Update from the Heartland
No.359
27.10.08 – 2.11.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.359
27.10.08 – 2.11.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
After an historic, suspended and postponed fifth game of the World Series, congratulations must go to the Philadelphia Phillies for their decisive victory and world championship. Well done, lads!
The longest political campaign in history has finally come to an end. Tomorrow is the day! I trust everyone has already voted or will vote tomorrow. I intend to cast my vote when the polls open at 06:00 CST, here in Kansas.
The follow-up news items:
-- A federal jury convicted the longest-serving Republican senator, Theodore Fulton ‘Ted’ Stevens of Alaska, on seven counts [295-6, 346]. He immediately indicated his intention to appeal his conviction and returned to Alaska to continue his re-election campaign. Many of his colleagues, including both leading contenders, urged Stevens to withdraw and resign. As with most hardened criminals, crusty ol’ Ted proclaimed his innocence – ah yes, don’t they all.
Senator Barack Obama reportedly paid US$3.5M to air his 30-minute, political info-mercial Wednesday night on seven television channels – an unusual action, more to demonstrate the size of his campaign fund. His rhetorical skill is exemplary – his meter, inflection, intonation, construction. The video message was comparably well crafted, and each of us will judge the veracity of his rhetoric. A couple of statements struck me, not so much for any new message, but rather the delivery. Barack said, “I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face.” He also used what could be his signature line, “We can choose hope over fear – unity over division.” As this Update goes in the can, as they say, we shall finally know who will be our next POTUS tomorrow night – at least I hope so. We do not need another 2000 fiasco.
The Press latched onto a leaked, classified, White House assessment of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan that suggested Allied intentions to negotiate with lower level Taliban operatives, ostensibly to repeat one of the key initiatives in the Battle for Iraq. General David Petraeus apparently approved the initiative. Of course, the spin in the Press has Allied forces on their knees, begging for a truce. We shall see.
The Wall Street Journal offered an intriguing excerpt of a speech by U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas at the Manhattan Institute on 16th of October.
“How to Read the Constitution”
by Clarence Thomas
Wall Street Journal
Published: October 20, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122445985683948619.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Being that I often disagree with Clarence’s interpretation, I thought, oyez, I might gain some insight into the legal mind of one of the conservative Supremes. Clarence began with an admonishment, “I have been astounded just how many of our fellow citizens feel strongly about their constitutional rights but have no idea what they are, or for that matter, what the Constitution says.” OK! I will have to give him that. However, I have tried over many years to read a wide variety of decisions handed down by the Supremes, and I have read more than a few of Thomas’ opinions. So, while I am not a constitutional scholar, just yet, I am modestly informed . . . certainly enough to form a cogent opinion regarding this issue of constitutional interpretation, ‘originalism,’ ‘fundamentalism,’ judicial activism,’ and such. Interestingly, Clarence referred to the Declaration as a foundational document for giving us insight into the intent of the Framers regarding the Constitution. Clarence stated, “Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution -- try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up. No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores. To be sure, even the most conscientious effort to adhere to the original intent of the framers of our Constitution is flawed, as all methodologies and human institutions are; but at least originalism has the advantage of being legitimate and, I might add, impartial.” Oddly, he implicitly suggests that it is “his” way or the other way. What a damnable sanctimonious thing to say. The Framers / Founders did everything they could to find balance with an adequate, not dominant, central government. A number of Clarence’s opinions reinforced vastly expansive powers of the Federal government, while he conveniently seems to ignore key elements of the Declaration, the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, and most importantly, of history itself. I truly believe the Framers / Founders would be gobsmacked at the expanse, intrusiveness, aggression and dominance of the Federal government, after all that they sacrificed and sought to avoid – we have frittered away our Liberty and freedom. Clarence’s little speech, especially in light of his many written opinions, reinforces my belief and opinion that he is quite far off the reservation when it comes to proper, legal interpretation of the Constitution. He has strayed quite far from the original intent of the Constitution. He raised the abortion issue as a classic example, and indeed it is. Thomas sees Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] [319] as the embodiment of ‘judicial activism’ and ‘judicial fiat,’ and the ultimate violation of the ‘originalist’s proper interpretation. The Constitution says nothing whatsoever about privacy or abortion rights; therefore, the Court has no authority to rule on such topics. If you see the Constitution as ONLY a definition of Federal powers and authority, then it is easy to see that interpretation. Yet, what he conveniently ignores or selectively chooses to overlook is the reflection of the Constitution, i.e., what is not enumerated in the document belongs to We, the People – the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Bill of Rights. Privacy and freedom from intrusion by government was, is and forever should be one of the most fundamental rights ‘retained’ by the People. Roe, along with other cases, was an attempt to reconcile the mounting power and reach of the government against the most fundamental of our rights. Privacy is not written in the Constitution because it did not need to be; it was ‘retained’ by the People, and the government has no authority whatsoever to infringe upon that most basic of freedom. Roe may not be perfect judicial interpretation, but it is a bona fide and legitimate attempt at reconciliation between the power of the State and the rights of every individual citizen. Clarence Thomas is wrong!
