by Roy W. Bakos
Over these past few weeks, my friend/ fellow Bull-Mooser Mankindof and I, have been engaging in a process where I make a statement or series of such and then he calls “bullshit” on me and responds with a series of statements of his own. The first example was when I replied that the “President needs to grow a bigger set of balls” and the most recent came when I changed my facebook status earlier today to say the following: “Splitting hairs between ‘combat operations’ and 50,000 ‘advisers’ and countless contractors does not make a war into peace just as calling a turd a steak does not transform the turd into NY strip…War is not Peace…bring home all of the troops now!” I will attempt to further explain both of these positions which I believe to be very closely related.
Let me start by saying that I am a supporter of President Obama who worked on his campaign for the Presidency in both my home state of New York and elsewhere as a volunteer during the campaign in 2008. The reasons why I supported him for the Presidency were my belief that he would do the following when elected: 1) end the war in Iraq; 2) draw down to sensible levels in Afghanistan and use our troops there to go after the criminals that organized the 9/11 attacks on the United States; 3) restore sanity to the US economy by repairing the damage done to it in the previous 28 years of de-regulatory insanity; 4) go after Wall Street to pay their fair share for their part in the financial meltdown; 5) get a comprehensive Health Care reform bill passed through Congress; 6) close down the illegal prison at Guantanamo Bay and simply bring criminals to justice; 7) stop allowing the CIA and other branches of the US government to commit torture; 8 ) severely restrict the parts of the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act that fly in the face of the Bill of Rights and the values that we say that we hold dear; and finally 9) move this country back away from Empire and return us to the Republic that we say that we are.
Unfortunately, the reality of this Presidency so far does not even come close to the rhetoric that drove the campaign for “Change.” The reality is that we still (even after the end of “combat operations”) will have 50,000 troops in Iraq for some time. The war in Afghanistan has been escalated. Young Americans are still coming home wounded or in body bags and will be for some time and we still have not brought the people that attacked us to justice. Guantanamo is still open and this Justice Department is trying to get the courts to allow for “indefinite detention” of suspects without charging them with a crime, expanding the power of the President to do what he wants with any “enemy combatant” and shit on the formerly sacrosanct Geneva Convention. The Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act (which takes away habeus corpus from anyone, including citizens of the US, that is deemed to be an “enemy combatant”) are still in full democracy-chilling effect. Finally, economic and health reform have only been dealt with in the most rudimentary matter and the corporations that were allowed to drive the debate on both of these issues are still firmly in charge of the show…we should have just called all of the “reforms” the United Healthcare Health Bill and the Visa and Mastercard Credit Reform Act and the Goldman Sachs Financial Reform Bill.
Let me also say here to all who say that “we are moving in the right direction” that I believe they are right in the sense that if McCain/Palin were elected, none of the things that have been done would have been done at all (half-assed as they were done) and that we would be in a much more freedom-chilling place than we are now. That being said, I believe that this President is squandering his opportunity as a leader. All of the nuance and uncertainty surrounding a given issue should be discussed when formulating a plan on how do deal with that issue but once you have chosen your plan, put it in place and effectively communicate what it is that you are doing. Deal with detractors by showing the strengths of your arguments, not giving away the argument in an attempt to win them over. If you want health care reform, start with single payer and deal down to a “Public Option.” Formulate your plan with other party leaders, put a bill forward, and get it passed or let it die. Debate the nuance of “combat operations” and “advisers” beforehand while you come up with a plan to end the war. If you change your position and believe that you should now not end the war, tell the people why and then don’t end it. If, after becoming President, you believe that we should be an Empire, tell the people why we should be and run on that. Use the “Bully Pulpit” (a term coined by the original Bull-Mooser by the way) to tell the people the direction that you think we should be moving towards and then move us there at a speed that will get us to our destination faster than Moses got to Egypt. This is what I mean by “growing a set of balls.” Please just stop trying to redefine things in an attempt to appease both your supporters and detractors and do what we put you in office to do; lead.
American Banker published an article today by Andrew Johnson, titled Retailers May Shelve Prepaid Cards if Money Laundering Rule Passes. Johnson’s article raises an interesting topic that relates to a recurring theme here at the Journal of the American Bull Moose: regulation. Specifically, whether regulation constitutes harmful government interference, or helpful advancement of the public good. And of course, as is often the case in our discourse here, the truth is a little bit of both.
