He understands war too well to let a rash secretary of defense go buck wild. Imagine the war without Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. McCain understands the gravity of the economic situation and the problems facing families. He was being frank when he told those auto workers they might not get their jobs back, but he didn't leave them without hope. I think McCain is right on with immigration reform. He knows deporting 12 million people, most of whom are working, is not rational.
Barak Obama has great promise as a leader. And it is very heartening what it says about America that he was able to win his nomination. I appreciate that he hasn't made this election about race. I would say to him: Show us your vision of how you would change Washington as a Senator and come back in four or eight years. Right now I believe John McCain is the right person to be president.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Second Debate Results
Not surprisingly, MSNBC polls overwhelmingly give Barak Obama the victory. Equally unsurprisingly, Fox News polls give John McCain the overwhelming victory.
I think it will take some time to find out what scientific polls tell us.
As expected, this debate was a slug fest. And both candidates stayed focused on the issues of economy, health care, and foreign affairs.
It was McCain's burden to turn around the Obama-ward trend in the polls, though. And he understood he had to do some fancy talking about the economy.
Generally, he did well on the economy. McCain made it a point to talk about helping struggling families. He went so far as to suggest a $300 billion government intervention to renegotiate mortgages at current market prices. This sounds pretty radical, and a debate was a risky place to announce it. The coming weeks will show if the gamble worked.
To Barak Obama's credit, he didn't hold back either. He really shined during the discussion about health care. Although, if he wanted to make significant ground on McCain it would have been in foreign affairs. And McCain showed he is still the king in that arena. His knowledge of history and his grasp of the diplomacy/military balance were impressive.
Who got more . . . happy points from blocs of voters agreeing with their favorite analysts isn't near as important as what objective polls tell us in the coming weeks. Then we'll find out if McCain's talk about the economy was enough to bring the issue back on the table and close the gap with Obama.
I think it will take some time to find out what scientific polls tell us.
As expected, this debate was a slug fest. And both candidates stayed focused on the issues of economy, health care, and foreign affairs.
It was McCain's burden to turn around the Obama-ward trend in the polls, though. And he understood he had to do some fancy talking about the economy.
Generally, he did well on the economy. McCain made it a point to talk about helping struggling families. He went so far as to suggest a $300 billion government intervention to renegotiate mortgages at current market prices. This sounds pretty radical, and a debate was a risky place to announce it. The coming weeks will show if the gamble worked.
To Barak Obama's credit, he didn't hold back either. He really shined during the discussion about health care. Although, if he wanted to make significant ground on McCain it would have been in foreign affairs. And McCain showed he is still the king in that arena. His knowledge of history and his grasp of the diplomacy/military balance were impressive.
Who got more . . . happy points from blocs of voters agreeing with their favorite analysts isn't near as important as what objective polls tell us in the coming weeks. Then we'll find out if McCain's talk about the economy was enough to bring the issue back on the table and close the gap with Obama.
Obama, McCain: Round 2
With less than a month to go before the presidential election, neither Barak Obama nor John McCain can afford to leave anything unsaid in tonight's debate.
In the first debate there were no heavy punches. I think they were testing each other's stamina. This time they both have to go for the big hits, but not wildly. It's not all or nothing yet.
The election is close enough that the polls are really starting to matter. And most of them show Barak Obama ahead and building distance. This seems to be tied to the floundering economy.
McCain can still make a lot of headway on this subject. Obama doesn't own the economy as an issue the way McCain owns foreign affairs. Obama has just played it better thus far.
John McCain is in a precarious position, though. He needs to be smooth tonight - no old man moments. He also needs to fight the urge to pick on Obama's character. That will make him look like he's grasping at straws; a last ditch effort to tarnish a pretty clean record.
What McCain does need to do is speak intelligently and confidently about what's happening with the economy, even get technical. He needs to communicate empathy for Americans who are suffering because of lost jobs and higher food and fuel prices. McCain needs to get back to the straight talk about the economy, even if it cuts.
Barak Obama needs to avoid sounding dismissive, the bain of most academic types. His primary challenge will be to create intimate space between himself and the audience members. The town hall meeting format is where McCain has shined.
The biggest mistake either candidate could make is to leave anything unsaid. After tonight it will be nie impossible for McCain to convince us he can lead us out of this economic slump if he doesn't make a good case for it here.
In the first debate there were no heavy punches. I think they were testing each other's stamina. This time they both have to go for the big hits, but not wildly. It's not all or nothing yet.
The election is close enough that the polls are really starting to matter. And most of them show Barak Obama ahead and building distance. This seems to be tied to the floundering economy.