Voter fraud has an ugly, sordid, perpetual history in this Grand Republic, and this silly season is another edition of the same old song with both sides accusing the other guys of illegal activities. While the fraudulent activities of ACORN [Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now] and others may not translate into illegal votes, bogus registration applications can overload a challenged registrar system to the point of increasing the error rate and reducing the cross-checking capacity of county governments. Of course, all sides throw accusations around like mud to distract, confuse, deflect and play to the parochial biases of their believers. The Supremes have been engaged more and more since Bush v. Gore [531 U.S. 98 (2000); no. 00-949] with the latest case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board [552 U.S. ___ (2008); no. 07-21] [334]; and, we never like the Judiciary involved in the election process – a mark of the times, I suppose. I have voted in 10 national elections in 4 states, including from three (3) foreign countries, and nearly twice that number state elections. I have used just about every voting system in popular use over the last 40 years – marked paper ballots, lever mechanical machines, butterfly ballots (of Florida 2000 infamy), electronic touch-screen systems and absentee ballots. I have yet to feel the slightest perception of irregularity or suspicion of error. While I am not a statistically significant sampling, my experience is relevant; this is not to say that fraudulent activity does not exist in Chicago, or Miami, or New York City, or elsewhere in the hinterland. I offer one simple solution – a national clearinghouse of voter registration with the appropriate safeguards against collateral use by Federal or state governments. A simple thing, each citizen can only be registered in one place – precinct, city, county, state. Any attempt to register a non-citizen, a non-entity (e.g., Mickey Mouse), or someone already registered anywhere else, would flag the application for reconciliation. Voting is the domain of the states and must be preserved. However, states share criminal information, vehicle registration, et cetera. Surely, we can find a way to protect the states’ dominion over voting, without compromising a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy. This persist soap opera at each election is highly corrosive to a viable democracy.
If you would like an interesting cogitative exercise, I offer this example:
“The Once-Great Democratic Party”
by Mark Alexander
Patriot Post; vol. 08, no. 43
Published: 24 October 2008
http://archive.patriotpost.us/pub/08-43_Digest/
Alexander opened his essay, “Thomas Jefferson wrote, ‘The government is best which governs least,’ and that sentiment was thematic in all of his writing about the role of government. So what happened to the Party of Jefferson, the once-great Democratic Party, the champion of limited government?” My first reaction: that is kinda like the pot calling the kettle black. Certainly, the Democratic Party abandoned the small government of Jefferson and the other Founders a long time ago. Yet, the implicit meaning of Alexander’s statement is that the Republican Party is different. Richard Nixon expanded the Federal government substantially and eroded the freedom of individual citizens. George W. Bush has done the same. So, the notion that the Democrats are somehow bogey-men to be condemned and ostracized is ludicrous in the light of reality. One of these days we will wake up to see what has really happened.
We can add another interesting proposition to California’s Proposition 8 [better known in the Internet vernacular as Prop H8] and San Francisco’s Proposition K, on this election’s ballot. Colorado’s Amendment 48 seeks to change the state constitution to grant a fertilized egg the status of a human being, complete with equal rights. The consequences of such an action are incalculable. We know why the proponents have done so, but I hope the residents of Colorado are smart enough and farsighted enough to reject such a foolish constitutional amendment. Isn’t it quite odd that some of fellow citizens seek to grant incredible, unprecedented rights to a single cell, and yet deny equal rights to grown, adult, productive citizens who hurt no one?
News from the economic front this week:
-- The Federal Reserve’s Federal Open Market Committee lowered the target federal funds rate by 0.5 percentage point to 1%, its lowest since between June 2003 and June 2004.
-- The Treasury Department announced plans to expand the number of banks receiving Federal funds under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 [355] from the original nine (9) banks [357]. Here are the additional recipients:
City National Corporation
Comerica
First Niagara Financial Group
Huntington Bancshares
Northern Trust Corporation
State Street Corporation
UCBH Holdings
First Horizon National
PNC
Regions
Valley National Bancorp
Washington Federal
Fifth Third Bancorp
The list will undoubtedly grow and other industries like insurance [358] and automotive will belly up to the Federal trough.
-- Signs are beginning to present that Wall Street heavies may be seeing the handwriting on the wall regarding their excessive compensation and bonuses in an environment where they are begging for public funds to rescue them from their stupidity.
Comments and contributions from Update no.358:
“I echo your point concerning whether Saddam had WMDs. You said "I don't really care." I've said the same thing many times over the years. In fact, I cringed when Powell went to the UN and made that the cause. At the time I thought it was a terrible mistake regarding the court of public opinion and I was right. Taking him out was the right thing to do. And, to pull out now under the straw man argument of cost is foolish. If a 25% cut in the military is coming with this election outcome (as proposed by Barney Frank), we are in trouble. The average citizen does not consider that the cost of training is similar to the cost of war in these modern times. We train as we fight, without the greater loss of life, which is the highest cost. So, if we pull out before the job is done, the cost of training takes over the other costs. While some expenses may fall, others will rise. With a cut in the military we invite our enemies to strike.
“The test coming for our capitalist system of checks and balances is worrisome. We are likely in a week or so to find ourselves with a an elected governing national body with a President and supermajority from the same party. That perhaps is the biggest threat to the Supreme Court than any other issue right now. I like it when a President has to bargain with the opposition and the opposing forces have to bargain with each other as well to get something done. To have a President with the supermajority will of congress at his side is as close to a dictatorship or monarchy we can face in our system of government, because bargaining with the loyal opposition is no longer needed.
“We should beware of what comes.”
My reply:
Well, as you say, according to the Press, we shall soon realize the ‘new direction,’ as they declare the winner. We shall see.
I’m with you. Anytime one ideological groups, regardless of which one, gains control of all the instruments of State, we inevitable get out of balance . . . swing too far left in this impending instance, just as we swung too far right in 2000/4, and that was without a Senate supermajority. Like you, I like negotiation, compromise, debate and constructive political conflict. It does appear we are not going to find balance for at least 2 years and more likely much longer. We can chalk this up to another W failure. Now, that I mention it, I’m ready for a change, so much so, I almost do not care what.
We shall remain vigilant, critical and vocal, no matter who wins the election.
. . . a follow-up:
“The republicans blew their chance to do right with government over the past 8 years. The cost of their lack of courage and common sense is what is coming next week. Yes, we will remain "vigilant, critical and vocal" until common sense takes over someday, if ever.”
. . . and my follow-up reply:
Keep the faith, my Brother. This too shall pass.
A contribution from across the great waters:
“We try to keep up with your election which seems to have been in progress since time immemorial. You get good coverage over here...too much some say! My private and uninformed view is the republicans can still do it. But I would be very concerned about the lack luster performance of the candidate.
“However none of my business!
“We approach the season of remembrance here in U/K. A time when we not only remember the sacrifice of our boys and girls but as a reminder of our duty to those who return. Something that our politicians only pay lip service to.
“We are busy selling Poppies.”
My response:
I would like to buy a Poppy, and ask you to cast it upon the Thames with our (my) profound gratitude for the sacrifices of our immortal brothers-in-arms, who stood valiantly at the ramparts to defend our freedom. We shall never forget what they have done for us. I can transfer funds, send a check (in US$, unfortunately), or any other medium available for such things; please let me know what I need to do. Thank you, my Brother.
Yes, I think McCain might still pull the rabbit out of the hat. We shall soon know the result. Performance is all our business. You cannot vote here, but I recognize your appropriate concern. McCain would have done much better being John McCain, rather than a pandering politician constrained by his uber-Right handlers. Damn these political parties.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“I'll speak to our poppy office in London by e-mail tonight but won't get an answer until Monday. I believe it more proper if we do it that way.
“Can I thank you and all the good people of America for your support in war and peace.
“Just going to read your 'election update' with a dram in hand.
“Will try to get photo of your poppy going into the Thames.”
. . . and my follow-up comment:
Monday should work just fine. Knowing the bank, I would expect transfer that day. Regardless, I will get ‘er done before Remembrance Day, so I can join our brothers.
You probably needed a little more than a dram of the amber elixir to read the Election Update, but that is next.
An image of my poppy dedication would be greatly appreciated if it is not too much trouble, and if you have no objection, I would be honored to include an image or two in the following Update.
Another contribution:
I know you believe that those who signed those ARM, etc. contracts deserve an amount of blame, and you are probably correct. But here is another perspective on that…
“Every day we place our confidence in others who know more about a discipline than we do. Our physician, accountant, hospital, plumber. We have an expectation that they have taken our interests into consideration. We should be able to expect that from a mortgage lender.
“By the way, the standard answer given a borrower if he/she questioned the terms of the loan was, ‘Don't worry about it. You can just refinance before that higher rate kicks in.’”
My response:
Spot on! Well said. And, touché.
I shall endeavor to dampen my condemnation of our fellow citizens who believed they could set something for nothing. Yes, just as we trust doctors and lawyers to serve our interests, we should expect no less from our bankers and mortgage lenders. But, that does not absolve our culpability. As Alan Greenspan admitted before Congress, the free marketers believed the profit motive would regulate the market. In general, it does. However, what such generalizations do NOT recognize is the cut & run scam artists, who make their millions and withdraw, just as all scammers do. An unregulated market is no different than anarchy, every man for himself, or the Wild Wild West where there was no law, only the fastest, most ruthless killers.
The key will be finding some balance between the uber-Left’s desire for socialism or communism, and adequate regulation for protection of the innocent. The guys who perpetrated this mess have their hundreds of millions. It is us common folks who will pay the price. I am not too keen on the notion of paying for another’s greed.
. . . along with a follow-up comment:
“While the government decided to divvy up $125 billion among nine institutions (the top four — Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Wells Fargo & Co. — each received $25 billion) we have been informed that our [bank’s] annual FDIC insurance premium will go from $40k per year to $100k. Funny how these things work. Guess we need a lobbyist.”
. . . with my response:
This is obscene. And, ultimately, those costs will be passed onto customers. Aren’t those guys in Washington clever?
A different contribution:
“Our present financial situation has many roots. most I guess going back to Jimmy Carter and later revived by Bill Clinton.”
“Many people saw it coming and either did nothing or their voices were not heard well enough. There are plenty of folks out there who absolutely knew we were headed fast down a slippery slope. They know who they are. Some are in our own Congress. I bet not ONE serves a day in jail, but ought to. There is plenty of footage of them during their committee meetings saying all is ok, that it's the Repub who are trying to scare us, etc. But mainstream media rarely if ever picks up on and shows that on nightly news. Guess why?”
“Anyone who espouses cessation of term limits is extremely suspect in MY book.”
My response:
Spot on, I’d say. Some folks are culpable, some folks are selectively ignorant, and some folks choose pretend stupidity, greed and selfishness will heal themselves.
Spot on regarding term limits, as well.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
After an historic, suspended and postponed fifth game of the World Series, congratulations must go to the Philadelphia Phillies for their decisive victory and world championship. Well done, lads!
The longest political campaign in history has finally come to an end. Tomorrow is the day! I trust everyone has already voted or will vote tomorrow. I intend to cast my vote when the polls open at 06:00 CST, here in Kansas.
The follow-up news items:
-- A federal jury convicted the longest-serving Republican senator, Theodore Fulton ‘Ted’ Stevens of Alaska, on seven counts [295-6, 346]. He immediately indicated his intention to appeal his conviction and returned to Alaska to continue his re-election campaign. Many of his colleagues, including both leading contenders, urged Stevens to withdraw and resign. As with most hardened criminals, crusty ol’ Ted proclaimed his innocence – ah yes, don’t they all.
Senator Barack Obama reportedly paid US$3.5M to air his 30-minute, political info-mercial Wednesday night on seven television channels – an unusual action, more to demonstrate the size of his campaign fund. His rhetorical skill is exemplary – his meter, inflection, intonation, construction. The video message was comparably well crafted, and each of us will judge the veracity of his rhetoric. A couple of statements struck me, not so much for any new message, but rather the delivery. Barack said, “I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face.” He also used what could be his signature line, “We can choose hope over fear – unity over division.” As this Update goes in the can, as they say, we shall finally know who will be our next POTUS tomorrow night – at least I hope so. We do not need another 2000 fiasco.
The Press latched onto a leaked, classified, White House assessment of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan that suggested Allied intentions to negotiate with lower level Taliban operatives, ostensibly to repeat one of the key initiatives in the Battle for Iraq. General David Petraeus apparently approved the initiative. Of course, the spin in the Press has Allied forces on their knees, begging for a truce. We shall see.
The Wall Street Journal offered an intriguing excerpt of a speech by U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas at the Manhattan Institute on 16th of October.
“How to Read the Constitution”
by Clarence Thomas
Wall Street Journal
Published: October 20, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122445985683948619.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Being that I often disagree with Clarence’s interpretation, I thought, oyez, I might gain some insight into the legal mind of one of the conservative Supremes. Clarence began with an admonishment, “I have been astounded just how many of our fellow citizens feel strongly about their constitutional rights but have no idea what they are, or for that matter, what the Constitution says.” OK! I will have to give him that. However, I have tried over many years to read a wide variety of decisions handed down by the Supremes, and I have read more than a few of Thomas’ opinions. So, while I am not a constitutional scholar, just yet, I am modestly informed . . . certainly enough to form a cogent opinion regarding this issue of constitutional interpretation, ‘originalism,’ ‘fundamentalism,’ judicial activism,’ and such. Interestingly, Clarence referred to the Declaration as a foundational document for giving us insight into the intent of the Framers regarding the Constitution. Clarence stated, “Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution -- try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up. No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores. To be sure, even the most conscientious effort to adhere to the original intent of the framers of our Constitution is flawed, as all methodologies and human institutions are; but at least originalism has the advantage of being legitimate and, I might add, impartial.” Oddly, he implicitly suggests that it is “his” way or the other way. What a damnable sanctimonious thing to say. The Framers / Founders did everything they could to find balance with an adequate, not dominant, central government. A number of Clarence’s opinions reinforced vastly expansive powers of the Federal government, while he conveniently seems to ignore key elements of the Declaration, the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, and most importantly, of history itself. I truly believe the Framers / Founders would be gobsmacked at the expanse, intrusiveness, aggression and dominance of the Federal government, after all that they sacrificed and sought to avoid – we have frittered away our Liberty and freedom. Clarence’s little speech, especially in light of his many written opinions, reinforces my belief and opinion that he is quite far off the reservation when it comes to proper, legal interpretation of the Constitution. He has strayed quite far from the original intent of the Constitution. He raised the abortion issue as a classic example, and indeed it is. Thomas sees Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] [319] as the embodiment of ‘judicial activism’ and ‘judicial fiat,’ and the ultimate violation of the ‘originalist’s proper interpretation. The Constitution says nothing whatsoever about privacy or abortion rights; therefore, the Court has no authority to rule on such topics. If you see the Constitution as ONLY a definition of Federal powers and authority, then it is easy to see that interpretation. Yet, what he conveniently ignores or selectively chooses to overlook is the reflection of the Constitution, i.e., what is not enumerated in the document belongs to We, the People – the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Bill of Rights. Privacy and freedom from intrusion by government was, is and forever should be one of the most fundamental rights ‘retained’ by the People. Roe, along with other cases, was an attempt to reconcile the mounting power and reach of the government against the most fundamental of our rights. Privacy is not written in the Constitution because it did not need to be; it was ‘retained’ by the People, and the government has no authority whatsoever to infringe upon that most basic of freedom. Roe may not be perfect judicial interpretation, but it is a bona fide and legitimate attempt at reconciliation between the power of the State and the rights of every individual citizen. Clarence Thomas is wrong!
Voter fraud has an ugly, sordid, perpetual history in this Grand Republic, and this silly season is another edition of the same old song with both sides accusing the other guys of illegal activities. While the fraudulent activities of ACORN [Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now] and others may not translate into illegal votes, bogus registration applications can overload a challenged registrar system to the point of increasing the error rate and reducing the cross-checking capacity of county governments. Of course, all sides throw accusations around like mud to distract, confuse, deflect and play to the parochial biases of their believers. The Supremes have been engaged more and more since Bush v. Gore [531 U.S. 98 (2000); no. 00-949] with the latest case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board [552 U.S. ___ (2008); no. 07-21] [334]; and, we never like the Judiciary involved in the election process – a mark of the times, I suppose. I have voted in 10 national elections in 4 states, including from three (3) foreign countries, and nearly twice that number state elections. I have used just about every voting system in popular use over the last 40 years – marked paper ballots, lever mechanical machines, butterfly ballots (of Florida 2000 infamy), electronic touch-screen systems and absentee ballots. I have yet to feel the slightest perception of irregularity or suspicion of error. While I am not a statistically significant sampling, my experience is relevant; this is not to say that fraudulent activity does not exist in Chicago, or Miami, or New York City, or elsewhere in the hinterland. I offer one simple solution – a national clearinghouse of voter registration with the appropriate safeguards against collateral use by Federal or state governments. A simple thing, each citizen can only be registered in one place – precinct, city, county, state. Any attempt to register a non-citizen, a non-entity (e.g., Mickey Mouse), or someone already registered anywhere else, would flag the application for reconciliation. Voting is the domain of the states and must be preserved. However, states share criminal information, vehicle registration, et cetera. Surely, we can find a way to protect the states’ dominion over voting, without compromising a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy. This persist soap opera at each election is highly corrosive to a viable democracy.
If you would like an interesting cogitative exercise, I offer this example:
“The Once-Great Democratic Party”
by Mark Alexander
Patriot Post; vol. 08, no. 43
Published: 24 October 2008
http://archive.patriotpost.us/pub/08-43_Digest/
Alexander opened his essay, “Thomas Jefferson wrote, ‘The government is best which governs least,’ and that sentiment was thematic in all of his writing about the role of government. So what happened to the Party of Jefferson, the once-great Democratic Party, the champion of limited government?” My first reaction: that is kinda like the pot calling the kettle black. Certainly, the Democratic Party abandoned the small government of Jefferson and the other Founders a long time ago. Yet, the implicit meaning of Alexander’s statement is that the Republican Party is different. Richard Nixon expanded the Federal government substantially and eroded the freedom of individual citizens. George W. Bush has done the same. So, the notion that the Democrats are somehow bogey-men to be condemned and ostracized is ludicrous in the light of reality. One of these days we will wake up to see what has really happened.
We can add another interesting proposition to California’s Proposition 8 [better known in the Internet vernacular as Prop H8] and San Francisco’s Proposition K, on this election’s ballot. Colorado’s Amendment 48 seeks to change the state constitution to grant a fertilized egg the status of a human being, complete with equal rights. The consequences of such an action are incalculable. We know why the proponents have done so, but I hope the residents of Colorado are smart enough and farsighted enough to reject such a foolish constitutional amendment. Isn’t it quite odd that some of fellow citizens seek to grant incredible, unprecedented rights to a single cell, and yet deny equal rights to grown, adult, productive citizens who hurt no one?
News from the economic front this week:
-- The Federal Reserve’s Federal Open Market Committee lowered the target federal funds rate by 0.5 percentage point to 1%, its lowest since between June 2003 and June 2004.
-- The Treasury Department announced plans to expand the number of banks receiving Federal funds under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 [355] from the original nine (9) banks [357]. Here are the additional recipients:
City National Corporation
Comerica
First Niagara Financial Group
Huntington Bancshares
Northern Trust Corporation
State Street Corporation
UCBH Holdings
First Horizon National
PNC
Regions
Valley National Bancorp
Washington Federal
Fifth Third Bancorp
The list will undoubtedly grow and other industries like insurance [358] and automotive will belly up to the Federal trough.
-- Signs are beginning to present that Wall Street heavies may be seeing the handwriting on the wall regarding their excessive compensation and bonuses in an environment where they are begging for public funds to rescue them from their stupidity.
Comments and contributions from Update no.358:
“I echo your point concerning whether Saddam had WMDs. You said "I don't really care." I've said the same thing many times over the years. In fact, I cringed when Powell went to the UN and made that the cause. At the time I thought it was a terrible mistake regarding the court of public opinion and I was right. Taking him out was the right thing to do. And, to pull out now under the straw man argument of cost is foolish. If a 25% cut in the military is coming with this election outcome (as proposed by Barney Frank), we are in trouble. The average citizen does not consider that the cost of training is similar to the cost of war in these modern times. We train as we fight, without the greater loss of life, which is the highest cost. So, if we pull out before the job is done, the cost of training takes over the other costs. While some expenses may fall, others will rise. With a cut in the military we invite our enemies to strike.
“The test coming for our capitalist system of checks and balances is worrisome. We are likely in a week or so to find ourselves with a an elected governing national body with a President and supermajority from the same party. That perhaps is the biggest threat to the Supreme Court than any other issue right now. I like it when a President has to bargain with the opposition and the opposing forces have to bargain with each other as well to get something done. To have a President with the supermajority will of congress at his side is as close to a dictatorship or monarchy we can face in our system of government, because bargaining with the loyal opposition is no longer needed.
“We should beware of what comes.”
My reply:
Well, as you say, according to the Press, we shall soon realize the ‘new direction,’ as they declare the winner. We shall see.
I’m with you. Anytime one ideological groups, regardless of which one, gains control of all the instruments of State, we inevitable get out of balance . . . swing too far left in this impending instance, just as we swung too far right in 2000/4, and that was without a Senate supermajority. Like you, I like negotiation, compromise, debate and constructive political conflict. It does appear we are not going to find balance for at least 2 years and more likely much longer. We can chalk this up to another W failure. Now, that I mention it, I’m ready for a change, so much so, I almost do not care what.
We shall remain vigilant, critical and vocal, no matter who wins the election.
. . . a follow-up:
“The republicans blew their chance to do right with government over the past 8 years. The cost of their lack of courage and common sense is what is coming next week. Yes, we will remain "vigilant, critical and vocal" until common sense takes over someday, if ever.”
. . . and my follow-up reply:
Keep the faith, my Brother. This too shall pass.
A contribution from across the great waters:
“We try to keep up with your election which seems to have been in progress since time immemorial. You get good coverage over here...too much some say! My private and uninformed view is the republicans can still do it. But I would be very concerned about the lack luster performance of the candidate.
“However none of my business!
“We approach the season of remembrance here in U/K. A time when we not only remember the sacrifice of our boys and girls but as a reminder of our duty to those who return. Something that our politicians only pay lip service to.
“We are busy selling Poppies.”
My response:
I would like to buy a Poppy, and ask you to cast it upon the Thames with our (my) profound gratitude for the sacrifices of our immortal brothers-in-arms, who stood valiantly at the ramparts to defend our freedom. We shall never forget what they have done for us. I can transfer funds, send a check (in US$, unfortunately), or any other medium available for such things; please let me know what I need to do. Thank you, my Brother.
Yes, I think McCain might still pull the rabbit out of the hat. We shall soon know the result. Performance is all our business. You cannot vote here, but I recognize your appropriate concern. McCain would have done much better being John McCain, rather than a pandering politician constrained by his uber-Right handlers. Damn these political parties.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“I'll speak to our poppy office in London by e-mail tonight but won't get an answer until Monday. I believe it more proper if we do it that way.
“Can I thank you and all the good people of America for your support in war and peace.
“Just going to read your 'election update' with a dram in hand.
“Will try to get photo of your poppy going into the Thames.”
. . . and my follow-up comment:
Monday should work just fine. Knowing the bank, I would expect transfer that day. Regardless, I will get ‘er done before Remembrance Day, so I can join our brothers.
You probably needed a little more than a dram of the amber elixir to read the Election Update, but that is next.
An image of my poppy dedication would be greatly appreciated if it is not too much trouble, and if you have no objection, I would be honored to include an image or two in the following Update.
Another contribution:
I know you believe that those who signed those ARM, etc. contracts deserve an amount of blame, and you are probably correct. But here is another perspective on that…
“Every day we place our confidence in others who know more about a discipline than we do. Our physician, accountant, hospital, plumber. We have an expectation that they have taken our interests into consideration. We should be able to expect that from a mortgage lender.
“By the way, the standard answer given a borrower if he/she questioned the terms of the loan was, ‘Don't worry about it. You can just refinance before that higher rate kicks in.’”
My response:
Spot on! Well said. And, touché.
I shall endeavor to dampen my condemnation of our fellow citizens who believed they could set something for nothing. Yes, just as we trust doctors and lawyers to serve our interests, we should expect no less from our bankers and mortgage lenders. But, that does not absolve our culpability. As Alan Greenspan admitted before Congress, the free marketers believed the profit motive would regulate the market. In general, it does. However, what such generalizations do NOT recognize is the cut & run scam artists, who make their millions and withdraw, just as all scammers do. An unregulated market is no different than anarchy, every man for himself, or the Wild Wild West where there was no law, only the fastest, most ruthless killers.
The key will be finding some balance between the uber-Left’s desire for socialism or communism, and adequate regulation for protection of the innocent. The guys who perpetrated this mess have their hundreds of millions. It is us common folks who will pay the price. I am not too keen on the notion of paying for another’s greed.
. . . along with a follow-up comment:
“While the government decided to divvy up $125 billion among nine institutions (the top four — Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Wells Fargo & Co. — each received $25 billion) we have been informed that our [bank’s] annual FDIC insurance premium will go from $40k per year to $100k. Funny how these things work. Guess we need a lobbyist.”
. . . with my response:
This is obscene. And, ultimately, those costs will be passed onto customers. Aren’t those guys in Washington clever?
A different contribution:
“Our present financial situation has many roots. most I guess going back to Jimmy Carter and later revived by Bill Clinton.”
“Many people saw it coming and either did nothing or their voices were not heard well enough. There are plenty of folks out there who absolutely knew we were headed fast down a slippery slope. They know who they are. Some are in our own Congress. I bet not ONE serves a day in jail, but ought to. There is plenty of footage of them during their committee meetings saying all is ok, that it's the Repub who are trying to scare us, etc. But mainstream media rarely if ever picks up on and shows that on nightly news. Guess why?”
“Anyone who espouses cessation of term limits is extremely suspect in MY book.”
My response:
Spot on, I’d say. Some folks are culpable, some folks are selectively ignorant, and some folks choose pretend stupidity, greed and selfishness will heal themselves.
Spot on regarding term limits, as well.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
Cap, as much as I also would like to know the election results by Tuesday night, I have my doubts. We already have lawsuits, appeals and what not going here in Ohio. My best hope is that the worst embarrassment goes elsewhere. My best guess is that Pennsylvania will be this year's trouble spot. I do not wish it upon anyone,though.
Calvin
Calvin,
You may well be correct, and I truly hope you are wrong. I think the only way this might get contested with recounts and court cases will be if the count turns out to be much closer than the Press-polls indicate. If the election is contested, it is most likely going to be Pennsylvania as you note, or Florida, or Ohio (as you fear). The polls have been dreadfully wrong before, and it is possible this time as well. However, my gut check says this will not be close, and the legal shenanigans will be moot. We shall soon know. Thx for yr cmt.
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment