Updates on things I’m considering writing about

I have on file copies of a news article and my sentencing/plea deal statements which show that in my current felony case, the State was willing to accept a dismissal of charges, but that the judge chose to assert himself as prosecutor. From a January 3^rd article in the Batesville Guard paper titled “Tragedies, education, crime among news from Sharp County” written by Larry Stroud: “ 40-yr-old James Snyder Jr., was sentenced to 20 years in prison with 15 years suspended on reduced charges of manslaughter. The state contended that Snyder was an unwilling participant.”

 

On 1 December, Georgetown City Council shows that the Baptist Church runs Georgetown. At a time of great economic distress, Georgetown shelved a measure that would have allowed Sunday sales of alcohol in restaurants, with the prospects of improving Sunday tax revenues on both food and drink sales. The measure was shelved because of opposition primarily from ministers with the Georgetown Baptist Church and members of same. The opposition brought no empirical data, because there is none that supports a rational disagreement for Sunday sales. Instead, they brought up respect for the Sabbath, which, as an argument in a government forum, is unconstitutional. There were other anecdotal references to the horrors of alcohol, but these had no relevance to the discussion, as alcohol sales are already permitted.

 

Terror in Mumbai. The terrorist assault in Mumbai, India, targeting mostly westerners and Jews was a well thought out and planned assault against which the apparently undisciplined, untrained Indian Police had no effective initial response. The attacks are not the act sought to be portrayed as one of Kashmir separatists struggling against Indian rule in the on-going dispute between India and Pakistan. The attacks are a diversionary measure designed to put Indian and Pakistani troops facing off against one another so that Pakistan’s military attention diverts from the tribal areas in which al-Qaeda and the Taliban seek refuge from their conflict in Afghanistan. The intended effect was to focus the attention of Pakistan and India, as well as that of the nations whose people were targeted, mostly American and European, as well as Israel, on the ongoing dispute over Kashmir, which both Pakistan and India claim. This would have diverted intelligence and military resources toward Kashmir and given the operatives of al-Qaeda and the Taliban some relief in the tribal areas bordering Pakistan and Afghanistan.

More Evidence of Republican Malfeasance and the Crumbling Economy

More Evidence of Republican Malfeasance and the Crumbling Economy

 

In its AP Impact series, the Associated Press illustrates that the Bush administration, against the advice of reputable economists and regulators, relaxed regulations and rules on mortgage loans in 2005, allowing the current economic crisis to start. The article can be found here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081201/ap_on_bi_ge/meltdown_ignored_warnings;_ylt=Ao01gt3K.7mp.j9OJOOqBuSs0NUE

The article correctly points out the warnings from regulators and economists as well as the pressure brought to bear by lobbyists for the mortgage industry and the Bush administration’s compliance with the interests of the mortgage lenders.

 

This did not happen in a vacuum; the administration of George W. Bush was helped along in its decision making by Party pundits and members of Congress who shared the now proven foolish belief in absolute free markets and deregulation. The article by the Associated Press makes the attempt to place all of the blame on lobbyists first and the administration second, thereby relegating all responsibility to now fading from the scene actors. This is misleading, and consistent with the demonstrated Associated Press bias towards the current administration and “centrist” Republican/conservative policy supporters, including a former Presidential candidate and a current Kentucky Senator. The article skirts the issues of responsibility and refuses to point to the true “smoking gun” of Republican economic theory.

 

However, the article by the Associated Press is more than gentle on our Republican legislators who all but unanimously backed the easing of restrictions on high risk loans. Republican Senators and Congressmen, in lockstep at the end of their control of both Houses of Congress, equally lobbied the administration to show favoritism for their mortgage industry “friends”, in a push for the fruits of the Republican economic policies of deregulation and “free” markets. AZ Senator John McCain and KY Senator Mitch McConnell were at the early head of the list for supporting these deregulation measures which ultimately proved fatal for an already troubled economy.