In 2009 Congress passed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act (Credit CARD Act), which amended the Truth in Lending Act. (Click here for the text of the Act. Click here for the Wikipedia entry about the Act.) Section 503 of the Act directed the Treasury Department to enact regulations under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) regarding stored value cards. Accordingly, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), the Treasury Department sub-agency charged with enforcement of the BSA, recently proposed the rules required by §503 of the Credit CARD Act. These proposed rules form the center of Andrew Johnson’s article. (Click here to read the proposed regulations.)
“Stored value cards” is the umbrella term that includes all manner of gift certificates or cards, which function as the equivalent of cash. A similar term, “prepaid cards,” may be treated as essentially synonymous for purposes of this discussion (though actual distinctions exist). Stored value cards include two main sub-categories: closed loop and open loop cards. Closed loop cards may only be redeemed at one store, chain, family of stores, or location; for example, a Best Buy gift card, or a mall-wide gift card useable at any store in a particular mall, or even by FinCEN’s definition, your subway metro card. Open loop cards may be used at any location that participates in a particular payment network; for example, a Visa gift card, usable wherever Visa credit cards are accepted.
Broadly, the Credit CARD Act pertains to both credit cards and stored value cards. And many of the Act’s provisions are surprising examples of good and necessary legislation, such as the protections against arbitrary interest rate hikes and double-cycle billing, the limit on issuing cards to teenagers, and restrictions on hidden fees. Also, the Act eliminated many of the more dodgy practices regarding stored value cards, especially as relates to the sometimes esoteric fee schedules companies employed which often resulted in various monthly fees leeching out the value paid into the card when purchased. Most of these provisions aim at consumer protection. But the Act also has an anti-money-laundering aspect, which forms the subject of Johnson’s article.
Specifically, FinCEN’s proposed rules would require retailers to record customers’ personal information when selling stored value cards, and store that information up to five years. Admittedly, stored value cards present an easy conduit to launder money, especially with open loop cards, which can be used to make almost any sort of purchase these days, and in many instances can be used to make cash withdrawals at ATMs. But in the case of closed loop cards, their utility in laundering money is severely limited. After all, what can a drug dealer do with a few hundred thousand dollars’ worth of Starbucks lattes, anyway? If he tries to sell a large block of these cards on eBay, FinCEN (among others) are likely to notice.
FinCEN tried to create exemptions for nearly all the common applications of closed loop cards. For instance, if the retailer does not sell any cards over a $1000 value, or if the card may only be used domestically at a specific retailer, they will likely be exempt under the proposed rule. So no need to envision one of those cognitively disengaged blueshirts over at Best Buy taking down your social security number, address, and driver license number the next time you want to buy a gift card for your nephew’s graduation. But if, like Starbucks, a retailer’s cards may be used abroad, it must abide by the reporting provisions of the proposed rule. So, on second thought, go ahead and envision that pimply teenager writing down your personal information before he screws up your latte order.
That companies like Starbucks would rather discontinue their violative card programs rather than submit to the potential new regulations is beside the point. FinCEN has moved forward with enacting regulations that fit squarely into that group of government interference that really lathers up the Tea Party folks. What good does this serve and at what cost?
I wrote this article because I like the Credit CARD Act as an example of both good and bad government interference. It used to be, that a stored value card program would issue a gift card for, say, $200; under it’s abstruse fee schedule, the card automatically would lose three dollars here, five dollars there, every month for various fees (inactivity fees, maintenance fees, service fees), none of which were printed on the card, until the owner goes to use the card only to discover a zero balance. The Credit CARD Act cut through all that and prohibited the sneakiest practices, while not entirely eliminating a company’s ability to raise revenue through fees. I call that a win. Another good provision allows credit cardholders to set their own credit limits, which the bank may not raise or exceed. And who among us hasn’t sent a credit card payment after the due date, but within the grace period? Well, before the Act, card issuers would often charge a fee even if payment was received within the grace period, and then use double-cycle billing to squeeze extra interest out of the customer. But no more!
But on the other hand, there’s this silly attempt to prevent Michael Corleone from laundering all his racket money through Starbucks gift cards. The end result of which will be a large number of retailers forced to either abandon or revamp their gift card programs. While I feel that most of the Act is more than worth the price of admission, it seems our government can’t implement even a relatively small law without including some provision that confounds common sense. So when the writers here at the Moose next rail against each other regarding governmental overreach vs. the moral imperatives of an enlightened society, this example serves ammunition to both sides. In that sense, it makes the world a delightfully more interesting place.
by Michael R Parmele
I am coming to this rally with empathy.
