Posted by: endithinks | July 14, 2009

On a deeping rift

The last few months I’ve been thumped in the chest.  A deep pressure pushes up whenever I am walking down the street and I see someone who is holding a sign and begging for change.

I’ve always  given whenever I have had money in my pocket.  I usually will supplement that with some food if there is anything around, but lately it has taken root in my mind that this is something that none of us should tolerate.

I’m talking about the rate of homelessness in the United States and how so many of us never even stop to think “what if?”  I’m talking about how so many of us can coldly walk by a fellow person and ignore that they exist.  I’m talking about treating each other cruelly, the cruelty of ignoring.

Ignoring someone is the ultimate damage we can do to someone.  It is as if we don’t even want to acknowledge their existence and we are ashamed of our own capacity to end up in that same situation.  No one on the street thought it would happen to them and the miniature pleasures they can feel while high or drunk is nothing compared to the deep seeded darkness that surrounds their hearts.

I walk by them nearly every day and I see them asleep and drowning their own self loathing in the respite of unconsciousness hoping that they never wake up.  I’ve seen the looks in their eyes that would turn a heart to stone.  I’ve seen the depth of despair.

What can we do about it?  That is a question people ask me all the time.  They say that they are only one person who can only do so much.  I say it only takes one person to make someone stand up and realize that they are valuable and necessary.  We all matter and the fact that any of us are even here is mathematically impossible.

It is starting to tear at me every time I see another join the ranks of the forgotten and it makes me yearn for justice.  It makes me cringe when I see myself buying a new shirt for twenty dollars when that could be the difference between shelter and the cold for someone for the next two days yet I pull out the Visa and scratch away another piece of self respect.

I see people battering away at their own hearts denying the natural concern we feel for each other.  I see people holding back and flinging their arm around their food bowl, hackles raised and growling.

I see blame replacing compassion and blind compassion replacing lifting people up.  I see throwing a man a fish instead of giving him a pole.  It is as if we choose between two ways of interacting with those who need help.  We chuck a quick quarter their way and head down bowl our way through the crowds, or we give them the help they need in a manner that keeps them needing us.

Sometimes the way to help someone the best is to get out of their way.  Sometimes that person that we’ve gotten clean and gotten job training will no longer need us.  That should be our purpose if we choose to help.  Any philanthropic organization should be planning to do such a good job it goes bankrupt.  Sustainable non profits should be an oxymoron.

Posted by: endithinks | July 10, 2009

On Iran still protesting

Posted by: endithinks | July 4, 2009

On Goldman Sachs a reprint of a Rolling Stone Article.

This is a reprint of a Rolling Stone article about Goldman Sachs and the bubbles of the American Economy.  All rights remain with the original author and its publisher.

By Matt Taibbi July 2, 2009

The Great American Bubble Machine

Matt Taibbi on how Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression

MATT TAIBBI

Posted Jul 02, 2009 8:38 AM

In Rolling Stone Issue 1082-83, Matt Taibbi takes on “the Wall Street Bubble Mafia” — investment bank Goldman Sachs. The piece has generated controversy, with Goldman Sachs firing back that Taibbi’s piece is “an hysterical compilation of conspiracy theories” and a spokesman adding, “We reject the assertion that we are inflators of bubbles and profiteers in busts, and we are painfully conscious of the importance in being a force for good.” Taibbi shot back: “Goldman has its alumni pushing its views from the pulpit of the U.S. Treasury, the NYSE, the World Bank, and numerous other important posts; it also has former players fronting major TV shows. They have the ear of the president if they want it.” Here, now, are excerpts from Matt Taibbi’s piece and video of Taibbi exploring the key issues.From Matt Taibbi’s “The Great American Bubble Machine” in Rolling Stone Issue 1082-83.

The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.

Any attempt to construct a narrative around all the former Goldmanites in influential positions quickly becomes an absurd and pointless exercise, like trying to make a list of everything. What you need to know is the big picture: If America is circling the drain, Goldman Sachs has found a way to be that drain — an extremely unfortunate loophole in the system of Western democratic capitalism, which never foresaw that in a society governed passively by free markets and free elections, organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy.

