Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Inaguration Day - security
Security.
Security.Security.Security.
I believe that this day is what is known as "testing their metal". I pray they are up to the task.
Things we don't like to think about -
Nearly our entire Government is in one target zone. Supreme Court Justices, legislators and Executive branch.
With one successful attack our system of government would suddenly change ... at least temporarily.
Apparently, Senator Obama's choice for Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, will be sitting out the event at an "undisclosed military base outside the target zone".
http://tinyurl.com/95d2bg
Being sixth in the presidential line of succession, he was selected as "designated successor" during Obama's inauguration should we suffer a worst case scenario.
Robert Gates was also W. Bush's Defense Secretary and was director of the CIA under Bush Sr.
Security.Security.Security.
I believe that this day is what is known as "testing their metal". I pray they are up to the task.
Things we don't like to think about -
Nearly our entire Government is in one target zone. Supreme Court Justices, legislators and Executive branch.
With one successful attack our system of government would suddenly change ... at least temporarily.
Apparently, Senator Obama's choice for Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, will be sitting out the event at an "undisclosed military base outside the target zone".
http://tinyurl.com/95d2bg
Being sixth in the presidential line of succession, he was selected as "designated successor" during Obama's inauguration should we suffer a worst case scenario.
Robert Gates was also W. Bush's Defense Secretary and was director of the CIA under Bush Sr.
Inaguration Day
Like everyone else in the world (it seems) I have a lot of thoughts about this day.
So as the day goes on I may try to post those ideas here, probably in a rambling and disjointed fashion. Not sure why but for this morning it feels like the thing to do.
First off - Not to be a downer ... but I am a little afraid of a "joy" hangover. Obama may be the smartest man we have had as a President in a long time but our countries current problems are serious and complicated and there is no quick solution.
Here is something I shared earlier on "The Deadpan" forum.
I know that some of my gay friends are dissapointed with Obama's choice of Evangilist Christain, Rick Warren to give his invocation today. As it turns out, there are other groups feeling slighted too -
http://tinyurl.com/aykkcp
Missing from the Inaugural Dais: Rabbis and Priests
Yep, Catholics and Jews want to voice their desent. I'm guessing they can get in line with the Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu and Baha'i clergy that also won't be at the podium.
But you know who I think will be the MOST annoyed at Obama's decision to go with an all "Evangelical Protestant Ceremony"? It will be the "hate radio" folks and their sheep listeners (like a 70 year old relative of mine) who STILL insist that Obama is Musluem.
Oh, they will continue to believe he is Musluem but it will make them have to work that much harder to maintain their delusion.
Sen. Obama is a smart man and I see this as another "well thought out" move to prove his critics wrong.
So as the day goes on I may try to post those ideas here, probably in a rambling and disjointed fashion. Not sure why but for this morning it feels like the thing to do.
First off - Not to be a downer ... but I am a little afraid of a "joy" hangover. Obama may be the smartest man we have had as a President in a long time but our countries current problems are serious and complicated and there is no quick solution.
Here is something I shared earlier on "The Deadpan" forum.
Obama is being handed the keys to a ship that has struck an iceburg and is half under water … oh and on their way into their own private lifeboat, the previous crew plundered all the cash and then set the place on fire. They lost the authority to decide which direction the ship is headed … so they have badly crippled it to make sure it won’t be going anywhere for the next 4 to 5 years. Very shrewd.8:46am (We'll see if I keep adding to this or make new posts for each entry)
Let’s hope America TRULY grasps the reality of how badly the previous management has trashed the place … and will have the patients for how long it will take to clean up this historic mess!
Otherwise it’s going to be one heck of a hangover TOMORROW morning when America wakes up and realize that the ship is STILL on fire and STILL sinking.
I know that some of my gay friends are dissapointed with Obama's choice of Evangilist Christain, Rick Warren to give his invocation today. As it turns out, there are other groups feeling slighted too -
http://tinyurl.com/aykkcp
Missing from the Inaugural Dais: Rabbis and Priests
Yep, Catholics and Jews want to voice their desent. I'm guessing they can get in line with the Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu and Baha'i clergy that also won't be at the podium.
But you know who I think will be the MOST annoyed at Obama's decision to go with an all "Evangelical Protestant Ceremony"? It will be the "hate radio" folks and their sheep listeners (like a 70 year old relative of mine) who STILL insist that Obama is Musluem.
Oh, they will continue to believe he is Musluem but it will make them have to work that much harder to maintain their delusion.
Sen. Obama is a smart man and I see this as another "well thought out" move to prove his critics wrong.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
A modest proposal.
As you probably know, this last election carried several proposals involving gay marriage.
Like anything involved with any marriage the issue is emotionally charged.
After listening to and reading quite a bit of commentary on the issue, I have noticed several topics that are frequently brought up in this debate that REALLY need to be corrected.