I am coming to attempt to actually understand the argument.
I am not coming to make fun, to belittle, or berate, or make anyone look stupid.
I am coming to this rally to take the people I meet at their word. I am granting that they have sincere beliefs that have been rationally and logically thought out with evidence, as I have sincere beliefs that have been rationally and logically thought out with evidence.
I want to talk to them about that.
They have named their rally, “Restoring Honor.” What can be more honorable than a group of citizens in a democracy, coming together on the village green of our nation, to discuss, argue, and debate the great issues facing our nation? What is more American? What is more honorable than that?
The Constitutional Convention was one of the most contentious debates in all of history. As the Convention began, neither the delegates, nor the States were quite sure what the outcome would be. This convention had been called to deal with structural flaws in the Articles of Confederation. Flaws which threatened to tear apart the once unified, fledgling nation. However, a decade out from war, the States were passing out of their unifying revolutionary mindset, having accomplished independence. The structure created at the conclusion of the war had been shown to be faulty and what were once seams in the Articles of Confederation has grown, first into cracks, then fissures threatening the noble experiment that was our undertaking. But we succeeded and what was formed was a beautiful, yet flawed, document that has guided and protected the nation ever since. The Constitution is our owner’s manual. It is the structure to which the spirit unleashed in the Declaration of Independence clings. Critical to the success of that second forging, that second American Revolution, was the notion that We, the People, participate in our nation’s affairs. Not by merely being parts of voting blocks, but by being informed, reasoned, and active in the debate.
So that is my goal: to have a reasonable, sincere, discussion. I am not going to be trying to change anyone’s mind. I will challenge people’s opinions, I will ask for evidence, and I will point out things I know to be false, when I have evidence to support it. Because it’s wrong to assume that this is some monolithic group of people who all echo the talking points. Stereotypes are useful at times because there is always a little truth in every stereotype. But we can no longer succumb to the stereotypes. We can no longer be voting blocks. At this point in our history, it is time to speak as individuals again; to speak as countrymen again.
My Theory on How Wealth and Prosperity are Created: or How These Concepts Have Come About and Come to be Understood
by Roy W. Bakos
Earlier this year, my friend, Jego, asked a few of us to ponder the creation of both wealth and prosperity. I was going to go into the standard history-based assumptions with some quotes from the ancients to Adam Smith and Marx and some modern economists as well but then the question of what exactly do these two words mean came into my head; fucking up my previous thesis and creating a new dilemma for discussion.
wealth
Pronunciation: \ˈwelth also ˈweltth\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English welthe, from wele weal
Date: 13th century
1 obsolete : weal, welfare
2 : abundance of valuable material possessions or resources
3 : abundant supply : profusion
4 a : all property that has a money value or an exchangeable value b : all material objects that have economic utility; especially : the stock of useful goods having economic value in existence at any one time <national wealth>
pros·per·i·ty
Pronunciation: \prä-ˈsper-ə-tē\
Function: noun
Date: 13th century
: the condition of being successful or thriving; especially : economic well-being
So, the very idea of the word wealth has to do primarily with an abundant supply of something. In our economic system I guess that something would be broken down into either resources, land, or money or it could also mean having an abundant supply of some other desirable thing like knowledge or power. All of these things, while seeming tangible, are really intangible and their value is subject to the people or society or situation that measures them. Having five gallons of water in a desert would make you wealthy wile having that same five gallons of water in a monsoon would make you only wetter. Ideas are intangible, money is intangible, hell even gold and real-estate are intangible at their core in that there is no fixed value on anything outside of the system in which it exists. This leads me to believe that the “stuff” that
makes one, or the overall society in which one lives, “wealthy” is not created but just is as matter is in the discussion of science. It is the measure, or value of this “stuff” that is created and this is where the question starts to get dicey.
I will posit that the idea of “value” has only changed slightly since we went from cave-dwellers, to farmers, to citizens of a “state” in the course of our economic and political evolution throughout history. In the beginning, the things that had “value” were the things that kept you alive: the ability to hunt, to make fire, to defend yourself from other hominids and the harshness of the human condition and the elements of nature as such. As we moved from caves into early agrarian societies, these things of value expanded to include the ability to grow and cultivate plants and the ability to trade the surplus of goods that you grew for other “stuff” that you needed and liked. Again, this grew as we moved into becoming “citizens” of a “state” and we began to codify rules and laws for the citizenry to live by.