They achieve this using the same playbook over and over again. The formula is relatively simple: Goldman positions itself in the middle of a speculative bubble, selling investments they know are crap. Then they hoover up vast sums from the middle and lower floors of society with the aid of a crippled and corrupt state that allows it to rewrite the rules in exchange for the relative pennies the bank throws at political patronage. Finally, when it all goes bust, leaving millions of ordinary citizens broke and starving, they begin the entire process over again, riding in to rescue us all by lending us back our own money at interest, selling themselves as men above greed, just a bunch of really smart guys keeping the wheels greased. They’ve been pulling this same stunt over and over since the 1920s — and now they’re preparing to do it again, creating what may be the biggest and most audacious bubble yet.

Matt Taibbi on Goldman Sachs’ Role in the Housing and Internet Busts

From Matt Taibbi’s “The Great American Bubble Machine” in Rolling Stone Issue 1082-83.The basic scam in the Internet Age is pretty easy even for the financially illiterate to grasp. Companies that weren’t much more than pot-fueled ideas scrawled on napkins by up-too-late bong-smokers were taken public via IPOs, hyped in the media and sold to the public for megamillions. It was as if banks like Goldman were wrapping ribbons around watermelons, tossing them out 50-story windows and opening the phones for bids. In this game you were a winner only if you took your money out before the melon hit the pavement.

It sounds obvious now, but what the average investor didn’t know at the time was that the banks had changed the rules of the game, making the deals look better than they actually were. They did this by setting up what was, in reality, a two-tiered investment system — one for the insiders who knew the real numbers, and another for the lay investor who was invited to chase soaring prices the banks themselves knew were irrational. While Goldman’s later pattern would be to capitalize on changes in the regulatory environment, its key innovation in the Internet years was to abandon its own industry’s standards of quality control.

Goldman’s role in the sweeping global disaster that was the housing bubble is not hard to trace. Here again, the basic trick was a decline in underwriting standards, although in this case the standards weren’t in IPOs but in mortgages. By now almost everyone knows that for decades mortgage dealers insisted that home buyers be able to produce a down payment of 10 percent or more, show a steady income and good credit rating, and possess a real first and last name. Then, at the dawn of the new millennium, they suddenly threw all that shit out the window and started writing mortgages on the backs of napkins to cocktail waitresses and ex-cons carrying five bucks and a Snickers bar.

And what caused the huge spike in oil prices? Take a wild guess. Obviously Goldman had help — there were other players in the physical-commodities market — but the root cause had almost everything to do with the behavior of a few powerful actors determined to turn the once-solid market into a speculative casino. Goldman did it by persuading pension funds and other large institutional investors to invest in oil futures — agreeing to buy oil at a certain price on a fixed date. The push transformed oil from a physical commodity, rigidly subject to supply and demand, into something to bet on, like a stock. Between 2003 and 2008, the amount of speculative money in commodities grew from $13 billion to $317 billion, an increase of 2,300 percent. By 2008, a barrel of oil was traded 27 times, on average, before it was actually delivered and consumed.

From Matt Taibbi’s “The Great American Bubble Machine” in Rolling Stone Issue 1082-83.