 

It is important to remember that “free” markets and deregulation always lead to domination by the greedy who have no interest other than short term profiteering. Monopolies and workplace hazards, as well as ultimate crushing of the thing sought to invigorate are the end result of Wilsonian Economics, the driving market ideology of the Republican Party and the cause of the Great Depression. It is regrettable that the Republican party has, twice in a century, proven itself short-sighted on economic matters. The Republican Party sells its economic theory to the masses talking about how their ideology is good for business, especially small business. This, while curiously believed by many who are the policies’ victims, is simply not true. Republican business favoritism is not beneficial for the greatest number of business owners, just as Republican tax policy is not beneficial for the greatest number of tax payers. Republican business, economic, and tax policy is beneficial only for the greatest amount of money in these areas, which, still remains in the hands of a very few. Whether on Wall Street or Main Street, regulation helps to ameliorate the abuses of power that seem to naturally coincide with the accumulation of wealth.

 

While no one should begrudge the wealthy the entitlement to the fruits of their labors, it is reprehensible to suggest, as the Republican Party usually does, that the fruits of those labors should entitle pre-emptive right to the fruits of the labor of others. Wilsonian Economics, again, the economic theory of the Republican Party, through its trickle down mechanism does exactly that: the poor and middle class are taxed at effectively higher rates than the rich, and the money is then re-distributed to the rich. The costs associated with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and welfare pale in comparison to the amount of federal (our) money put into the hands of the already wealthy. This is in part explanation for why so many small businesses and farms fail during normaleconomic times while it requires a fiscal catastrophe to fell the industrial-economic behemoths.

 

What has really been at the root of our current economic meltdown has been the steady, Republican policy-fueled, decline of the middle class. In Wilsonian Economic theory, trickle down predicts that money fed into the upper branches will “trickle down” to the roots. Unfortunately, the theory doesn’t work in practice and the roots wither. The money and profits enjoyed by those at the top of the economic stratum has not “trickled down” to the bottom or even the middle. This money has mostly remained at the top, where there is, in truth, a very limited consumer base. These policies have steadily eroded the ability of the consumer base, where most of the goods purchasing takes place, to participate in the market. In a consumer-driven economy, any policy which reduces the consumers’ ability to consume is pure foolishness. With no one in the lower economic strata able to purchase goods because of the concentration of wealth at the top, eventually the supply of money for the top will also slow and eventually fail. Unregulated greed has its own reward, and that reward is failure, as current events have shown. The economic crisis at the top has been predicated by the long ignored economic crisis at the bottom, which in turn, was caused by the Republican/conservative economic policies which favored the top.

 

National Heritage Day: Racism Continues

Yesterday, Friday, 28 November was National Heritage Day, the day on which the US recognizes and celebrates the achievements and contributions of America’s native population. Did you know about it? Did you hear about it? I hadn’t until about 10 AM after the Associated Press ran a very brief article about the day. The holiday was only recognized by Congress and the President a month ago, after years of efforts for America’s peoples to have a day of their own. Unless additional measures are passed, this will be the only year for the observance, however paltry, of National Heritage Day.

 

This year’s observation of National Heritage Day the day after Thanksgiving shows the continuing institutionalized racism present in the US. Despite the election of our nation’s first black President, we still have much ground to cover before we come to recognize that, upon this, our creator’s, Earth, given to us, there is only one race, and that is the race of man. We must stop thinking of race relations in terms of colors and shades and realize that there are cultures and peoples who have come and gone before and who live on in the most unlikely of individuals. We must not marginalize others because of the dilution of blood through intermarriage; the spirits of the ancestors live on in their progeny, even if that progeny, in this particular case, looks just like his Irish and German rather than Saponi forebears.

 

If we, as a country, were to properly honor our Native Ancestors, then the day of observance should be separated from other holidays on an annual basis and not hidden on a day better known for shopping stampedes the day after gluttonous excess. Our Congress and President can and should do better by the people who served as an inspirational model for the representative democracy ideals upon which our government was based. Perhaps we could replace National White People Invasion Day- better known as Columbus Day- with National Heritage Day. But, still, for those who missed it and appreciate our native national heritage, whether in blood or spirit; take a moment and reflect on the meaning of that heritage and the meaning of this act of marginalization.

