Update from the Heartland
No.358
20.10.08 – 26.10.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.358
20.10.08 – 26.10.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
As we enter the last week of the longest silly season we have yet endured, the day of decision approaches. As I have done with other national elections, I shall offer a special edition of the Update that lays out my decision and rationale. I will not distribute that special edition Update as most folks could care less whom I vote for. However, I will make it available to any individual who wishes to receive a copy – just send me a simple message requesting Update no.359A. May God bless this Grand Republic.
The follow-up news items:
-- The New York City Council voted 29-22 to remove term limits for the position mayor, thus permitting Michael Rubens Bloomberg to run for a third or more terms as mayor – a terrible mistake in my humble opinion [355].
Der Deutscher Bundestag – the Federal Parliament of Germany – sought to pass a unanimous resolution remembering the 70th anniversary of Kristallnacht – the Night of Broken Glass [9.November.1938] – the night Nazi goons rampaged through Germany on the biggest demonstration of their fascist anti-Semitism. Political bickering over foolish issues has foiled the honorable initiative, however we shall not forget what happened on that dreadful Fall night.
Now, onto the economic news . . .
-- Citic Pacific of Hong Kong – a diversified infrastructure company – acknowledged losses of nearly US$2B by a company executive who violated procedures and made massive hedge investments against the U.S. dollar and other currencies.
-- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke asked Congress to consider a new economic stimulus package
-- The United States will host a global financial summit, 15.November, in Washington, DC. Some in the Press have dubbed the summit Bretton Woods II, in recognition of the original conference – the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference, meeting at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire (1-22.July.1944), 730 representatives from 44 different countries. The contemporary version will involve the leaders of 20 nations.
-- The International Monetary Fund, along with a group of Nordic countries and Russia, plan to invest US$6B in the financial system of Iceland to avoid a collapse.
-- Argentine President Cristina Kirchner announced plans to nationalize the country’s private pension funds. Speculation surrounding the move is not the most positive.
-- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Chairman Sheila C. Bair testified before a congressional committee, suggesting the government can use its new emergency authority under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 [PL 110-343] [355] to help struggling homeowners overhaul mortgages. Also on the Hill, former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan testified that the “once-in-a-century credit tsunami” will take many months for recovery. He also seriously over-estimated the profit motive to regulate the credit market, and the financial crisis “has turned out to be much broader than anything I could have imagined.”
-- Now, we hear the Treasury of the United States is considering taking equity stakes in various insurance companies in addition to banks. I am sure everyone can envision on the Federal government to become the national piggyback for bad management. I suspect this is going to get more strange before we see improvement.
So much of the finger pointing is parochial partisanship, as it is with every damn issue we face. We just cannot seem to rise above Party politics. Did these law changes contribute . . . yes, absolutely! They pulled out the stops and checks & balances in the system; it allowed greedy men to get greedier. What is missing from so much of the blame rhetoric is the contribution of politicians who pressured mortgage lenders into sub-prime mortgages to people who could not handle the burden and ignored the consequences of grossly inflated real estate prices. We have not focused on the real, genuine, root cause . . . those among us who thought they could get something for nothing and signed those insane mortgage loan papers. There is plenty of blame to go around. An interesting punctuation mark on the evolving economic crisis came from CNN. They identified their 10 Most Wanted – Culprits of the Collapse. They chose:
10. Joseph J. ‘Joe’ Cassano (AIG)
9. Richard Severin Fuld, Jr. (Lehman) [356]
8. Charles Christopher ‘Chris’ Cox (SEC)
7. William Philip ‘Phil’ Gramm (Senate)
6. Alan Greenspan (Federal Reserve) [203, et al]
5. Ian J. McCarthy (Beazer Homes USA)
4. Angelo R. Mozilo (Countrywide)
3. James E. ‘Jimmy’ Cayne (Bear Stearns)
2. Franklin Delano Raines (Fannie Mae)
1. You! (We, the People)
We could add hundreds of others, but I find it a bit odd that Barnett ‘Barney’ Frank, Christopher John ‘Chris’ Dodd, or the myriad of other politicians, bankers, and unrepentant, gambler scoundrels are not listed, yet then, the list would be too long to publish. Regardless, I am glad to see they pegged the number ONE culprit . . . We, the People, or at least those among us who failed their due diligence, who believed they could get something for nothing, and who signed those mortgage papers on a wing and a prayer. There were several laws passed by Congress and signed into law by Presidents that set the stage for the current crisis. The housing bubble began to grow in the aftermath of the Savings & Loan crisis of 1987. Shiploads of kerosene were thrown on the fire by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 [PL 106–554, §1(a)(5); H.R. 5660 & S.3283; then became part of Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 (H.R. 4577); Senate: 52-43-0-5(0); House: 292-60-0-80(3); 12/21/2000] that legalized the financial gambling that ultimately brought down the ridiculous house of cards last month.
As noted in Update no.357, a federal judge ordered the release and transport of 17 ethic-Uighur, Muslim, Chinese detainees from Guantánamo Bay to the United States, in the continuation of Parhat v. Gates [DC CCA 532 F.3d 834; no. 06-1397 (2008)] [342-3]. The DC Appeals Court blocked the order pending the government’s appeal. United States District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina for the District of Columbia issued the order In Re: Guantánamo Bay Detainee Litigation [USDC DC 05-1509 (RMU) (2008)]. The opening two sentences of Urbina’s ruling read, “There comes a time when delayed action prompted by judicial deference to the executive branch’s function yields inaction not consistent with the constitutional imperative. Such a time has come in the case of the 17 Uighurs in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (“Guantanamo”) whom the government has detained for 7 years without an opportunity for judicial redress until recently.” Judge Urbina went on to recount the history and law of Huzaifa Parhat’s case (and added 16 other Uighur detainees). As noted by the judge, the U.S. Government has apparently struggled with finding a country to take them. The Government claims over 100 countries have rejected requests for repatriation of the Uighurs, including their home country, China, and Afghanistan and Pakistan, where they were captured. An odd dilemma, it seems to me – shades of “The Man without a Country” (1863). Judge Urbina noted, “Liberty finds its liberator in the great writ [of habeas corpus], and the great writ, in turn, finds protection under the Constitution,” and went on to admonish the government that “To accede to such manipulation would grant the political branches “the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will . . .” I eagerly await the wisdom of the Appeals Court and perhaps even the Supreme Court in this case. While Parhat is a strange one, my opinion regarding the detainees has not changed. I also note in parallel that the President has decided not to close the Guantánamo Bay detention facility, leaving the issue for his successor, presumably for similar reasons as Judge Urbina illuminated.