The history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled-dry American empire, reads like a Who’s Who of Goldman Sachs graduates. By now, most of us know the major players. As George Bush’s last Treasury secretary, former Goldman CEO Henry Paulson was the architect of the bailout, a suspiciously self-serving plan to funnel trillions of Your Dollars to a handful of his old friends on Wall Street. Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton’s former Treasury secretary, spent 26 years at Goldman before becoming chairman of Citigroup — which in turn got a $300 billion taxpayer bailout from Paulson. There’s John Thain, the asshole chief of Merrill Lynch who bought an $87,000 area rug for his office as his company was imploding; a former Goldman banker, Thain enjoyed a multibillion-dollar handout from Paulson, who used billions in taxpayer funds to help Bank of America rescue Thain’s sorry company. And Robert Steel, the former Goldmanite head of Wachovia, scored himself and his fellow executives $225 million in golden-parachute payments as his bank was self-destructing. There’s Joshua Bolten, Bush’s chief of staff during the bailout, and Mark Patterson, the current Treasury chief of staff, who was a Goldman lobbyist just a year ago, and Ed Liddy, the former Goldman director whom Paulson put in charge of bailed-out insurance giant AIG, which forked over $13 billion to Goldman after Liddy came on board. The heads of the Canadian and Italian national banks are Goldman alums, as is the head of the World Bank, the head of the New York Stock Exchange, the last two heads of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York — which, incidentally, is now in charge of overseeing Goldman.

But then, something happened. It’s hard to say what it was exactly; it might have been the fact that Goldman’s co-chairman in the early Nineties, Robert Rubin, followed Bill Clinton to the White House, where he directed the National Economic Council and eventually became Treasury secretary. While the American media fell in love with the story line of a pair of baby-boomer, Sixties-child, Fleetwood Mac yuppies nesting in the White House, it also nursed an undisguised crush on Rubin, who was hyped as without a doubt the smartest person ever to walk the face of the Earth, with Newton, Einstein, Mozart and Kant running far behind.

Rubin was the prototypical Goldman banker. He was probably born in a $4,000 suit, he had a face that seemed permanently frozen just short of an apology for being so much smarter than you, and he exuded a Spock-like, emotion-neutral exterior; the only human feeling you could imagine him experiencing was a nightmare about being forced to fly coach. It became almost a national cliché that whatever Rubin thought was best for the economy — a phenomenon that reached its apex in 1999, when Rubin appeared on the cover of Time with his Treasury deputy, Larry Summers, and Fed chief Alan Greenspan under the headline the committee to save the world. And “what Rubin thought,” mostly, was that the American economy, and in particular the financial markets, were over-regulated and needed to be set free. During his tenure at Treasury, the Clinton White House made a series of moves that would have drastic consequences for the global economy — beginning with Rubin’s complete and total failure to regulate his old firm during its first mad dash for obscene short-term profits.

From Matt Taibbi’s “The Great American Bubble Machine” in Rolling Stone Issue 1082-83.

After the oil bubble collapsed last fall, there was no new bubble to keep things humming — this time, the money seems to be really gone, like worldwide-depression gone. So the financial safari has moved elsewhere, and the big game in the hunt has become the only remaining pool of dumb, unguarded capital left to feed upon: taxpayer money. Here, in the biggest bailout in history, is where Goldman Sachs really started to flex its muscle.

It began in September of last year, when then-Treasury secretary Paulson made a momentous series of decisions. Although he had already engineered a rescue of Bear Stearns a few months before and helped bail out quasi-private lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Paulson elected to let Lehman Brothers — one of Goldman’s last real competitors — collapse without intervention. (”Goldman’s superhero status was left intact,” says market analyst Eric Salzman, “and an investment-banking competitor, Lehman, goes away.”) The very next day, Paulson greenlighted a massive, $85 billion bailout of AIG, which promptly turned around and repaid $13 billion it owed to Goldman. Thanks to the rescue effort, the bank ended up getting paid in full for its bad bets: By contrast, retired auto workers awaiting the Chrysler bailout will be lucky to receive 50 cents for every dollar they are owed.

Immediately after the AIG bailout, Paulson announced his federal bailout for the financial industry, a $700 billion plan called the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and put a heretofore unknown 35-year-old Goldman banker named Neel Kashkari in charge of administering the funds. In order to qualify for bailout monies, Goldman announced that it would convert from an investment bank to a bank-holding company, a move that allows it access not only to $10 billion in TARP funds, but to a whole galaxy of less conspicuous, publicly backed funding — most notably, lending from the discount window of the Federal Reserve. By the end of March, the Fed will have lent or guaranteed at least $8.7 trillion under a series of new bailout programs — and thanks to an obscure law allowing the Fed to block most congressional audits, both the amounts and the recipients of the monies remain almost entirely secret.