It is here that I have become very idealistic when I use the word “we” when I should really begin to use the words “the powerful” or “the rulers” or “the leaders” or something more in that vein of understanding. The idea of “we” (meaning the majority of the people) having control over any of this is very new in the history of human beings (in fact, I would argue, that the idea of using the word we to describe all of humanity in general is also a very new thing, perhaps only coming into use in this type of meaning within the last 50 or so years). The facts seem to be that those in power in a given society create and control wealth by being the ones to define exactly what it is that has value and exactly what that value is. Usually, the things that are deemed to have value are the things that are mostly possessed by the ruling class and the entire economic system (Capitalist, Marxist, Colonialist, Mercantililist, et.al.) is then set up to ensure that the value of the stuff of the rulers is kept scarce (and valuable in its scarcity) and in the control of the ruling class. The bit of the stuff that is then given over to the rest of the people is fought for and keeps the rest of us preoccupied with its acquisition. Exactly how this is done differs by the given system (Mercantilism=resources and gold; Capitalism expands this with the addition of money, etc.) but the result is that the powerful stay that way unless thrusted out by calamity or force.
As for prosperity…this it seems is usually just an offshoot of the measure of one’s individual wealth based on the system in which one lives. National wealth and prosperity are generated by policies that give nations the ability to control the “stuff” that makes the wealthy and to define that stuff as a measure of prosperity so that the idea of wealth can perpetuate the control of the system by those that control the wealth.
I have often toyed with the idea that Capitalism (at least the way Smith understood it and we are taught it with free-markets and the like) is and has been dead at least since the first half of the 20th Century. I still challenge anyone to name me a market that is really free (outside of the black market or some small things on a very localized level) and not completely manipulated. This thinking about the very definition of wealth and prosperity has led me to further questions about what the next system will look like and how it will measure wealth and exactly who will decide how the “stuff” that makes one wealthy is defined. Also, the central question of wealthy versus poor (meaning possessing less of the “stuff” that makes one wealthy) and the seeming disparity of and concentration of wealth in the hands of the few can be resolved peacefully or ever. Must there be poor in order for their to be rich in a world where we no have the technology to make everything that was once scarce not so scarce anymore and where we have the ability to house and feed every human being if we wanted to? These are the questions that should be answered as we look to replace or improve upon the system that we have now.
A few months ago, our friend Jego asked a few of us to define where we thought wealth came from and how it was defined and built. These are our answers…starting with Wes.
On Wealth
by Wesley M. Brown
I have not read Smith or Keynes or Galbraith for many years. And, I still believe that asking three economists a question will result in at least four opinions, perhaps more. But, questions on the nature of wealth, how it’s created, and how best to ensure prosperity remain intriguing.
In earliest times, wealth, meaning “an abundance of valuable resources or material possessions.”(www.wikipedia.org) had little abstract meaning. Material possessions were few, had little value beyond their utility, and most were possessed, but not really “owned” in the modern sense, communally. Even living “possessions” such as women or children were only useful to the extent that they could be defended or excluded from others.
But, as civilizations developed, so too did economic specialization. Herding and cultivation finally were sufficient to move beyond mere sustenance to surplus.
At that point, those blessed by petitions to the heavens, good husbandry, or sheer dumb luck were able to accumulate a sufficient surplus to begin exchanging their goods and labor for an equivalent value of another’s goods or labor. Yet, while all civilizations went though this period, the problem of the exchange rate was never really solved, and was much too fluid beyond narrow territorial limits. For example, how many goats equaled a specified amount of something else proved to be an issue that remained problematic in any given area.
However, at that point in history, wealth became essentially predicated upon human agreement. While parties in a goat herding culture could easily agree that goats were valuable, and thus some measure of wealth (i.e. the guy who only needed 5 goats to sustain his family but owned 10 goats was thus more wealthy than the guy with 4 goats who was running a goat deficit and needed a goat bailout, much like AIG, but I digress), the problem remained of exchanging the prominent medium of goats for something else.