First - we should make absolutely clear that being homosexual means you are attracted to someone of the same sex. It does NOT mean you are attracted to children. That is a pedophile and is a completely seperate thing. Reported cases of rape, incest and abuse are far more likely to come from those who identify themselves as heterosexual (simply due to the percentages involved) ... and not infrequently, married heterosexuals.
Bringing up things like incest, abuse and pedophileia in this discussion is a "bait and switch tactic" and frankly could be a charge leveled by the gay community as a strike against the "straight" community.
Secondly - the idea that "We the People" must marry for the sake of breeding or we will die out, is ludicras. This scenario went extinct well over a century ago (in the US) and yet somehow people still want to desperately cling to it.
Homosexuals didn't just show up on some space ship. They have been around since man has been around and they have been in our population, mostly in hiding, since the first sailors set foot here.
Yet, the US population has grown steadily and at an ever increasing pace since the turn of the century. Acknowledging the presence of what has been here all along is NOT going to suddenly stop population growth. It's time for people to stop letting themselves be frightened by this fairy tale.
Finally - marriage under assualt? Hardly.
The census numbers show that marriage has been in steady increase since the 60's. A search of both the census bureau web site and the CDC didn't show the data listed by percentages but the numbers themselves have increased steadily.
Also, data prior to 1950 is actually hard to quantify due to the way it was collected. No one went door to door back then asking if you were a single parent and if you were married or divorced like they did AFTER 1950. They just counted the number of divorce papers that had been granted and were still on file.
Lower divorce rates pre 1950 simply DO NOT equate to more successful marriages.
The fact that people weren't tracked with social security numbers like they are now, meant that men didn't have to spend the time, expense or embarrassment of going through a divorce. They could just LEAVE their families and start over somewhere else with absolutely no record being left behind. Further, men were considered legal head of the household so even if a woman was allowed to file for a divorce, it was unlike it would be granted until the judge had heard from the husband.
On top of that, having the money to file for a divorce simply wasn't an option available to many women then.
This cake is a lie people.
Marriages failed in the past just as often as they do now ... back in "the good old days" there was just less "official" divorce and more people living in their own personal hell with no hope of escape.
Final thought (for now)
Here is the most important point I would make.
Homosexuality is not some fad. Just because you deny them the right to have their unions recognized as a "legal" marriage, does not mean that they will just give-up and go away.
I don't know how many people we are talking about here but it is has proven to be a rather substantial economic and voting block. These are your neighbors, doctors, lawyers, teachers, public officials and even clergy and like it or not, society has already begun changing to fit them in. Yet, how all of this "fitting in" turns out is still very much up in the air.
If those representing "gay marriage opposition" want to have any say in how this "fitting in" will occur it is time for them to stop pretending that this will all just blow over.
"Society" is not something carved in stone. It is liquid. Sometimes a raging river, sometimes a peaceful spring but always moving. Things are going to change. They always have and they always will. Those that oppose gay rights and gay marriage would be doing themselves and the whole of society a great service if they would uncover their eyes and ears and step up to help find some middle-ground.
It is time to start behaving like responsible adults and start working together to ease society through this change rather then acting like frighten children, being dragged kicking and screaming into an inevitable future.
I don't know what the solution to this conflict is but I do know that if you don't join in to help shape the solution you shouldn't expect the outcome to be anything you like.
Like anything involved with any marriage the issue is emotionally charged.
After listening to and reading quite a bit of commentary on the issue, I have noticed several topics that are frequently brought up in this debate that REALLY need to be corrected.
First - we should make absolutely clear that being homosexual means you are attracted to someone of the same sex. It does NOT mean you are attracted to children. That is a pedophile and is a completely seperate thing. Reported cases of rape, incest and abuse are far more likely to come from those who identify themselves as heterosexual (simply due to the percentages involved) ... and not infrequently, married heterosexuals.
Bringing up things like incest, abuse and pedophileia in this discussion is a "bait and switch tactic" and frankly could be a charge leveled by the gay community as a strike against the "straight" community.
Secondly - the idea that "We the People" must marry for the sake of breeding or we will die out, is ludicras. This scenario went extinct well over a century ago (in the US) and yet somehow people still want to desperately cling to it.
Homosexuals didn't just show up on some space ship. They have been around since man has been around and they have been in our population, mostly in hiding, since the first sailors set foot here.
Yet, the US population has grown steadily and at an ever increasing pace since the turn of the century. Acknowledging the presence of what has been here all along is NOT going to suddenly stop population growth. It's time for people to stop letting themselves be frightened by this fairy tale.
Finally - marriage under assualt? Hardly.
The census numbers show that marriage has been in steady increase since the 60's. A search of both the census bureau web site and the CDC didn't show the data listed by percentages but the numbers themselves have increased steadily.