Converting to a bank-holding company has other benefits as well: Goldman’s primary supervisor is now the New York Fed, whose chairman at the time of its announcement was Stephen Friedman, a former co-chairman of Goldman Sachs. Friedman was technically in violation of Federal Reserve policy by remaining on the board of Goldman even as he was supposedly regulating the bank; in order to rectify the problem, he applied for, and got, a conflict-of-interest waiver from the government. Friedman was also supposed to divest himself of his Goldman stock after Goldman became a bank-holding company, but thanks to the waiver, he was allowed to go out and buy 52,000 additional shares in his old bank, leaving him $3 million richer. Friedman stepped down in May, but the man now in charge of supervising Goldman — New York Fed president William Dudley — is yet another former Goldmanite.

The collective message of all of this — the AIG bailout, the swift approval for its bank-holding conversion, the TARP funds — is that when it comes to Goldman Sachs, there isn’t a free market at all. The government might let other players on the market die, but it simply will not allow Goldman to fail under any circumstances. Its edge in the market has suddenly become an open declaration of supreme privilege. “In the past it was an implicit advantage,” says Simon Johnson, an economics professor at MIT and former official at the International Monetary Fund, who compares the bailout to the crony capitalism he has seen in Third World countries. “Now it’s more of an explicit advantage.”

From Matt Taibbi’s “The Great American Bubble Machine” in Rolling Stone Issue 1082-83.

Fast-forward to today. It’s early June in Washington, D.C. Barack Obama, a popular young politician whose leading private campaign donor was an investment bank called Goldman Sachs — its employees paid some $981,000 to his campaign — sits in the White House. Having seamlessly navigated the political minefield of the bailout era, Goldman is once again back to its old business, scouting out loopholes in a new government-created market with the aid of a new set of alumni occupying key government jobs.

Gone are Hank Paulson and Neel Kashkari; in their place are Treasury chief of staff Mark Patterson and CFTC chief Gary Gensler, both former Goldmanites. (Gensler was the firm’s co-head of finance.) And instead of credit derivatives or oil futures or mortgage-backed CDOs, the new game in town, the next bubble, is in carbon credits — a booming trillion- dollar market that barely even exists yet, but will if the Democratic Party that it gave $4,452,585 to in the last election manages to push into existence a groundbreaking new commodities bubble, disguised as an “environmental plan,” called cap-and-trade. The new carbon-credit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that’s been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated. Goldman won’t even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance.

See Matt Taibbi react to Goldman Sachs’ excuse

Related Stories:

Posted by: endithinks | July 4, 2009

On catching up

I don’t know about you, but these last few weeks have seemed to be on hyper speed.  I’ve been hurrying here and there to keep up with all the news that has been happening and sometimes I feel like I’m being crushed under the weight of the world’s goings on.  Of course I’m also excited and curious to the point of distraction and lately I’ve been wanting to know more and more.   I’m sick of getting my information through filters of talking heads and TV anchors spewing their opinion over the voices of their guests with finger pointing and overtly argumentative hand gestures.  Sometimes I feel like they are going to have an apoplectic episode and have the live feeds cut to an intern taking a shower of something.

I’m not gonna talk about all the news today as I’m sure it has been bashed around and around by people more talented than I, but I did want to to talk about one thing that happened this week that I think was fascinating.  The picture of demonstrations of Americans for the rights of Iranians.  I thought it appropriate on the eve of Independence Day to talk of revolutions and of the feeling of sympathy and outpouring of care that many Americans have shown the people taking to the streets or screaming out “Allah Akbar” in the middle of the night.

It makes my heart warm to know that we still have the capacity to look beyond our backyards and flat screen TVs and genuinely care about what is happening across the planet especially with a country that for the last few years has been called “Axis of Evil” and a land that is both unknown to many of us and feared as a breeding ground for fundamentalist.