McCain can still make a lot of headway on this subject. Obama doesn't own the economy as an issue the way McCain owns foreign affairs. Obama has just played it better thus far.
John McCain is in a precarious position, though. He needs to be smooth tonight - no old man moments. He also needs to fight the urge to pick on Obama's character. That will make him look like he's grasping at straws; a last ditch effort to tarnish a pretty clean record.
What McCain does need to do is speak intelligently and confidently about what's happening with the economy, even get technical. He needs to communicate empathy for Americans who are suffering because of lost jobs and higher food and fuel prices. McCain needs to get back to the straight talk about the economy, even if it cuts.
Barak Obama needs to avoid sounding dismissive, the bain of most academic types. His primary challenge will be to create intimate space between himself and the audience members. The town hall meeting format is where McCain has shined.
The biggest mistake either candidate could make is to leave anything unsaid. After tonight it will be nie impossible for McCain to convince us he can lead us out of this economic slump if he doesn't make a good case for it here.
Friday, October 3, 2008
The Draw Goes to Palin
The Vice Presidential candidate debate Thursday was exciting as expected. Both Joe Biden and Sarah Palin were on their game. But there is no such thing as a tie in presidential politics, and since Palin had the most to lose in this debate I'm giving the trophy to her.
First off, I will say I appreciated the cordiality. Although I don't believe it was purely good manners. I think Biden's people told him, "DON'T ATTACK PALIN! You'll look like a monster picking on a woman." I think Palin's people said, "If you want to Attack Biden go ahead, but he'll rip you apart." It was a case of mutually assured destruction.
Of course, Biden and Palin had different goals going into the debate. Biden's was to outrun Palin. He needed to show everyone how much more presidential he was than she.
Palin's goals were to 1) not get run over, and 2) go on the offensive.
Biden flaunted his broad bank of knowledge to create distance, and it was impressive. He had excellent stats and anecdotes to make his points and a quick, intelligent sounding response to every question. But he didn't stick to the key messages of his campaign. He did talk about the failures of the Bush administration and linked McCain to Bush, but his vision for the future in an Obama administration seemed to get lost in those stats, anecdotes and intelligent sounding answers.
Palin showed she doesn't have the broad knowledge Biden does, but that didn't hurt her much. Palin stuck to what she knew, and to the messages she's been giving all along: We're mavericks, we're reformers, we are not Bush, I have executive experience, I'm a home grown, middle-class girl. She also succeeded in going on the offensive by putting a wedge between Obama and Biden - citing various points of disagreement.
There was only one thing that made me cringe about Palin's performance. She kept using the mispronunciation, "nucular," a gaffe made famous by George W. Bush.
Overall, the debate ended up pretty even. Biden didn't make the contrast he needed to, while Palin not only didn't get run over, she put Biden on the defensive several times.
Palin needed to show everyone that she could hold her own with the toughest of Washington politicians, and she did that.
First off, I will say I appreciated the cordiality. Although I don't believe it was purely good manners. I think Biden's people told him, "DON'T ATTACK PALIN! You'll look like a monster picking on a woman." I think Palin's people said, "If you want to Attack Biden go ahead, but he'll rip you apart." It was a case of mutually assured destruction.
Of course, Biden and Palin had different goals going into the debate. Biden's was to outrun Palin. He needed to show everyone how much more presidential he was than she.
Palin's goals were to 1) not get run over, and 2) go on the offensive.
Biden flaunted his broad bank of knowledge to create distance, and it was impressive. He had excellent stats and anecdotes to make his points and a quick, intelligent sounding response to every question. But he didn't stick to the key messages of his campaign. He did talk about the failures of the Bush administration and linked McCain to Bush, but his vision for the future in an Obama administration seemed to get lost in those stats, anecdotes and intelligent sounding answers.
Palin showed she doesn't have the broad knowledge Biden does, but that didn't hurt her much. Palin stuck to what she knew, and to the messages she's been giving all along: We're mavericks, we're reformers, we are not Bush, I have executive experience, I'm a home grown, middle-class girl. She also succeeded in going on the offensive by putting a wedge between Obama and Biden - citing various points of disagreement.
There was only one thing that made me cringe about Palin's performance. She kept using the mispronunciation, "nucular," a gaffe made famous by George W. Bush.
Overall, the debate ended up pretty even. Biden didn't make the contrast he needed to, while Palin not only didn't get run over, she put Biden on the defensive several times.
Palin needed to show everyone that she could hold her own with the toughest of Washington politicians, and she did that.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Blame and Bailouts: Who Drove Our Economy into the Wall?