Also, data prior to 1950 is actually hard to quantify due to the way it was collected. No one went door to door back then asking if you were a single parent and if you were married or divorced like they did AFTER 1950. They just counted the number of divorce papers that had been granted and were still on file.
Lower divorce rates pre 1950 simply DO NOT equate to more successful marriages.
The fact that people weren't tracked with social security numbers like they are now, meant that men didn't have to spend the time, expense or embarrassment of going through a divorce. They could just LEAVE their families and start over somewhere else with absolutely no record being left behind. Further, men were considered legal head of the household so even if a woman was allowed to file for a divorce, it was unlike it would be granted until the judge had heard from the husband.
On top of that, having the money to file for a divorce simply wasn't an option available to many women then.
This cake is a lie people.
Marriages failed in the past just as often as they do now ... back in "the good old days" there was just less "official" divorce and more people living in their own personal hell with no hope of escape.
Final thought (for now)
Here is the most important point I would make.
Homosexuality is not some fad. Just because you deny them the right to have their unions recognized as a "legal" marriage, does not mean that they will just give-up and go away.
I don't know how many people we are talking about here but it is has proven to be a rather substantial economic and voting block. These are your neighbors, doctors, lawyers, teachers, public officials and even clergy and like it or not, society has already begun changing to fit them in. Yet, how all of this "fitting in" turns out is still very much up in the air.
If those representing "gay marriage opposition" want to have any say in how this "fitting in" will occur it is time for them to stop pretending that this will all just blow over.
"Society" is not something carved in stone. It is liquid. Sometimes a raging river, sometimes a peaceful spring but always moving. Things are going to change. They always have and they always will. Those that oppose gay rights and gay marriage would be doing themselves and the whole of society a great service if they would uncover their eyes and ears and step up to help find some middle-ground.
It is time to start behaving like responsible adults and start working together to ease society through this change rather then acting like frighten children, being dragged kicking and screaming into an inevitable future.
I don't know what the solution to this conflict is but I do know that if you don't join in to help shape the solution you shouldn't expect the outcome to be anything you like.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
My message to Republicans
Like everyone else in this country (and apparently the world) I'll have a lot to say about this election but I wanted to start with this.
As an Obama supporter (I am not a Democrat) I have heard a lot of spin doctors tell you Republican's what I want to do to you. Well, hopefully the noise has died down enough now that you might be able to hear ME tell you what I hope your future holds.
I wish for you, increased economic prosperity and a renewed and strengthened national security.
I hope to see our government reinstate freedoms you had 8 years ago and to see them leave you alone to worship, love and marry as you see fit.
That's it. No malice. No vengeance.
So, you may still think that President Elect Obama's ideas will not achieve these goals but you shouldn't feel any persecution. I simply want better times for every American and I'd hope you would now be pulling for the same outcome.
As an Obama supporter (I am not a Democrat) I have heard a lot of spin doctors tell you Republican's what I want to do to you. Well, hopefully the noise has died down enough now that you might be able to hear ME tell you what I hope your future holds.
I wish for you, increased economic prosperity and a renewed and strengthened national security.
I hope to see our government reinstate freedoms you had 8 years ago and to see them leave you alone to worship, love and marry as you see fit.
That's it. No malice. No vengeance.
So, you may still think that President Elect Obama's ideas will not achieve these goals but you shouldn't feel any persecution. I simply want better times for every American and I'd hope you would now be pulling for the same outcome.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Modern Day Gangsters
Hedge Funds - these are companies that take their investors money and use it to "sell short". That is, to place bets that a companies stock price will go down.
However, they are not required to say which companies they have shorted. The result is that they can massively short a company and regular investors won't know that this is what is happening. All they will know is that suddenly there is a LOT of negative sentiment about that company ... this causes THEM to sell (or buy shorts of there own) and further drives the price down.
... but wait, it get's better!
These hedge funds were allowed to short a company like Lehman Brothers (now out of business) and then buy insurance on them - betting that the company wouldn't be able to meet it's financial obligations.
The Securities and Exchange commission allowed these hedge funds to buy over 300 Billion dollars worth of insurance on the 100 Billion in debt that Lehman brothers had.
So here is the summary.
The Hedge funds made big bets that Lehman Brother's price would go down.
Then these funds were allowed to buy insurance (more then 3 times what they were worth) that paid them if Lehman Brothers got in financial trouble. Then the funds actively started rumors that Lehman was in trouble because the were so heavily shorted. This caused the companies to be downgraded by financial analysts. Which increased the stocks downward spiral and resulted in a capital problem at Lehman that kept them from meeting there debt and ran them out of business.
You get to pick up the tab.
So it seems that a major percentage of these more then 300 Billion in insurance policies that hedge funds were allowed (by the government) to take out against Lehman Bros. ... were written by AIG.