Of course most of us don’t realize that the most fundamentalist and anti democracy country is a nearby neighbor of Iran, Saudi Arabia.  Of course we love Saudi Arabia with its antiquated beliefs about stoning of women and beating of thieves.  We love them.

Posted by: endithinks | June 18, 2009

On Financial Regulations, a reposting of an article

For your consideration this is a reposting of an article from McClatchy about financial regulation and the Obama administration’s attempts to fix a damaged system.

All rights reserved of their respective owners.

McClatchy Washington Bureau

Posted on Wed, Jun. 17, 2009

How Obama’s regulation plan aims to fix what went wrong

Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: June 17, 2009 03:24:13 PM

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s proposed overhaul of financial regulations aims to eliminate a number of the loopholes that contributed to the recession. Here’s a summary of what went wrong and how his proposals would try to fix it:

- Nobody looking out for the little guy. At least five federal regulators had some responsibility for protecting consumers from fraud and predatory lending involving credit cards, payday loans, mortgages and other credit products. Yet this responsibility was the primary focus of none. Obama’s plan would strip the Federal Reserve, Federal Trade Commission and other regulators of certain powers and give them to a newly created Consumer Financial Protection Agency. It would be independent and would have the power to make and enforce consumer-protection rules. States could pass rules even tougher than those of the new agency.

_ No regulator looking at the entire financial system. Individual regulators saw parts of the problem, but nobody saw how together they posed a systemic threat. The Federal Reserve would be charged with guarding against threats to the broad financial system. It would have until Oct. 1 to propose what new powers or changes in law it would need to do this.

_ Insufficient regulatory tools. When investment bank Lehman Brothers went bust last September, regulators lacked the authority to seize it as they would a commercial bank. Its demise triggered a near-collapse of the global financial order. Obama’s plan would allow regulators to take over and dissolve a large, globally interconnected financial institution if it posed a threat to the financial system.

_ Many voices, no consensus. Although at least seven federal regulators tried to halt the global financial slide, they spoke with different voices. Obama’s plan would create a Financial Services Oversight Council — a panel of regulators led by the Treasury Department — to identify risks to the financial system and advise the Federal Reserve.

_ Outsized risks. Because no one was looking at the whole picture, regulators were unaware of how much risk had accumulated in the financial system. The Treasury Department will lead an effort to create new capital requirements for all financial institutions, not just banks, and must issue a report with proposed changes by Dec. 31. The Treasury is expected to require financial firms to save money in good times to have adequate reserves in bad times.

_ Shopping for the least regulation. Regulation of financial institutions was spread among several agencies whose enforcement can best be described as spotty. The most egregious example was insurer American International Group, which branched into financial products through a thrift that the Office of Thrift Supervision insufficiently regulated. That agency would disappear under Obama’s plan, which would roll several federal regulators into a new National Bank Supervisor. It would govern all federally chartered lenders, whether they’re banks or savings and loans.

_ Spreading risk without responsibility. The financial crisis began in mortgage finance, where mortgage brokers with no federal regulation originated loans that were underwritten mostly by investment banks that weren’t regulated for their financial soundness. The banks bundled the loans into pools — a process called securitization — and the securities were sold to investors. Loan bundlers now would have to retain portions of what they sold to ensure that they too had “skin in the game.”

_ Free rein for credit-rating agencies. Investors snapped up bundles of loans thinking that they were safe because rating agencies said they were. The rating agencies had a conflict of interest, however, because investment banks often hired them to package the loans. The Securities and Exchange Commission would get new powers to supervise rating agencies and demand tougher reporting requirements.

_ Investment banks ran amok. The SEC regulated investment banks only through the lens of investor protection. These banks — Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and others — often borrowed $30 to invest alongside every $1 of their own. The Obama plan would end SEC oversight of large global investment banks; the Federal Reserve would regulate them instead.