In other words, the early wealth formula breaks down once two parties from areas with different measures of wealth (i.e. valuable resources) want to exchange their surpluses. The goat herder places a high value on goats while the fig grower equally places a high value on figs. Each may need some measure of the others surplus, but there is no easy way to sort out a transfer of wealth without much haggling and the distinct possibility of an overcompensated goat herder or an overcompensated fig grower.
This imbalance was only partially solved by the invention of money. While the medium of money was far more convenient than carrying around a wallet full of goats or figs, the chief advantage was the consumer now had the economic choice to purchase various goods and services at any time when he had money available rather than having to wait for someone with goods and services that also needed an exchange.
But even though money began to solve the problem of storage of wealth, money only has the amount of value as is agreed upon by those involved in a given market. Both sides of a transaction must agree that the good or service being sold has a value equal to the agreed upon value of the currency. And, even when a governmental unit steps in and assigns a particular value to currency, such value is worthless if a seller cannot afford to sell his or her goods for the governmental value of currency.
But wealth always had a relative component. Did the seller set the price of his goods based upon currency or was currency based upon the price or value of goods sold? And, this equation was further compounded when two people came to the table with two different currencies. Private or regional agreement set the value of exchange, but it was still too fluid to ensure stability.
Following private or regional agreement as to the value of currency, and thus wealth, parties began to look to public trading markets and secondary indexes of valuation to determine value. Granted, the value of goods, services, and currency remained in flux, but such fluctuations could be tracked and sometimes predicted, giving market players some measure of confidence as to value.
This leads us to the issue of creating or ensuring prosperity. On this question I am admittedly torn. The libertarian side of me argues that prosperity cannot be ensured no matter what we do. Wealth ebbs and flows naturally, and those skilled in the creation of wealth will be wealthy. Those who have little or no skills will be poor, and both distinctions of wealthy and poor will be relative. And, every now and again, some technological invention or natural calamity will occur and either propel wealth forward exponentially or wipe out all or most of the wealth in a given area. The more pragmatic side of me, however, argues that wealth can only be created in a stable economy. In other words, if enough people do not have enough wealth or sustenance to survive, they will eventually turn on those who have wealth and take or destroy it.
History is filled with hundreds of examples where the mob of have-nots, either because of generalized suffering or the realization that they have numbers far superior to those of the wealthy, decide to begin some kind of rampage against the haves. These rampages either result in the destruction of wealth or the complete overhaul of an economic or political system. So long as they perceive that there are persons with some means who are not sharing in the suffering it is only a matter of time before some form of destruction or societal overhaul will ensue.
In light of the above, I can only think of a few items which typically minimize the possibility of grave destruction or transfers of wealth owing to economic upheaval:
1.Disclosure – In the simplest of terms, the good or service I am selling should be the thing it purports to be. Our legal system should give a purchaser redress for a sellers false or misleading claims as to the product or service. Caveat Emptor is only really effective when the purchaser is something of an expert as to the good or service being purchased.
2.Competence of Collateral Indexes – Although this may be difficult, I think it’s important that indexes of value should be standardized, equally available to the purchaser and seller, and regulated as to the basis for their opinions or conclusions. For example, I can readily secure a copy of the NADA yellow book from a bookstore when researching the purchase of a used car. However, I have been told by persons in the used car industry that the NADA books at car dealers are not the same as those sold to consumers. While I speculate that if there are differences between the two that the dealer NADA might lower the value of a car for trade-in purposes, thus giving a slight advantage and additional profit to a dealer when he takes in a trade, this discrepancy, assuming it to be true, is exactly the type of thing that our beloved government should be addressing. Of course, this scenario applies to many different industries, but the principle is the same.
We can all point to things that we think should be accorded high value, but in my view it is the agreement of at least two people that a given thing has value that forms the predicate of wealth. But no matter how you define it, wealth will always remain a relative concept.
by Roy W. Bakos
Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, in an attempt to paint the release of classified documents about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as immoral, this week stated that, “But there’s also a moral culpability. And that’s where I think the verdict is ‘guilty’ on WikiLeaks. They have put this out without any regard whatsoever for the consequences.” Nice try Mr. Gates, but you, and your administration, fail here.
If this “leak” helps to end the bankrupting (both morally and fiscally) wars in Central Asia any faster, then WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and Bradley Manning (the US Military employee that leaked the papers to Assange) should be nominated for and given the Nobel Peace Prize. The documents that have been released so far have shown a level of incompetence and immorality not seen in this country since the release of the Pentagon Papers in the late 1960’s. Our “friends” in the region are using our money and technology to arm our “enemies” which directly results in US and civilian casualties and Mr. Gates has the gall to say that the release of this information is immoral? He should be forced to resign immediately as we begin a draw-down of historic proportions.