California’s Proposition 8 presents the voting residents of the state an intriguing challenge on whether they can overcome their personal biases, fears, worries and concerns to affirm equal rights and equal treatment under the law for all citizens, not just those who conform to the majority’s definition of normal. Another interesting proposition appears on the ballot for the City and County of San Francisco – Proposition K. The ballot measure intends to decriminalize prostitution, meaning the police will be prohibited from enforcing prostitution laws – a very odd choice. While I have long advocated for legalization of prostitution, I think Proposition K is ill-advised and will have detrimental, unintended consequences. Proposition K is a half or quarter measure that may cause more injury than the repressive, morality laws banning prostitution in the first place. I will laud San Francisco’s effort. I shall hope this is the beginning of a serious, bona fide effort to legalize prostitution – to allow sunlight to disinfect the criminal sub-culture, to protect the practitioners as well as the customers, and to regulate and tax the enterprise for those so inclined to utilize such services. Legalization is not about our personal moral values, but rather about protecting those citizens involved. I continue to hope we shall one day rise about the temptation to dictate our moral values into the private lives of other citizens. Someday!
Comments and contributions from Update no.357:
“Touché.
“Actually, I wrote that in response to a partisan Republican friend's email on the Dem's hearings on Fannie and Freddie where they totally dropped the ball in 2004.
“However, I must point out that the government regulators cannot force a lender to make a bad loan. Those who figured out how to make bad loans with insane terms and then pass them on in these incomprehensible investment vehicles were making money hand over fist. So there is a need to understand the root causes of the problem (be they perpetrated by Dems or Reps, the greedy or the stupid) in order to make corrections.
“But it is the partisan season. I don't know if you saw clips from the Alfred E. Smith benefit dinner where both McCain and Obama poked fun at themselves and each other, but it was uplifting to see the two of them show humor and humility face to face. Made one remember that the election will be over soon and it will take us all working together to deal with the challenges we face.”
My response:
Well said, and agreed.
The investment banks appear to have been sucked into ever larger, bundled mortgage-based instruments that made it impossible for practical due-diligence, regarding the true value and risk associated with the ‘investments,’ thus masking dramatically conflated risk. The root cause, it seems to me, remains at the individual borrower and lender level, compounded by the grotesquely inflated home prices and the bundling process, along with a rather silly notion of taking out insurance against hidden risk – a classic house of cards destined to failure. You are, of course, spot on! Just as no one forced that individual borrower to sign insanely foolish mortgage papers, betting on ever-inflating, fictitious home values, so to, no one forced lenders to offer mortgages they could have easily determined were very high risk. The fact that they were allowed to bundle them and pass that risk seems like a clear point of regulatory focus. I fear the inevitable over-reaction to what was largely an individual, fundamental flaw.
Yes, I did see both the McCain and Obama speeches at the annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner. I agree . . . very nice to see humor and humility. Unfortunately, we do not get enough humility from any politician. Yes, indeedie, these times demand non-partisan, collective action. Again unfortunately, I suspect this crop of politicians appear incapable of doing what is best for this Grand Republic, so we must endure being dragged through the muck, filth and insanity of party politics. I wonder if we will ever grow up enough to reject the parochialism of party politics?
Another contribution:
“That's always been my problem with Obama. He talks wonderfully, but says nothing of substance . . . at least not until he met Joe the Plumber and mentioned how he plans to redistribute our money like a good little Socialist. Plus, the guy has no leadership experience whatsoever. Even McCain, at least, has a background as a Navy officer. Plus he knows how to act in a crisis, and I consider sitting in an A-4 Skyhawk being shot at a crisis. More of a personal one, but still it's a big crisis.”
My reply:
His response to Samuel Joseph ‘Joe’ Wurzelbacher, AKA Joe the Plumber, was an Obama faux pas of the first order during this hyper-charged period of the silly season. I do not believe Barack is a Socialist, and even if he was, the President is not a regent or dictator. Further, if We, the People, elect him as well as a solid Democratic majority in Congress to include a filibuster-proof Senate, then socialism will be coming to a town near each of us. I have and will never be an advocate for socialism, which is halfway to communism, and both being seductive, ideological, Utopian philosophies that are ultimately counter-productive. Yet, on the flip-side, we currently bear witness to the negative of rampant capitalism – the very forces that gave rise to pure Marxian communism. Neither extreme is stable. I suspect we are headed toward a leftward correction.
I truly hope General Powell is correct. I am not as convinced as he is. I see qualities of leadership in Barack, and if he is elected, I shall give him the benefit of the doubt, until or if he proves himself otherwise. I have never doubted John’s leadership; we have seen it repeatedly over the years; but, his move to the Right to garner as much support as he could from the Republican uber-Right scares me. I have never been comfortable with political extremes, and Supreme Court nominations represent a far greater threat in my mind that al-Qaeda or even Wall Street. We need a Court evenly balanced between Federalists and individualists (there must be a better choice of descriptors, but I have not latched onto it yet); we teeter on a delicate balance point today; one more Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia, and we will see a dramatic shift in the Court and further erosion of our freedom in deference to the Federal government.
A contribution with permission from a different thread:
“In many respects our political philosophies run in the same direction. If my leanings were to be summed up in quick terms, I am very much into personal freedoms. I believe that is what the country was founded on and in the last few years, we have seen a degradation of those freedoms. The PATRIOT Act is a joke and most people seem ready to trade in their rights as an individual for ‘safety.’ When I need Big Brother to tuck me in at night, is the time to shoot me and get it over with. George Orwell was so right, he just had the year wrong. In my opinion, if I am not hurting anyone, but myself, what right does the government have to stop me. That is why I am pro choice, pro gay, pro gun (with a waiting period), and pro earth and pro most stuff. It is when someone crosses that line and may endanger me, then I believe that the line has been crossed and laws need to be enacted. So when the Rep[ublicans] talk about small government (small as long as it is the way they want it) but forget about the separating of church and state, it just pisses me off.