_ Hedge funds and other private pools of capital lacked transparency. These are investment funds for the very wealthy, trust funds, endowments and pension funds. They and private equity funds take huge risks in financial markets, but they aren’t regulated. The absence of any public information about their finances amplified concerns as the global financial system tanked. Under Obama’s plan they’d have to register and report to the SEC, which would determine whether their investments were so vast that their failure could pose a threat to the financial system.

_ Money market funds thought to be safe. These low-risk, low-return instruments earn interest for ordinary investors and were thought to be virtually risk free, until investors pulled so much money out of one last fall that its investment income fell below operating expenses. That added to the global financial panic. Obama’s plan directs the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets to recommend changes to eliminate the risk of runs on these funds.

_ Complex financial instruments exploded in popularity before they imploded. Over the past decade, these complex new products galloped beyond the reach of regulators. This was especially true of credit-default swaps, private bets between parties on the performances of loans or other forms of credit. This swaps market, which includes bets on the future prices of oil contracts, is valued in the trillions of dollars. Obama would subject it and other “derivatives” to comprehensive regulation and would require them to be traded on a regulated exchange, along with new reporting requirements and far greater transparency.

ON THE WEB

White House paper on revamp

MORE FROM MCCLATCHY

To ask a question about this story or any economic question, go to McClatchy’s economy Q&A

Obama to call for new financial regulator, stronger Fed

In huge change, Obama’d strip Fed of credit card oversight

Why a Maine GOP senator is taking on oil speculators

McClatchy Newspapers 2009

// <![CDATA[//

Posted by: endithinks | June 14, 2009

On Iran and elections

The Obama Administration is calling for an investigation into the presidential elections in Iran amongst concerns of election fraud.

This is from the Associated Press.  All rights reserved.

US rejects victory claim by Iran’s Ahmadinejad

AP

AP – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton answers questions about the Iranian elections after a …

By CAROLYN THOMPSON, Associated Press Writer Carolyn Thompson, Associated Press Writer 20 mins ago

NIAGARA FALLS, Ontario – The U.S. on Saturday refused to accept hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s claim of a landslide re-election victory in Iran and said it was looking into allegations of election fraud.

Any hopes by the Obama administration of gaining a result similar to Lebanon’s recent election, won by a Western-backed moderate coalition, appeared to be in jeopardy.

“We are monitoring the situation as it unfolds in Iran, but we, like the rest of the world, are waiting and watching to see what the Iranian people decide,” U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said at a news conference with Canada’s foreign affairs minister, Lawrence Cannon.

Minutes after Clinton spoke, the White House released a two-sentence statement praising “the vigorous debate and enthusiasm that this election generated, particularly among young Iranians,” but expressing concern about “reports of irregularities.”

Despite the challenge from reformist Mir Hossein Mousavi to incumbent Ahmadinejad, many officials and experts thought a Mousavi victory would result in only incremental shifts toward the U.S.

Because real power in Tehran is still wielded by religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, some say an Ahmadinejad re-election may make it easier to build an international consensus against Iran.

Administration officials remained silent out of concern that any comments might influence the results. But they were privately hoping for a victory by the more moderate Mousavi.

President Barack Obama’s previous overtures include his recent address in Cairo to the Muslim world as well as, earlier, a televised New Year’s address to the Iranian people and a series of diplomatic contacts. Officials say Obama’s attempts to reach out have gone largely unanswered.

Neither Clinton nor the White House mentioned Ahmadinejad or his chief rival Mousavi, by name, or acknowledged the incumbent’s victory declaration.

Iranian authorities reported that Ahmadinejad was re-elected with 62.6 percent of the vote. He called on the public to respect the vote. But Mousavi, a former prime minister who has become the hero of a youth-driven movement seeking greater liberties and a gentler face for Iran abroad, rejected the results and accused authorities of rigging Friday’s vote.

Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said Saturday that Ahmadinejad’s claim of a victory puts the Obama administration in a tough position.

“I think it’s going to make it incredibly difficult for the Obama administration to acquiesce on Iran’s enrichment of uranium when there is a president in Tehran who continues to deny the Holocaust, and continues to be belligerent toward Israel,” Sadjadpour said. “I don’t see the probability of Ahmadinejad taking a more moderate or conciliatory approach his second time around. Similar to what President Bush said when he was re-elected in 2004, he said, ‘I’ve earned political capital, and now I am going to use it.’”

In brief remarks in Canada, Clinton cited “the enthusiasm and the very vigorous debate and dialogue” in the run-up to the vote. “We obviously hope that the outcome reflects the genuine will and desire of the Iranian people,” she said.

Disappointment in the results was summed up by the Anti-Defamation League, which noted Ahmadinejad’s history of “extremist allegations and attacks” against Jews and Israel as well as the United States

“We are greatly disappointed by the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,” the ADL said in a statement. “We had hoped that a different outcome to this election would have sent a message to the international community that Ahmadinejad’s incendiary behavior is not reflective of the beliefs and views of the Iranian people. Unfortunately, the result for Iran is likely to be another four years of extremism and isolation.”

The election focused on what the office of the Iranian president can influence: boosting Iran’s sinking economy, pressing for greater media and political freedoms, and being Iran’s main envoy to the world.

Iran does not allow international election monitors. During the 2005 election, when Ahmadinejad won the presidency, there were some allegations of vote rigging from losers, but the claims were never investigated.

Posted by: endithinks | June 10, 2009

On CSPAN

For those of you who have not been turned on to CSPAN consider this your turn on.  If you want to actually see some of what our government is doing you need to turn off the spin heads and professional opinion makers and judge for yourself.  Of course, there will be no fancy graphics, engaging music, and bitter back and forths between the same pundits over and over again, but CSPAN will actually give you access to the people you’ve voted into office.

Now, what strikes me the most about the channel is how empty the Senate and House of Representatives are when people are actually giving speeches and making policy claims and laws.  It is as if the US congress is all about chilling in your office and getting on phone calls with the power brokers back in your home districts about your next run at office.  It is like the logic that was used in the film “Erik the Viking.”  The character was asked why the vikings go out on campaigns and pillage and steal and the viking responded, “We have to pay for the next expedition.”

What you will see on CSPAN most likely are congresspeople arguing to the choir.  They schedule hearings when no one but their own supporters show up.  They stage agreement and summaries while trying to pretend that the “debate” is spontaneous and meaningful.  Case in point, I just finished watching two hours where both Democrats and Republicans were spinning about the same topics at separate hour long conferences in the House.  They did not have the opposition in attendance and they were both parroting back to their own members what they all already shared.

Interesting note the Republicans were once again implying that FDR was the reason the great depression occurred.  Also, it was implied that President Obama is worse than Hugo Chavez.  Also, Congresswoman Bachmann from Minnesota once again brought up the fact of armed revolution as if talk of government overthrow was perfectly legitimate.  (Never you mind you Jeffersonians who will undoubtedly think about what Jefferson said here.  He was speaking of a different time when the republic was so young that its future was unknown.  The times have changed and the great experiment with Democracy has been proved to work.)

It is intriguing to see so many of the seats empty when the business of government is supposed to be taking place.  By the way, I haven’t received any answer to my letters to my Senators in response to various complaints for the first time actually.  I’m a bit disappointed, but I understand.  They are busy.  I can see that they are too busy to even sit down in their chairs in the Senate.  Too many fundraisers to plan.  Too many bills to pay.  Too many expeditions to finance.

Posted by: endithinks | May 27, 2009

On happenings to Bill Cliinton and N. Korea

Interesting article of President Bill Clinton and the way his life is running now.

It’s not about Bill

I haven’t decided what to write about North Korea yet as I feel anything said about them is not going to be relevant two hours from posting since the regime decides to change its mind at the slightest provocation or whim of the illustrious leader Kim Jong.  I do think that the posturing is a direct appeal to the people for control, since they are starving and without power.