Unfortunately, this is where my good friend Wes has been right in his arguments over the last few weeks. This will not happen because no one cares. Millions dead and displaced; millions radicalized against us in the third world; tens of thousands of American military families having to deal with physical and mental wounds that do not easily heal; and not one real protest or demonstration or call to get out. The sheep have spoken and have let the government know that as long as we have cable TV and a bunch of cars and the American way of life secure over here that we really do not care. Shame on Mr. Gates (may a special place in hell be reserved for him, Rumsfeld, and all of the others that have lied and cajoled us into the Empire in which we now seem to live). Shame on President Obama for not keeping his campaign promises on this issue. Most of all, shame on us for doing nothing about this. Be sure to wash the blood off of your hands while reaching for the remote control, I will.
by Wesley M. Brown
There is and was no misunderstanding. Our Editor is simply wrong.
I wholeheartedly agree that our Republic is predicated upon the consent of the governed. But I also argue that we have gotten exactly the government we wanted.
If the average American spends most of his/her time thinking about NASCAR, football, Lady Gaga, Lindsey Lohan, Brangelina, Michael Jackson’s death, Anna Nicole Smith’s death, silly bands, and all other indicies of pop culture, how much time and understanding is left to spent on top-kill oil abatement, credit default swaps, TARP, campaign finance, or any other issue that actually affects 300 million Americans and 6 Billion others?
Our beloved government realized in the 1960’s that the Romans were right on with “bread-n-circuses”. If the government can more or less guarantee sufficient basics (food,shelter,etc.), at least enough to prevent revolution, and keep peoples minds occupied with mindless entertainment (i.e. Gladiators were not trained to read Ovid at crowds as far as I know), those that control government can get away with otherwise terrible things.
Our era has been marked with multitudinous incidences of simple theft. We have moved beyond the mindset of entitlement to merely rolling the dice and seeing how much we can steal before being caught. The more I steal, even under the guise of laws that I helped author ,the less likely I am to be truly punished.
Our own justice system, of which I am an ashamed part, underscores this dichotomy. A conviction for the forcible rape of one person carries a sentence in New York of five to twenty-five years as a class B felony. Yet, one who financially rapes an entire system, and who is responsible for the long-term financial suffering of thousands of people will likely never see the inside of a prison. Even if he/she did, their term will be far shorter than the person convicted of rape. Mind, I am not downplaying the horror of rape. But, one rape affects mostly one person and their family, not thousands of retirees who just lost their life savings to a swindler. That is rape too, and far more damaging as a societal matter.
You have rightly accused me of favoring a “less is more” approach to government regulation. I agree fully, but not for the reason you think. I want less government regulation simply because I am not fooled when any administration rolls out a new legislative package that purports to “protect” the citizens’ interests. I wasn’t asked to be on those committees, and every bill I read reeks with the push and power of lobbyists who have far more influence over the process than me. On the contrary, because government must give us the illusion of working for us that it conspires and colludes with the special interests to pull the wool over all of our eyes.
You want a government that is “…required to make sure that all of its people have the same access and rules of fair play governing how the people can do this for themselves.” So do I…and so does every person who ever lived. The difference is, we have little or no power to write those rules.
I’d write more about the problems with pop culture and government but “Judge Judy” is on.
Wes,
Since I am still naive enough to believe in all of that civics shit that they learned us in school, I still believe that in our form of Republic that the government is us. The people. The consent of the governed. That is why I believe that the only way to change the things that I believe need to be changed is though the government/people and though public shame for those that violate this trust from the people as well.
Really, no shit here. By,of, and for the people…this is the American promise and the America that I believe in and the America that we should all strive to live in. Government can only “impose its will upon us” when we allow it to. As for the other stuff like banking regulations and the rest, do you, or anyone that takes your “less is more” approach across the board in regards to government, really believe that Wall Street will police itself without regulatory bodies? That the purity of the human heart and mind alone will eliminate racism or prejudice? That all of the stuff in the Bill of Rights and the subsequent Amendments are things that could exist without government or rules to enforce them?
I do not hold that government “should be responsible for bringing wealth, happiness, and liberty to the populace” as you say…I only hold that government, especially one that is us, is required to make sure that all of its people have the same access and rules of fair play governing how the people can do this for themselves.