“I am against the war and was before it even started. I was in my front yard talking to my neighbor (20-year Marine and Mesa PD, staunch Rep.) while the Iraq buildup was occurring. I said that we will win in 2 weeks, but spend a lifetime trying to get out. How anyone can compare Iraq to WW2 and not Viet Nam is beyond me. I know enough to know that these people hate each other (especially since the minority had been in charge for so long) and only people that they dislike more than each other is us. Now if a dumb-ass pharmacist in the middle of desert can figure that out, why do we have such idiots in office all these years.
“I don't have a problem discussing issues with someone who is informed and/or who have reasons (like a ‘born-again’) to believe what they do. I have a friend who has an arsenal in his house and the only reason that he is Rep is because he thinks the Dem are going to take away his guns but all his other political leanings tend to be left.
“I try to avoid political discussions, it just sets me off and blogging to me is just a monologue. I never listen to talk radio (of either side) because I just don't care what Joe Six Pack thinks. Not to sound elitist but I find that most people do not take the time to understand an issue, so you tend to be listening to ‘how the earth is flat.’ The cliché about a little knowledge is dangerous comes true.”
My reply:
I agree. I am also driven by recovery of our freedom of choice – our personal freedoms, as you say. The encroachment upon our private lives, our most basic freedoms, has been relentless, corrosive and largely ignored by John Q. Citizen. Far too many people think or feel that as long as laws don’t directly touch their lives, why worry about them. As with George Orwell’s Oceania, the seduction by Big Brother is death by a thousand cuts. By the time we figure it out, it is far too late. Point is, we are a long way from the freedom and Liberty envisioned by the Founders of this Grand Republic.
I have tried for along time to define the boundary between public and private. I call it the ‘front door criterion.’ The State has a responsibility to define proper or tolerable conduct in the public domain, as part of the process that allows a very diverse population to live peacefully. When the State goes beyond the front door, they have overstepped the place of government established by the Constitution. I am ‘pro’ all those things you listed, and more. I think we should legalize, regulate and tax psychotropic substance use for those so inclined, prostitution, and all those ‘sinful’ pursuits.
I could not agree more about the ‘Rep talk’ as you say. I call it ‘moral projection.’ There are far too many people in this country who seek to validate their moral values (or at least the public perception of their moral values) by dictating those values to every single citizen. Like you, I react quite strongly when anyone tells me how I should live my life and especially my private life. The only reason the State has for penetrating the boundary of my front door is the injury of another citizen – injury being physical, mental or emotional. The Republican Party once stood for small, non-intrusive government at least that is what I believed and understood back in Barry Goldwater’s day. Nixon perpetrated perhaps the greatest compromise of our individual rights in the history of this Grand Republic. And, W. has endeavored mightily to exceed Nixon’s achievement.
We can discuss the war from genesis to prosecution. Let it suffice to say, I had a good friend assassinated by Saddam’s Iraqi operatives in Santiago, Chile. To think Saddam was harmless was not appropriate to my experience & knowledge. I would have no problem leaving the Muslims to slog it out among themselves. My problem comes when they export their violence, which they have been doing at least since the 1960’s. It is that exportation that I call Islamic fascism, and that is what I think we are or should be fighting against. I’ll leave it there for the moment; your choice.
They say proper social conversation should never involve religion, politics or sex. The problem for me is those topics are such important elements of life, and I’ve reached an age where I’m not so concerned with ‘proper,’ and more interested in the humanity enveloped by those topics. I also take a different path to discussion of any topic including the sensitive ones. I want to hear everyone’s opinion . . . uber-Right to uber-Left, so I can measure what the extremes are thinking. It also helps me find the balanced, moderate, stable middle.
. . . round two:
“Since we seem to be speaking to the same congregation from the same pulpit, maybe having someone who agrees with your ‘off the wall’ ideas will help reinforce them.
“As for as the ‘pros’ go, I am for just about everything. Soft drugs are legal in Holland, yet we don't see an increase in hard drug use there. Prostitution is legal is Nevada and Holland but we don't see a mass degradation of the population there. VD is not wild in the streets. As with anything in life, moderation is the key. Prohibition proved that you can't regulate morality. By the end of prohibition, even it's advocates had realized it was wrong. The U.S. has one of the highest major crime rates in the world, but I believe it because we have too easy access to hand guns. But that said, I believe in the bumper sticker ‘When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.’
“You have taken a personal reason to support the removal of Saddam and I find that interesting. My question to you is, how was Saddam unique? What made him special that we felt the need to invade his country? First off, I agree 100% that we need to fight terrorism. I rather fight them over there and not here but how we fight is the key to the equation. I know that this sounds like hindsight but it was my opinion before the war started.
“Did we take Saddam out because he was a bad guy? At any given moment there are 10-12 men who are as bad or worse that Saddam. Men who have ran their country to the ground. Who have killed millions. We always put this off as a ‘civil war’ happening in some particular country. Since the 1960's when countries in Africa started to declared their independence, on a regular basis someone would take charge and in the process kill off millions of the other side. Yet we did not intervene anywhere (maybe covertly) and when we did in Somalia, the public was against it. I am not saying that we should intervene, just that Saddam is no different than 20 others before him.
“Did we take Saddam out because of WMD? For two years we looked and nothing could be found. Yet we know that N Korea has weapons, should we invade them. Our ally Pakistan, which you won't find a more unstable government, has them. What happens when ally Pakistan bombs ally India? Sure, we know that Saddam had poison gas, he used it on the Iranians during their 10-year war, which we supported. The old adage of ‘any enemy of my enemy is my friend’ seems to be our motto in the State Dept for the last 30 years.
“Did we take Saddam out because he supported terrorism? He was a minority in his own country. It does not make sense for him to allow too much training in his country for fear of an overthrow. Of the 9/11 bombers, the vast majority were Saudis. Now if any country were fueling the terror organizations with fresh recruits it is Saudi Arabia. Terrorism will always exist has long as you have a wide spread between the have and the have nots and SA is a prime breeding ground. There are major training camps in many countries, but that does not give us the right to invade. Actually Saddam was keeping a balance in the region, which does not exist now and the area will become the wild west when we leave.