The means of control that Kim Jong has decided to use is that of fear, a constant enemy, and blustering.  He or whomever controls him is short sigthed and does not realize the best way to control is to lose control.

Case in point the United States.  Fill our bellies with Mcdonalds and our homes with flat screen TV’s and you can stomp on our civil rights, take away our power to dissent, and force feed us lines about protecting  our national interests while selling weapons to dictators and mujaheddin who of course turn around and betray us.  I just think material goods, greed, and an anti intellectual assault is a lot easier than controlling the media and storming people’s homes.

Mujahideen

Posted by: endithinks | May 27, 2009

On Sotomayor

In case you’ve been sleeping under a rock.

Sotomayor

Wikipedia page

Sotomayor

I’m still doing research on her so I don’t have an opinion right now.  I do think it is nice to see the pseudo warm responses, and she was a Bush I appointee that was confirmed though the process before.  I will read and read and read and think.  More later.

Posted by: endithinks | May 25, 2009

On Gitmo letters

I’ve written to my Senators about the horrible vote against funding the closure of Gitmo and I will repost them here.  We need to hold our elected officials accountable or they will be subject to the fear and malice of those that want to keep the status quo.  The Senate voted against funding the closure of Gitmo due to fear mongering and Nimby thinking (Not In My BackYard).  They have lost their objectivity and adherence to our own laws and replaced them with cowardice.  We cannot be ruled by fear.

Senator Jeff Merkley

Dear Senator Merkley,

I was a staunch supporter of you during the campaign and I was at your celebration the night of the election.  I remember you talking about how you wanted to be a Senator that would bring new ideas and change to represent the state of Oregon.

I have to say I’ve been watching what you have done and I will definitely say that you have done very well for the most part.  I especially appreciate your work on Clean Energy and on Hate Crime legislation.

The reason I am writing today is to share my disappointment in the recent vote on the Gitmo finances.  I am deeply worried that the Congress has lost sight on how important this stain on our national honor is to our security and our international prestige.

Of course all that matters less than our own thoughts of ourselves and our dedication to our Constitution and of course the all important rule of law.  We cannot afford to let fear decide our course of action.

I urge you sir to make some noise and start a conversation about the importance of closing Gitmo regardless of the fear that the Right has been dredging up.  Gitmo must close and we must give each one of these people a fair trial, or the terrorists win.

If we do not follow our own laws and hold ourselves to our own standards we have let those who use fear, terror, and violence to prove to the world that we are only a country of laws when it suits us.  We cannot allow the recruitment boon Gitmo to continue to exist.  We should have that center closed before the year is out and we need to give trials and all the rights to those people that have been wallowing in a prison cell for nearly eight years.

As Benjamin Franklin once said, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Senator Ron Wyden

Dear Senator Wyden,

Thank you so much for your continued hard work for the country and for us Oregonians in the Senate.  I really appreciate what you do for us and I also appreciate how you communicate with us and always send me a reply.

Today I am writing in regards to the travesty of the Gitmo vote.  I was extremely disappointed that the Democrats fell for the fear mongering that the Republicans used to scare up the notion that closing Gitmo would expose Americans to terrorists.

Firstly, these people held in Gitmo for nearly eight years have not been found guilty of any wrong doing.  We have not tried them under our own laws and Constitution and we have taken their liberty on hearsay, rumors and ironically their speech.  We cannot sit back and allow people to be held indefinitely without trial, law, lawyers without even evidence in most cases, or evidence that is solely people talking.  It is not who we are.

I urge you sir most strongly to reconsider what we are expressing to ourselves, our founders and the world when we only practice our own law when it is easy for us.  If the times get tough we need to stick to our beliefs even more tenaciously.  That is how you judge a people, not by their successes, but with how they deal with challenges and trouble.

I know you are an honorable man and I encourage you to stand up for the rule of law and not give in to political and fear considerations.  If we cannot hold ourselves to our own standards we have lost the “war on terror” without the enemy even having to fire a shot.

Older Posts »

Categories