Since then the Government (our tax dollars) has stepped in and bailed out AIG, becoming part owners of that company.
So on Oct. 21st, you and I will have to pay these hedge funds the 300 Billion dollars worth of insurance policies they placed on 100 Billion in assets that they themselves then destroyed when they made a killing on there "short sells" of the company.
All of this was legal and had the blessing of lawmakers who are STILL screaming that "DEregulation" of the financial industry is the key to success.
Theirs perhaps ... but certainly NOT this country's.
However, they are not required to say which companies they have shorted. The result is that they can massively short a company and regular investors won't know that this is what is happening. All they will know is that suddenly there is a LOT of negative sentiment about that company ... this causes THEM to sell (or buy shorts of there own) and further drives the price down.
... but wait, it get's better!
These hedge funds were allowed to short a company like Lehman Brothers (now out of business) and then buy insurance on them - betting that the company wouldn't be able to meet it's financial obligations.
The Securities and Exchange commission allowed these hedge funds to buy over 300 Billion dollars worth of insurance on the 100 Billion in debt that Lehman brothers had.
So here is the summary.
The Hedge funds made big bets that Lehman Brother's price would go down.
Then these funds were allowed to buy insurance (more then 3 times what they were worth) that paid them if Lehman Brothers got in financial trouble. Then the funds actively started rumors that Lehman was in trouble because the were so heavily shorted. This caused the companies to be downgraded by financial analysts. Which increased the stocks downward spiral and resulted in a capital problem at Lehman that kept them from meeting there debt and ran them out of business.
You get to pick up the tab.
So it seems that a major percentage of these more then 300 Billion in insurance policies that hedge funds were allowed (by the government) to take out against Lehman Bros. ... were written by AIG.
Since then the Government (our tax dollars) has stepped in and bailed out AIG, becoming part owners of that company.
So on Oct. 21st, you and I will have to pay these hedge funds the 300 Billion dollars worth of insurance policies they placed on 100 Billion in assets that they themselves then destroyed when they made a killing on there "short sells" of the company.
All of this was legal and had the blessing of lawmakers who are STILL screaming that "DEregulation" of the financial industry is the key to success.
Theirs perhaps ... but certainly NOT this country's.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Scare Tactics - does this seem familure?
Once again, reasonable America (the "middle" majority), is left wondering why the two candidates can't simply run on their ideas. Why can't they just present their plans and let us pick the one we like?
If you believe the economy is best served by giving tax breaks to Corporations with the idea that they might in turn share some of that with the bulk of the public ... then say so and be proud of your stance.
If you believe the economy is best served by giving the tax cuts directly to the bulk of the public so that they have the money to go and BUY those corporation's products ... then make THAT point and let the public decided which plan they like the best.
What McCain is doing instead, is attempting to resuscitate the threadbare narrative which holds that Obama, by merit of color and heritage, is something foreign, something scary, something not of us.
While speakers at McCain rallies have taken once again to chanting Obama's middle name -- Hussein, Gov. Sarah Palin has been, accusing Obama of ''palling around'' with terrorists. The senator maliciously told an audience that Obama doesn't like the troops and doesn't see America ''the way you and I see America.'' McCain himself has been muttering ''Who is the real Barack Obama?'
That many McCain supporters embrace such words (and deeds?) is plain from the racial invective, death threats and visceral anger of his recent rallies. Enough that the senator was required -- to a chorus of boos -- to ask them to dial it down.
It's an offensive argument, yes. But in a nation such as ours that has been subjected to 8 years of planned divisiveness and incessant fear mongering from it's ruling party, it is also a dangerous one.
If you believe the economy is best served by giving tax breaks to Corporations with the idea that they might in turn share some of that with the bulk of the public ... then say so and be proud of your stance.
If you believe the economy is best served by giving the tax cuts directly to the bulk of the public so that they have the money to go and BUY those corporation's products ... then make THAT point and let the public decided which plan they like the best.
What McCain is doing instead, is attempting to resuscitate the threadbare narrative which holds that Obama, by merit of color and heritage, is something foreign, something scary, something not of us.
While speakers at McCain rallies have taken once again to chanting Obama's middle name -- Hussein, Gov. Sarah Palin has been, accusing Obama of ''palling around'' with terrorists. The senator maliciously told an audience that Obama doesn't like the troops and doesn't see America ''the way you and I see America.'' McCain himself has been muttering ''Who is the real Barack Obama?'
That many McCain supporters embrace such words (and deeds?) is plain from the racial invective, death threats and visceral anger of his recent rallies. Enough that the senator was required -- to a chorus of boos -- to ask them to dial it down.
It's an offensive argument, yes. But in a nation such as ours that has been subjected to 8 years of planned divisiveness and incessant fear mongering from it's ruling party, it is also a dangerous one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)