 

Remember, too, that, as with other minorities, the US government and Sates have, in the not distant past, taken active measures to dilute and diminish the presence of Native Americans. From the 1930’s until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it was common practice to place Native orphans with Anglo families with specific instructions that the orphans be not informed of their true origins or given any instruction respectful to Native culture. 

Hillary for Secretary of State

            It is becoming increasingly apparent that Hillary Clinton will be Secretary of State in an Obama administration. This bodes well and ill, like most political matters, and the boding generally depends upon one’s perspective. While many are ecstatic or at least well pleased with the selection of HRC, others think it to be a foolish or dangerous choice. One writer, Ken Silverstein of Harper’s, lists five reasons to see Ms. Clinton’s selection as a mistake. http://harpers.org/archive/2008/11/hbc-90003860

I disagree, not with Mr. Silverstein’s reasoning, but with his conclusion. While it is true that Hillary, and Bill, will, as usual, pursue their own agenda(s) within the office of the Secretary of State, that agenda will be personal rather than political in nature. The ability of the Clintons to significantly impact matters of legislation and governance will be limited by the international, rather than domestic, nature of the office. Clinton loyalty has always been a dubious thing, but it will be almost irrelevant in an office where the platform is global and the fanfare will satisfy their egos so that their historical intrusions on U.S. issues will be minimized. I believe that Barack Obama has made a wise and well-thought choice in tapping Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State.

 

            In the Secretary of State’s Office, the Clintons will not be so disposed to interceding in domestic policy, as they will have a much larger stage on which to play their roles. Being the chief diplomat, Hillary’s focus will be global, and she will probably lose sight of some of her less agreeable domestic agenda items while interacting with world leaders to bring about diplomacy and recognition the need for work on women’s issues, trade, and poverty, as well as addressing, in a limited way, environmental concerns. The international representation of the United States and repair to our foreign reputation is a monumental task suited to the astounding abilities of this woman and her husband. The job heading the State Department will keep both Clintons busy and out of the way for the work that must be done domestically.

 

            The selection of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State is beneficial for all parties. This eventual appointment satisfies the Clinton ego and expands their stature while giving the U.S. a pair of known and generally liked representatives to the world at large. Their reputations and personalities will simplify the task of presenting a new American agenda and policy set to governments now grown justifiably suspicious of U.S. motives and goals. And, this appointment will have the added benefit of effectively nullifying further election aspirations for the Clintons, signaling a transition to a better domestic political environment, where new ideas and new thinkers can capitalize on the realignment of the American political system. While the Clintons will undoubtedly have some input, it will be the input of past experts rather than current contenders.

How to Handle the Big Three Automakers

               Detroit is in trouble; General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler have squandered resources and missed opportunities for decades now, and their greed and lack of foresight have made them vulnerable to bankruptcy, takeover, or outright collapse. Of course, the leadership of these troubled companies has gone begging to Washington for help. The automakers shouldn’t be helped; they should be allowed to succeed or fail on their own merits. They have received enough federal assistance over the decades that the fault for their current crisis lies firmly on the shoulders of upper level management. Let those who created this crisis pay for their misdeeds by failing as a consequence; we will all be better off if they fail.

 

            Instead of bailing out Detroit, bail out its workers; use the proposed 25 billion dollars to keep the loyal, faithful, talented, and skilled American auto workers around, so that they will be available for whomever should pick up the pieces of the broken American automotive industry. Keep those workers’ paychecks and insurance going; in the short and long term, this will be cheaper than having them go on unemployment. For everyone above middle management, let them join the increasing ranks of the unemployed. This is fair; for over thirty years, Detroit’s answer to increased payroll costs was to cut the bottom ranks while enriching the top. Those who have benefitted so long from these irresponsible, reckless policies of profiteering should now be the ones to suffer for driving their industry off a cliff.

 

            The Big Three have been protected for years by Congressional legislation designed to frustrate foreign competition and promote American company built vehicles, to include generous defense and GSA contracts from which foreign companies have generally been excluded. Yet still, with all of the US subsidization, Detroit has failed to successfully compete, even domestically. GM, Ford, and Chrysler have consistently sought to make the quick buck for their leaders while failing to look into the future and modernize their operations and products. At one time in America, the rallying cry was “Buy American”; but seriously, given all of the scandalous behavior by American auto makers, and their failure to provide quality at a reasonable price, it has become increasingly evident that better options exist. Risk-to-profit-ratio assessments as a justification for putting unsafe products on the road gave an incredible boost to the domestic market for foreign cars, while foreign manufacturers aggressively sought to build factories in the U.S.

 

            Contrary to opinion at the time, the foreign automakers actually provide better, here and abroad, for their employees that the Big Three ever did. The reality behind that disparity comes from a more egalitarian and far less bloated sense of the responsibilities of and compensation for management. If Detroit should fail, than those foreign automakers, especially Toyota, Honda, BMW, and Benz, will be more than able to step in and restore dignity to American auto manufacturing and to its American workers. They may even retain or restore American labels, although that shouldn’t really matter. These companies do not generally look to their workforce and quality control first when it comes time to cut costs or increase profits; the foreign companies take a much more holistic and proactive approach. Foreign automaker takeover of American manufacturing, in the long run would prove beneficial to everyone, from the consumer to the auto workers, but would rightfully leave out the architects of the American auto industry collapse.

 

            Financial sector bailouts were necessary to protect the overall economic system of the U.S. and the world; even so, we saw in the few short weeks following the bailout talks the same executive extravagance that preceded the very collapse it caused. Detroit would do the same with a bailout. Detroit would continue to lay off workers while granting bonuses to their failed executive corps, and still fail to modernize their thinking, products, organization, safety, and technology. If there is to be a bailout for Detroit, let it go exclusively the workers who will be needed to repopulate the factories after transition and just let the executives and their institutions of greed fail.

Rush Limbaugh: Influential Moron

                Rush Limbaugh is fun to watch or listen to, in the way that the Three Stooges were fun to watch or listen to. He has no clue as to what is going on and no idea wherein lies the truth, and he really doesn’t care, so long as he is watched and heard. Rush Limbaugh is an absolute idiot, as far as politics, the economy, conservatism, or what really matters to the American people are concerned; he is a genius at showmanship, hate and fear mongering, and the construction of mountains from molehills. He is also expert in rumor generation, propaganda promulgation, and disinformation dissemination, as well as character assassination, and lie dispensing.  

 

                On a recent show, as a case in point, Rush elaborated on a plan posited by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, as if this one obscure professor’s plan constituted the whole of Obama economic policy. Rush has spoken as if this single professor, who has no role in, and no connection to, neither past nor present, the Obama campaign, the Obama transition, or the Obama Presidency, is the individual who will be in charge of re-vamping social security. He is outraged that this woman’s plan calls for a nationalization of 401(k)’s requiring employees to place their retirement money into government bonds. While this one professor’s plan amounts to as much, her work is published in an obscure leftist periodical that gets little real traffic, and again, she has no connection, past, present, and probably future, to Obama. This is nothing more than a Rush Limbaugh standard tactic of making up the news where there is none.

 

                Rush Limbaugh is in no way conceivable a journalist, Rush is a shock jock. He has no qualifications whatsoever and seems perennially, fundamentally incapable of telling the truth. His projections and pontifications are proven wrong, like the case in point referenced above, something close to 98% of the time. Rush Limbaugh briefly attended Southeast Missouri State University where, according to his mother, he flunked everything, including Modern Ballroom Dance. Southeast Missouri State University is an unknown school, and like most unknown schools, it is exceptional. Exceptionally easy to excel in, but Rush couldn’t hack it; he couldn’t handle the requirements of a school, that, in its undergraduate role, has no national ranking.  Ergo, Rush has no legitimate talent, intellect, education, or training in any area of honest enterprise. So, much like Pamela Anderson, he is an entertainer.