According to just about every poll around, the vast majority of Americans are against a taxpayer bailout plan for banks on the verge of collapse. “Why should we rescue people who made poor decisions and got themselves into trouble?” we ask. “We shouldn't be bailing them out, we should be punishing them for being greedy and stupid.”
Unfortunately, it's impossible to completely separate ourselves from those greedy bankers. When we talk about a financial bailout it's not just a bunch of bank executives. The banking system is our infrastructure for all our transactions. It effects our mortgages, our ability to get loans, our investments, even our personal bank accounts. What if those accounts just stopped working? That's what I think the “bailout” is all about. I don't think we would be so merciless if it were the nation's grocery stores that were all at risk of going bankrupt.
Still, there must be someone we can pin the blame on, right? So who is “someone”? Who was it that got so greedy that he or she caused a problem worthy of discussions of a $700 billion bailout? I'm no economist, but I don't think that question has a good answer.
I'm convinced that Wall Street traders and bankers are more like a flock of birds than an organized institution. They all seem to move together in a planned, orderly fashion. Then one bird catches a draft or swoops for a bug and they all change direction as if someone blew a whistle. It's a fascinating sight from the ground. But this time we all flew into a pane glass window.
That's right, the scary truth is that we are all part of that same flock. Who among us wasn't capable of writing a blog two years ago saying, “Wait a minute, are we sure this is the direction we want to be going? Should getting a loan be as easy as a Las Vegas divorce?” But who would have listened? We all had such implicit faith in the flock of birds acting in the best interest of the whole.
“But isn't it the government's job to keep things on the right track?” you ask. Have you ever tried to herd a flock of birds? Anyway, government involvement is probably as much to blame as anything. Think about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
So when we call for someone's resignation and jail time for getting us in this mess, who decides who gets the blame? We don't know, we're just normal honest people, but surely someone in Washington or New York knows enough about what is going on to find the culprit, right?
I hope the decision whether to approve the bailout package goes deeper than letting a short-sighted executive fry. It may be that we don't need a $700 billion bailout – that the market will heal itself. The stock market threw a tantrum when the House didn't pass the first version of the financial bailout but we survived. I just hope the lawmakers will use courage in making decisions on this complex issue and do the right thing for the country.
Whatever happens in Washington, when we're all acting like we have a brain the size of a pea, we eventually have to admit that maybe there isn't one person at the front who saw that pane glass window coming.
Unfortunately, it's impossible to completely separate ourselves from those greedy bankers. When we talk about a financial bailout it's not just a bunch of bank executives. The banking system is our infrastructure for all our transactions. It effects our mortgages, our ability to get loans, our investments, even our personal bank accounts. What if those accounts just stopped working? That's what I think the “bailout” is all about. I don't think we would be so merciless if it were the nation's grocery stores that were all at risk of going bankrupt.
Still, there must be someone we can pin the blame on, right? So who is “someone”? Who was it that got so greedy that he or she caused a problem worthy of discussions of a $700 billion bailout? I'm no economist, but I don't think that question has a good answer.
I'm convinced that Wall Street traders and bankers are more like a flock of birds than an organized institution. They all seem to move together in a planned, orderly fashion. Then one bird catches a draft or swoops for a bug and they all change direction as if someone blew a whistle. It's a fascinating sight from the ground. But this time we all flew into a pane glass window.
That's right, the scary truth is that we are all part of that same flock. Who among us wasn't capable of writing a blog two years ago saying, “Wait a minute, are we sure this is the direction we want to be going? Should getting a loan be as easy as a Las Vegas divorce?” But who would have listened? We all had such implicit faith in the flock of birds acting in the best interest of the whole.
“But isn't it the government's job to keep things on the right track?” you ask. Have you ever tried to herd a flock of birds? Anyway, government involvement is probably as much to blame as anything. Think about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
So when we call for someone's resignation and jail time for getting us in this mess, who decides who gets the blame? We don't know, we're just normal honest people, but surely someone in Washington or New York knows enough about what is going on to find the culprit, right?
I hope the decision whether to approve the bailout package goes deeper than letting a short-sighted executive fry. It may be that we don't need a $700 billion bailout – that the market will heal itself. The stock market threw a tantrum when the House didn't pass the first version of the financial bailout but we survived. I just hope the lawmakers will use courage in making decisions on this complex issue and do the right thing for the country.
Whatever happens in Washington, when we're all acting like we have a brain the size of a pea, we eventually have to admit that maybe there isn't one person at the front who saw that pane glass window coming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)