Sorry about the misunderstanding.
Sincerely,
Roy The Cat Herder
by Wesley M. Brown
Our dear cat-herder-in-chief, Roy, is disappointed with the world. Wall street bankers commit crimes, or at least acts that should be crimes, with taxpayer bailout funds, health care reform is a joke, the economy is sagging, news media have neither the time nor the inclination to fact-check, and President Obama has spent 18 months serving us nothing more than rhetoric and bullshit. All true and sad.
But, his disappointment is predicated upon some spurious progressivism that holds government and other institutions of power and influence should be responsible for bringing wealth, happiness, and liberty to the populace. For what other purpose could these institutions operate?
I answer that government and other institutions of power exist for their sake alone. They exist to perpetuate themselves, by whatever means, and only act in the people’s best interest, or perceived best interest, to the extent that outright revolution is averted. These institutions are the status quo in its most basic form, and when that changes for any reason, we will be told what to think and how to react, if necessary.
Like little Virginia O’Hanlon who wrote to the New York Sun, our editor has too been affected by the cynicism of a skeptical age. He thinks there is no problem or change that cannot be fixed by one more government agency, one more regulatory body, or one more blue ribbon committee charged with ensuring that all of have the benefits of life, liberty, and happiness which Mr. Jefferson promised us. How dreary his world would be if there were no governments or Wall Street to impose its oppressive will upon us.
Government and Wall Street not granting us the life, liberty, and happiness that Mr. Jefferson promised? How could that be?
I answer that there will always be shiny, happy rainbow puppy munchies if you look for them. The first wail of a newborn child, a schoolchild mastering the ABC’s, sharing a laugh with good friends, catching a glimpse of a hummingbird sipping the sweet nectar of honeysuckle on a summer evening. These events are the currency of the human condition, and no government or bank can either provide them or truly deny them to its citizens, for they exist truly apart from the organs and mechanisms of power.
by Roy W. Bakos
Midsummer news leads to the blues…some reflections on recent events and stuff…
I think that it is time that we all demand some fact-checking from our media sources. Really. All of them. The recent travesty of a doctored film that caused the resignation of Shirley Sherrod, a well-meaning non-racist, on allegations of racism should be the point where we all as media consumers, demand that our “News Organizations” start checking their sources regularly. It is bad enough that millions of people rely on non-fact-checked internet sources for “news” (Barak Obama is a foreign-born Muslim, right?) but when our so-called real news sources are so lazy as to not even check if the third party video they are airing is an outright fake, a real problem that adds to the discord in this country happens. Misinformation that is spouted as fact is more harmful to discourse and discussion than ignorance. In fact, it increases ignorance and idiocy tenfold. Mea culpas are not enough. We must turn off the news until they actually fulfill their jobs as the fifth estate of the body politic again. No more infotainment…just fact-checked news please.
Read excerpts from this month’s Playboy interview with Cornel West here: http://www.playboy.com/articles/cornel-west-playboy-interview . I know that I have said it before but I really wish that would consider running for office as an alternative to the corporatist democrats and republicans that we are forced to choose between…although he might just be too smart and honest to get elected.
On that note, I don’t know that I have ever been this let down and discouraged by the state of politics in this country. It was easy to be disillusioned during the Bush years. The stripping away of civil liberties, illegal wars, corporate pigs chowing at the public trough like none since the years before the first great depression…these are all things to be discouraged about but I always held out the hope that they would end with the election of our current President and the “Change: promised by his campaign. Unfortunately, after only 19 months since attending the Inauguration filled with hope, I now feel like I have been stood up on prom night by President O. We are still at war in two countries at a cost that is bankrupting our Nation. Gitmo is still open. The Patriot Act is still in place. The Health Care reform is a small bullshit-laden farce. The same goes for Chris Dodd’s Banking reform bill. The criminals on Wall Street are still in charge led by their boy in the White House, Tiny Tim, and no one has or will be charged with a crime in regards to the looting of our treasury by the banks. Oil Companies have run amok over the entirety of the Southern United States. All of this is still happening and no one really seems to give a shit and I am somehow supposed to feel good about the state of the Country and be happy that we are heading in the right direction. Bullshit.
That is it. Hopefully, something will have happened between now and the next time that I write that will make me feel a bit happier about the state of things.