 

                As an entertainer is the only way in which Rush should be taken; his espoused views on so many topics are not the product of any education or information. Rush Limbaugh’s frequent rantings on topics of politics and the economy, as well as religion, are the product of an undisciplined, ill-trained, inadequate mind coupled with an overbearing ego. He is not to be taken at his word, and any who seek to find truth or news from him will be deceived. He can entertain, if only to witness the incredible delusional mental gyrations he must perform to arrive at his always ill-founded, most usually fraudulent conclusions.

Georgetown Mayor Vetoes Just Cause Ordinance

                On 5 November, Georgetown Mayor Karen Tingle-Sames vetoed the City Council passed “Just Cause” ordinance that would have required the mayor to provide justification for the firing of city employees. Mayor Tingle-Sames has developed something of a reputation in Georgetown for autocratic firing within the city government, frequently citing “loyalty” issues as her rationale. Karen Tingle-Sames, voiced her objections to the ordinance in a letter provided to the City Clerk and City Council. In this letter, she stated that just cause is the start of acknowledging union employment and that the taxpayers of Georgetown do not want city government recognizing union employment. Karen Tingle-Sames claimed that she stood with the majority of the community in her decision.

 

                Stephen Glass and Mark Singer both voted against just cause in the City Council resolution for the ordinance that passed 6-2. Stephen Glass noted that he would have to review the mayor’s reasoning before he could declare for or against the ordinance should another vote on it come up. Councilman Glass also stated correctly that the mayor is part of the problem. Mayor Karen Tingle-Sames has shown a penchant for unnecessary and demoralizing patronage-based personnel decisions in which she punishes those who disagree with her and rewards her supporters. Most famous of these decisions was the firing of the long-time fire chief for “loyalty” issues and his replacement with a supporter of the Mayor- the “loyalty issue was the now-former chief’s support of Ms. Tingle-Sames’ opponent in the previous election. This, along with other personnel decisions, has left a city government unable to posit contrary viewpoints, stalling the free exchange of ideas necessary in an economically challenging environment.

 

                Mayor Tingle-Sames’ rationale posted in the News-Graphic rely on two logically fallacious arguments. The first is her “slippery slope” argument that just cause will lead to unionization; this slippery slope leads to her “straw man” argument against fears of unionization. Requiring rational basis for employment decisions does not, in any way, lead necessarily to unionization, and it improves city government accountability. Unions are not a major issue for the City of Georgetown, and the organization required to get one started will tip off those in charge long before the matter could come to a vote. A feeling of greater job security among city employees that would be fostered by the just cause ordinance would actually help the city stave off any future efforts at union organizing and would also improve the content of city governance discussions, leading to better decisions. The union threat is not real. I do not know what Karen Tingle-Sames considers to be the taxpayers of the community or the majority. As for her “majority of the community”, I don’t seem to recall any referendum measure or poll, by which the community consensus might be gauged, to have happened. As for taxpayers, everyone in the community is a taxpayer, so perhaps the Mayor is referring to those paying property taxes, which would specialize her pool of opinion somewhat. Still, I haven’t heard anyone speak to the legitimacy of the Mayor’s comments and veto.

 

                Mayor Karen Tingle-Sames’ veto of the just cause ordinance strikes this member of the community as an attempt to maintain absolute autocracy over city employees in order to build a city government responsive only to her needs and those of her supporters. There are many good reasons why patronage employment has been rejected by communities across the country. Her rationale for the veto is deceptive and misrepresentative, I believe, of the wishes of the City of Georgetown as a whole. While the only information I currently have on this issue at the moment is that from the News-Graphic article on her veto, I am reasonably confident that the analysis will withstand scrutiny, while the Mayor’s motives will not.