“How do we fight terrorism? Boost the budget of the CIA, and let small groups do the work. As always we are fighting this year's war with last year's war conception. It is impossible to stop all the 9/11's of the world but I think that a better funded covert operation is the way to go. When you think about it, that is how the other side is working. Let’s broadcast to the Middle East that we are going after them, wherever they are, we just don't need an army to do it. Save the big guns for when some actually invades us (or our ally, as in Kuwait). Tho I am not a fan of Daddy Bush, he at least knew enough to quit when he had the chance. I am sorry about your friend but I feel more grief for the relatives of the soldiers who are fighting in Iraq. Fight dirty like they do, we put up so many targets we are easy to take down. I think that we needed to go to Afghanistan but we screwed that one also. Now it is going the other way also.
“Why do we call people who are fighting us, in their own country, terrorists or insurgents? If a foreign soldier came into my house, I would call him the terrorists. I would be joining any group that fought them. Would that make me a terrorist because I was fighting a foreign power in my home? Nazi's considered the Resistance a terrorist group.”
. . . my reply to round two:
We agree in the main regarding the foolish, sanctimonious, morality laws. The damnable war on drugs has burgeoned a massive criminal sub-culture from local to international along with a cancerous smuggling network that has seriously compromised our national security. And, so many American citizens choose to blindly embrace their belief that dictation of moral values not only validates their beliefs but also is ‘good for the nation,’ as if they are the salvation. I do not agree that our high crime rate is due to guns. I think it is sociological with a goodly portion of that directly attributable to the drug criminal sub-culture. A similar argument can be made with prostitution; one of many reasons the practitioners are abused is because they are hidden and directly exposed without any protection from the exploiters. Making the sinful pursuits legal, so they are open, regulated and taxed, does not compromise my moral values in the slightest, or anyone else’s. All this damnable fear in folks about what someone else’s morals will do to their beliefs and their children’s beliefs is so far off the page of rational as to be truly mind-boggling. I have far more confidence in my moral values and our children’s values than I guess a good many fellow citizens have in themselves and their children.
Saddam’s Iraq has been among the top five state-sponsors of terrorism and Islamic fascism, consistently from circa 1975 until 2003 . . . that was my point. The others on that list include the Islamic Republic of Iran, Syria, Libya, and elements within Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Algerian, and Yemen. Iraqi and Iranian operatives have killed more folks (some of them not so innocent) outside their borders than the KGB. As I’ve said, if they confined their killing within their borders, I would have a vastly diminished argument, but such was not the case.
I was not a party to the decision-making process in 2001 & 2002. However, my argument in favor of the Battle for Iraq rests on several key factors:
1. Saddam’s Iraq was consistently a major state-sponsor of Islamic fascism and terrorism for his nationalistic purposes.
2. We needed a battleground outside ConUS and outside the sovereign territory of our allies for the fight . . . to focus the violence.
3. Iraq was perhaps the best possible choice for a host of reasons:
A. Saddam consistently defied UN sanctions
B. Iraq had multiple exposed borders
C. Iraq was smack-dab in the middle of the Gulf Region . . . equi-distant from numerous other potential targets.
4. Saddam developed, deployed and used both chemical and biological weapons on his own people, and was absolutely capable of providing those weapons to anyone he thought might benefit him. Did he have WMDs at the time of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM? I don’t really care. He had demonstrated (not theoretical) capability over many years and that was good enough for me.
5. Saddam was a corrupt, vicious, secular dictator, not particularly well-liked even among other Arabs and Muslims.
I could go on, but those are the high points. I have been and remain a staunch critic of W. & Rummie for their foolish, naïve, and ill-conceived execution of the battle. They wasted a terrible number of precious lives, an incredible amount of treasure, and whatever goodwill we might have enjoyed after 9/11. But, I still believe it was the correct choice of battleground, just the wrong battle plan, made even worse by Rummie’s defiance, marginalization and diminishment of the professional military.
Somalia was another example. Bush 41 actually pulled the trigger on Operation RESTORE HOPE, but Clinton was not convinced and looked for a quick way out. That was a poorly run operation without the support necessary for the mission. Again, correct objective; poor battle plan. War or military action is and must be the choice of last resort, but if a president pulls the trigger, it should be an all-out affair – no quarter shown or given. That did not happen, and good men paid with their lives. Another sad endeavor to add to an infamous list of extraordinarily foolish operations.
Pakistan has been and will remain a very worrisome entity. Yet, the government and military infrastructure are far more closely aligned with the West . . . UK & U.S., primarily. Pakistan has never been a state-sponsor of terrorism to my knowledge. Elements within Pakistan have been consistent providers of willing believers to strap explosive vests to their chests. Pakistan is a prime example of rampant procreation vastly exceeding the capacity of the land to support them . . . thus the profound poverty and fertile ground for mad mullahs, the madrassas, and Islamic fascism.
The Wahhabist movement in Saudi Arabia is an equally appropriate target, just as al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the Islamic Brotherhood, and all the others. The Saudi government, like the Pakistanis, walks a fine line in their efforts to control the extremists. We have known of these characters for a long time, but chose to ignore them, until they started exporting their violence.
Whether we have the right to invade any country depends upon the specific circumstances. Pakistan was precariously near the edge, but has now undertaken aggressive action (for them) in the tribal regions, to reassert government control. If they hadn’t done it, I am convinced we would have.
I see the War on Islamic Fascism as a far larger, global endeavor that will most likely last generations. I am glad to see many of the restrictions foolishly imposed on the intelligence and special operations services by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) [PL 95-511] were finally removed. I think we can rest assured there is much more going on beyond our sight and awareness in this War. The covert services have grown substantially from their pre-9/11 days, and yet I think they are still significantly under-resourced.
I share your grief for all those who have lost loved ones over the last nearly 40 years of this damnable war. We can honor those who have sacrificed so much, by making the world a safer, more peaceful place. Maybe Barack will do a better job than George. I know John would, but I’m afraid he is not going to get the opportunity. So, we shall soon see what Barack will do.
Good questions on how we define terrorist. I would like to discuss that point, but this is already too long, so that topic shall have to wait for another day.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
As we enter the last week of the longest silly season we have yet endured, the day of decision approaches. As I have done with other national elections, I shall offer a special edition of the Update that lays out my decision and rationale. I will not distribute that special edition Update as most folks could care less whom I vote for. However, I will make it available to any individual who wishes to receive a copy – just send me a simple message requesting Update no.359A. May God bless this Grand Republic.
The follow-up news items:
-- The New York City Council voted 29-22 to remove term limits for the position mayor, thus permitting Michael Rubens Bloomberg to run for a third or more terms as mayor – a terrible mistake in my humble opinion [355].
Der Deutscher Bundestag – the Federal Parliament of Germany – sought to pass a unanimous resolution remembering the 70th anniversary of Kristallnacht – the Night of Broken Glass [9.November.1938] – the night Nazi goons rampaged through Germany on the biggest demonstration of their fascist anti-Semitism. Political bickering over foolish issues has foiled the honorable initiative, however we shall not forget what happened on that dreadful Fall night.
Now, onto the economic news . . .
-- Citic Pacific of Hong Kong – a diversified infrastructure company – acknowledged losses of nearly US$2B by a company executive who violated procedures and made massive hedge investments against the U.S. dollar and other currencies.
-- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke asked Congress to consider a new economic stimulus package
-- The United States will host a global financial summit, 15.November, in Washington, DC. Some in the Press have dubbed the summit Bretton Woods II, in recognition of the original conference – the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference, meeting at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire (1-22.July.1944), 730 representatives from 44 different countries. The contemporary version will involve the leaders of 20 nations.
-- The International Monetary Fund, along with a group of Nordic countries and Russia, plan to invest US$6B in the financial system of Iceland to avoid a collapse.
-- Argentine President Cristina Kirchner announced plans to nationalize the country’s private pension funds. Speculation surrounding the move is not the most positive.
-- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Chairman Sheila C. Bair testified before a congressional committee, suggesting the government can use its new emergency authority under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 [PL 110-343] [355] to help struggling homeowners overhaul mortgages. Also on the Hill, former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan testified that the “once-in-a-century credit tsunami” will take many months for recovery. He also seriously over-estimated the profit motive to regulate the credit market, and the financial crisis “has turned out to be much broader than anything I could have imagined.”
-- Now, we hear the Treasury of the United States is considering taking equity stakes in various insurance companies in addition to banks. I am sure everyone can envision on the Federal government to become the national piggyback for bad management. I suspect this is going to get more strange before we see improvement.
So much of the finger pointing is parochial partisanship, as it is with every damn issue we face. We just cannot seem to rise above Party politics. Did these law changes contribute . . . yes, absolutely! They pulled out the stops and checks & balances in the system; it allowed greedy men to get greedier. What is missing from so much of the blame rhetoric is the contribution of politicians who pressured mortgage lenders into sub-prime mortgages to people who could not handle the burden and ignored the consequences of grossly inflated real estate prices. We have not focused on the real, genuine, root cause . . . those among us who thought they could get something for nothing and signed those insane mortgage loan papers. There is plenty of blame to go around. An interesting punctuation mark on the evolving economic crisis came from CNN. They identified their 10 Most Wanted – Culprits of the Collapse. They chose:
10. Joseph J. ‘Joe’ Cassano (AIG)
9. Richard Severin Fuld, Jr. (Lehman) [356]
8. Charles Christopher ‘Chris’ Cox (SEC)
7. William Philip ‘Phil’ Gramm (Senate)
6. Alan Greenspan (Federal Reserve) [203, et al]
5. Ian J. McCarthy (Beazer Homes USA)
4. Angelo R. Mozilo (Countrywide)
3. James E. ‘Jimmy’ Cayne (Bear Stearns)
2. Franklin Delano Raines (Fannie Mae)
1. You! (We, the People)
We could add hundreds of others, but I find it a bit odd that Barnett ‘Barney’ Frank, Christopher John ‘Chris’ Dodd, or the myriad of other politicians, bankers, and unrepentant, gambler scoundrels are not listed, yet then, the list would be too long to publish. Regardless, I am glad to see they pegged the number ONE culprit . . . We, the People, or at least those among us who failed their due diligence, who believed they could get something for nothing, and who signed those mortgage papers on a wing and a prayer. There were several laws passed by Congress and signed into law by Presidents that set the stage for the current crisis. The housing bubble began to grow in the aftermath of the Savings & Loan crisis of 1987. Shiploads of kerosene were thrown on the fire by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 [PL 106–554, §1(a)(5); H.R. 5660 & S.3283; then became part of Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 (H.R. 4577); Senate: 52-43-0-5(0); House: 292-60-0-80(3); 12/21/2000] that legalized the financial gambling that ultimately brought down the ridiculous house of cards last month.
As noted in Update no.357, a federal judge ordered the release and transport of 17 ethic-Uighur, Muslim, Chinese detainees from Guantánamo Bay to the United States, in the continuation of Parhat v. Gates [DC CCA 532 F.3d 834; no. 06-1397 (2008)] [342-3]. The DC Appeals Court blocked the order pending the government’s appeal. United States District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina for the District of Columbia issued the order In Re: Guantánamo Bay Detainee Litigation [USDC DC 05-1509 (RMU) (2008)]. The opening two sentences of Urbina’s ruling read, “There comes a time when delayed action prompted by judicial deference to the executive branch’s function yields inaction not consistent with the constitutional imperative. Such a time has come in the case of the 17 Uighurs in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (“Guantanamo”) whom the government has detained for 7 years without an opportunity for judicial redress until recently.” Judge Urbina went on to recount the history and law of Huzaifa Parhat’s case (and added 16 other Uighur detainees). As noted by the judge, the U.S. Government has apparently struggled with finding a country to take them. The Government claims over 100 countries have rejected requests for repatriation of the Uighurs, including their home country, China, and Afghanistan and Pakistan, where they were captured. An odd dilemma, it seems to me – shades of “The Man without a Country” (1863). Judge Urbina noted, “Liberty finds its liberator in the great writ [of habeas corpus], and the great writ, in turn, finds protection under the Constitution,” and went on to admonish the government that “To accede to such manipulation would grant the political branches “the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will . . .” I eagerly await the wisdom of the Appeals Court and perhaps even the Supreme Court in this case. While Parhat is a strange one, my opinion regarding the detainees has not changed. I also note in parallel that the President has decided not to close the Guantánamo Bay detention facility, leaving the issue for his successor, presumably for similar reasons as Judge Urbina illuminated.
California’s Proposition 8 presents the voting residents of the state an intriguing challenge on whether they can overcome their personal biases, fears, worries and concerns to affirm equal rights and equal treatment under the law for all citizens, not just those who conform to the majority’s definition of normal. Another interesting proposition appears on the ballot for the City and County of San Francisco – Proposition K. The ballot measure intends to decriminalize prostitution, meaning the police will be prohibited from enforcing prostitution laws – a very odd choice. While I have long advocated for legalization of prostitution, I think Proposition K is ill-advised and will have detrimental, unintended consequences. Proposition K is a half or quarter measure that may cause more injury than the repressive, morality laws banning prostitution in the first place. I will laud San Francisco’s effort. I shall hope this is the beginning of a serious, bona fide effort to legalize prostitution – to allow sunlight to disinfect the criminal sub-culture, to protect the practitioners as well as the customers, and to regulate and tax the enterprise for those so inclined to utilize such services. Legalization is not about our personal moral values, but rather about protecting those citizens involved. I continue to hope we shall one day rise about the temptation to dictate our moral values into the private lives of other citizens. Someday!
Comments and contributions from Update no.357:
“Touché.
“Actually, I wrote that in response to a partisan Republican friend's email on the Dem's hearings on Fannie and Freddie where they totally dropped the ball in 2004.
“However, I must point out that the government regulators cannot force a lender to make a bad loan. Those who figured out how to make bad loans with insane terms and then pass them on in these incomprehensible investment vehicles were making money hand over fist. So there is a need to understand the root causes of the problem (be they perpetrated by Dems or Reps, the greedy or the stupid) in order to make corrections.
“But it is the partisan season. I don't know if you saw clips from the Alfred E. Smith benefit dinner where both McCain and Obama poked fun at themselves and each other, but it was uplifting to see the two of them show humor and humility face to face. Made one remember that the election will be over soon and it will take us all working together to deal with the challenges we face.”
My response:
Well said, and agreed.
The investment banks appear to have been sucked into ever larger, bundled mortgage-based instruments that made it impossible for practical due-diligence, regarding the true value and risk associated with the ‘investments,’ thus masking dramatically conflated risk. The root cause, it seems to me, remains at the individual borrower and lender level, compounded by the grotesquely inflated home prices and the bundling process, along with a rather silly notion of taking out insurance against hidden risk – a classic house of cards destined to failure. You are, of course, spot on! Just as no one forced that individual borrower to sign insanely foolish mortgage papers, betting on ever-inflating, fictitious home values, so to, no one forced lenders to offer mortgages they could have easily determined were very high risk. The fact that they were allowed to bundle them and pass that risk seems like a clear point of regulatory focus. I fear the inevitable over-reaction to what was largely an individual, fundamental flaw.
Yes, I did see both the McCain and Obama speeches at the annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner. I agree . . . very nice to see humor and humility. Unfortunately, we do not get enough humility from any politician. Yes, indeedie, these times demand non-partisan, collective action. Again unfortunately, I suspect this crop of politicians appear incapable of doing what is best for this Grand Republic, so we must endure being dragged through the muck, filth and insanity of party politics. I wonder if we will ever grow up enough to reject the parochialism of party politics?
Another contribution:
“That's always been my problem with Obama. He talks wonderfully, but says nothing of substance . . . at least not until he met Joe the Plumber and mentioned how he plans to redistribute our money like a good little Socialist. Plus, the guy has no leadership experience whatsoever. Even McCain, at least, has a background as a Navy officer. Plus he knows how to act in a crisis, and I consider sitting in an A-4 Skyhawk being shot at a crisis. More of a personal one, but still it's a big crisis.”
My reply:
His response to Samuel Joseph ‘Joe’ Wurzelbacher, AKA Joe the Plumber, was an Obama faux pas of the first order during this hyper-charged period of the silly season. I do not believe Barack is a Socialist, and even if he was, the President is not a regent or dictator. Further, if We, the People, elect him as well as a solid Democratic majority in Congress to include a filibuster-proof Senate, then socialism will be coming to a town near each of us. I have and will never be an advocate for socialism, which is halfway to communism, and both being seductive, ideological, Utopian philosophies that are ultimately counter-productive. Yet, on the flip-side, we currently bear witness to the negative of rampant capitalism – the very forces that gave rise to pure Marxian communism. Neither extreme is stable. I suspect we are headed toward a leftward correction.
I truly hope General Powell is correct. I am not as convinced as he is. I see qualities of leadership in Barack, and if he is elected, I shall give him the benefit of the doubt, until or if he proves himself otherwise. I have never doubted John’s leadership; we have seen it repeatedly over the years; but, his move to the Right to garner as much support as he could from the Republican uber-Right scares me. I have never been comfortable with political extremes, and Supreme Court nominations represent a far greater threat in my mind that al-Qaeda or even Wall Street. We need a Court evenly balanced between Federalists and individualists (there must be a better choice of descriptors, but I have not latched onto it yet); we teeter on a delicate balance point today; one more Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia, and we will see a dramatic shift in the Court and further erosion of our freedom in deference to the Federal government.
A contribution with permission from a different thread:
“In many respects our political philosophies run in the same direction. If my leanings were to be summed up in quick terms, I am very much into personal freedoms. I believe that is what the country was founded on and in the last few years, we have seen a degradation of those freedoms. The PATRIOT Act is a joke and most people seem ready to trade in their rights as an individual for ‘safety.’ When I need Big Brother to tuck me in at night, is the time to shoot me and get it over with. George Orwell was so right, he just had the year wrong. In my opinion, if I am not hurting anyone, but myself, what right does the government have to stop me. That is why I am pro choice, pro gay, pro gun (with a waiting period), and pro earth and pro most stuff. It is when someone crosses that line and may endanger me, then I believe that the line has been crossed and laws need to be enacted. So when the Rep[ublicans] talk about small government (small as long as it is the way they want it) but forget about the separating of church and state, it just pisses me off.
“I am against the war and was before it even started. I was in my front yard talking to my neighbor (20-year Marine and Mesa PD, staunch Rep.) while the Iraq buildup was occurring. I said that we will win in 2 weeks, but spend a lifetime trying to get out. How anyone can compare Iraq to WW2 and not Viet Nam is beyond me. I know enough to know that these people hate each other (especially since the minority had been in charge for so long) and only people that they dislike more than each other is us. Now if a dumb-ass pharmacist in the middle of desert can figure that out, why do we have such idiots in office all these years.
“I don't have a problem discussing issues with someone who is informed and/or who have reasons (like a ‘born-again’) to believe what they do. I have a friend who has an arsenal in his house and the only reason that he is Rep is because he thinks the Dem are going to take away his guns but all his other political leanings tend to be left.
“I try to avoid political discussions, it just sets me off and blogging to me is just a monologue. I never listen to talk radio (of either side) because I just don't care what Joe Six Pack thinks. Not to sound elitist but I find that most people do not take the time to understand an issue, so you tend to be listening to ‘how the earth is flat.’ The cliché about a little knowledge is dangerous comes true.”
My reply:
I agree. I am also driven by recovery of our freedom of choice – our personal freedoms, as you say. The encroachment upon our private lives, our most basic freedoms, has been relentless, corrosive and largely ignored by John Q. Citizen. Far too many people think or feel that as long as laws don’t directly touch their lives, why worry about them. As with George Orwell’s Oceania, the seduction by Big Brother is death by a thousand cuts. By the time we figure it out, it is far too late. Point is, we are a long way from the freedom and Liberty envisioned by the Founders of this Grand Republic.
I have tried for along time to define the boundary between public and private. I call it the ‘front door criterion.’ The State has a responsibility to define proper or tolerable conduct in the public domain, as part of the process that allows a very diverse population to live peacefully. When the State goes beyond the front door, they have overstepped the place of government established by the Constitution. I am ‘pro’ all those things you listed, and more. I think we should legalize, regulate and tax psychotropic substance use for those so inclined, prostitution, and all those ‘sinful’ pursuits.
I could not agree more about the ‘Rep talk’ as you say. I call it ‘moral projection.’ There are far too many people in this country who seek to validate their moral values (or at least the public perception of their moral values) by dictating those values to every single citizen. Like you, I react quite strongly when anyone tells me how I should live my life and especially my private life. The only reason the State has for penetrating the boundary of my front door is the injury of another citizen – injury being physical, mental or emotional. The Republican Party once stood for small, non-intrusive government at least that is what I believed and understood back in Barry Goldwater’s day. Nixon perpetrated perhaps the greatest compromise of our individual rights in the history of this Grand Republic. And, W. has endeavored mightily to exceed Nixon’s achievement.
We can discuss the war from genesis to prosecution. Let it suffice to say, I had a good friend assassinated by Saddam’s Iraqi operatives in Santiago, Chile. To think Saddam was harmless was not appropriate to my experience & knowledge. I would have no problem leaving the Muslims to slog it out among themselves. My problem comes when they export their violence, which they have been doing at least since the 1960’s. It is that exportation that I call Islamic fascism, and that is what I think we are or should be fighting against. I’ll leave it there for the moment; your choice.
They say proper social conversation should never involve religion, politics or sex. The problem for me is those topics are such important elements of life, and I’ve reached an age where I’m not so concerned with ‘proper,’ and more interested in the humanity enveloped by those topics. I also take a different path to discussion of any topic including the sensitive ones. I want to hear everyone’s opinion . . . uber-Right to uber-Left, so I can measure what the extremes are thinking. It also helps me find the balanced, moderate, stable middle.
. . . round two:
“Since we seem to be speaking to the same congregation from the same pulpit, maybe having someone who agrees with your ‘off the wall’ ideas will help reinforce them.
“As for as the ‘pros’ go, I am for just about everything. Soft drugs are legal in Holland, yet we don't see an increase in hard drug use there. Prostitution is legal is Nevada and Holland but we don't see a mass degradation of the population there. VD is not wild in the streets. As with anything in life, moderation is the key. Prohibition proved that you can't regulate morality. By the end of prohibition, even it's advocates had realized it was wrong. The U.S. has one of the highest major crime rates in the world, but I believe it because we have too easy access to hand guns. But that said, I believe in the bumper sticker ‘When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.’
“You have taken a personal reason to support the removal of Saddam and I find that interesting. My question to you is, how was Saddam unique? What made him special that we felt the need to invade his country? First off, I agree 100% that we need to fight terrorism. I rather fight them over there and not here but how we fight is the key to the equation. I know that this sounds like hindsight but it was my opinion before the war started.
“Did we take Saddam out because he was a bad guy? At any given moment there are 10-12 men who are as bad or worse that Saddam. Men who have ran their country to the ground. Who have killed millions. We always put this off as a ‘civil war’ happening in some particular country. Since the 1960's when countries in Africa started to declared their independence, on a regular basis someone would take charge and in the process kill off millions of the other side. Yet we did not intervene anywhere (maybe covertly) and when we did in Somalia, the public was against it. I am not saying that we should intervene, just that Saddam is no different than 20 others before him.
“Did we take Saddam out because of WMD? For two years we looked and nothing could be found. Yet we know that N Korea has weapons, should we invade them. Our ally Pakistan, which you won't find a more unstable government, has them. What happens when ally Pakistan bombs ally India? Sure, we know that Saddam had poison gas, he used it on the Iranians during their 10-year war, which we supported. The old adage of ‘any enemy of my enemy is my friend’ seems to be our motto in the State Dept for the last 30 years.
“Did we take Saddam out because he supported terrorism? He was a minority in his own country. It does not make sense for him to allow too much training in his country for fear of an overthrow. Of the 9/11 bombers, the vast majority were Saudis. Now if any country were fueling the terror organizations with fresh recruits it is Saudi Arabia. Terrorism will always exist has long as you have a wide spread between the have and the have nots and SA is a prime breeding ground. There are major training camps in many countries, but that does not give us the right to invade. Actually Saddam was keeping a balance in the region, which does not exist now and the area will become the wild west when we leave.
“How do we fight terrorism? Boost the budget of the CIA, and let small groups do the work. As always we are fighting this year's war with last year's war conception. It is impossible to stop all the 9/11's of the world but I think that a better funded covert operation is the way to go. When you think about it, that is how the other side is working. Let’s broadcast to the Middle East that we are going after them, wherever they are, we just don't need an army to do it. Save the big guns for when some actually invades us (or our ally, as in Kuwait). Tho I am not a fan of Daddy Bush, he at least knew enough to quit when he had the chance. I am sorry about your friend but I feel more grief for the relatives of the soldiers who are fighting in Iraq. Fight dirty like they do, we put up so many targets we are easy to take down. I think that we needed to go to Afghanistan but we screwed that one also. Now it is going the other way also.
“Why do we call people who are fighting us, in their own country, terrorists or insurgents? If a foreign soldier came into my house, I would call him the terrorists. I would be joining any group that fought them. Would that make me a terrorist because I was fighting a foreign power in my home? Nazi's considered the Resistance a terrorist group.”
. . . my reply to round two:
We agree in the main regarding the foolish, sanctimonious, morality laws. The damnable war on drugs has burgeoned a massive criminal sub-culture from local to international along with a cancerous smuggling network that has seriously compromised our national security. And, so many American citizens choose to blindly embrace their belief that dictation of moral values not only validates their beliefs but also is ‘good for the nation,’ as if they are the salvation. I do not agree that our high crime rate is due to guns. I think it is sociological with a goodly portion of that directly attributable to the drug criminal sub-culture. A similar argument can be made with prostitution; one of many reasons the practitioners are abused is because they are hidden and directly exposed without any protection from the exploiters. Making the sinful pursuits legal, so they are open, regulated and taxed, does not compromise my moral values in the slightest, or anyone else’s. All this damnable fear in folks about what someone else’s morals will do to their beliefs and their children’s beliefs is so far off the page of rational as to be truly mind-boggling. I have far more confidence in my moral values and our children’s values than I guess a good many fellow citizens have in themselves and their children.
Saddam’s Iraq has been among the top five state-sponsors of terrorism and Islamic fascism, consistently from circa 1975 until 2003 . . . that was my point. The others on that list include the Islamic Republic of Iran, Syria, Libya, and elements within Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Algerian, and Yemen. Iraqi and Iranian operatives have killed more folks (some of them not so innocent) outside their borders than the KGB. As I’ve said, if they confined their killing within their borders, I would have a vastly diminished argument, but such was not the case.
I was not a party to the decision-making process in 2001 & 2002. However, my argument in favor of the Battle for Iraq rests on several key factors:
1. Saddam’s Iraq was consistently a major state-sponsor of Islamic fascism and terrorism for his nationalistic purposes.
2. We needed a battleground outside ConUS and outside the sovereign territory of our allies for the fight . . . to focus the violence.
3. Iraq was perhaps the best possible choice for a host of reasons:
A. Saddam consistently defied UN sanctions
B. Iraq had multiple exposed borders
C. Iraq was smack-dab in the middle of the Gulf Region . . . equi-distant from numerous other potential targets.
4. Saddam developed, deployed and used both chemical and biological weapons on his own people, and was absolutely capable of providing those weapons to anyone he thought might benefit him. Did he have WMDs at the time of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM? I don’t really care. He had demonstrated (not theoretical) capability over many years and that was good enough for me.
5. Saddam was a corrupt, vicious, secular dictator, not particularly well-liked even among other Arabs and Muslims.
I could go on, but those are the high points. I have been and remain a staunch critic of W. & Rummie for their foolish, naïve, and ill-conceived execution of the battle. They wasted a terrible number of precious lives, an incredible amount of treasure, and whatever goodwill we might have enjoyed after 9/11. But, I still believe it was the correct choice of battleground, just the wrong battle plan, made even worse by Rummie’s defiance, marginalization and diminishment of the professional military.
Somalia was another example. Bush 41 actually pulled the trigger on Operation RESTORE HOPE, but Clinton was not convinced and looked for a quick way out. That was a poorly run operation without the support necessary for the mission. Again, correct objective; poor battle plan. War or military action is and must be the choice of last resort, but if a president pulls the trigger, it should be an all-out affair – no quarter shown or given. That did not happen, and good men paid with their lives. Another sad endeavor to add to an infamous list of extraordinarily foolish operations.
Pakistan has been and will remain a very worrisome entity. Yet, the government and military infrastructure are far more closely aligned with the West . . . UK & U.S., primarily. Pakistan has never been a state-sponsor of terrorism to my knowledge. Elements within Pakistan have been consistent providers of willing believers to strap explosive vests to their chests. Pakistan is a prime example of rampant procreation vastly exceeding the capacity of the land to support them . . . thus the profound poverty and fertile ground for mad mullahs, the madrassas, and Islamic fascism.
The Wahhabist movement in Saudi Arabia is an equally appropriate target, just as al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the Islamic Brotherhood, and all the others. The Saudi government, like the Pakistanis, walks a fine line in their efforts to control the extremists. We have known of these characters for a long time, but chose to ignore them, until they started exporting their violence.
Whether we have the right to invade any country depends upon the specific circumstances. Pakistan was precariously near the edge, but has now undertaken aggressive action (for them) in the tribal regions, to reassert government control. If they hadn’t done it, I am convinced we would have.
I see the War on Islamic Fascism as a far larger, global endeavor that will most likely last generations. I am glad to see many of the restrictions foolishly imposed on the intelligence and special operations services by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) [PL 95-511] were finally removed. I think we can rest assured there is much more going on beyond our sight and awareness in this War. The covert services have grown substantially from their pre-9/11 days, and yet I think they are still significantly under-resourced.
I share your grief for all those who have lost loved ones over the last nearly 40 years of this damnable war. We can honor those who have sacrificed so much, by making the world a safer, more peaceful place. Maybe Barack will do a better job than George. I know John would, but I’m afraid he is not going to get the opportunity. So, we shall soon see what Barack will do.
Good questions on how we define terrorist. I would like to discuss that point, but this is already too long, so that topic shall have to wait for another day.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment