I am sure that many of you have seen the new reports of the Goldman Sachs SEC suit. It is embarrassing to be an American when situations like this occur at the highest levels of our financial community and government.
Goldman Sachs is accused of conspiring with an investor to defraud investors in a mortgage investment securities scam. They created the fund from hand-picked mortgages and then sold shares in the fund as you would normally do. The problem is that the primary creator of this fund (Paulson) immediately began to sell the fund short and to bet on its losing value. Are we really stupid enough to buy their arguments that they did not find this behavior to be odd or highly unethical? At no time did they tell the investors that the instigator of the fund was betting against their success.
Goldman faces tough questions over SEC suit (CNN)
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/20/news/companies/goldman_sachs_results/
Don’t you just want to scream sometimes? These are the same people that we just bailed out because they were too big to fail. To look at the overall economy versus how those bailed out banks are doing, makes you wonder if anyone at the highest levels really cares for the rest of us. These banks are back to paying themselves billions of dollars in bonuses while we hover at 10% unemployment and the prospects for a meaningful recovery appear dim for at least the next year. The banks are now charging 30% interest on credit cards when their borrowing rate from the Federal Reserve is under 1%. They now charge fees for having virtually any contact with them. The banks have made no bones about the fact that they are raising money as fast as they can to pay back the bailout money so that they can go back to paying their people whatever they want. Is it just me or did they miss the whole point of collapse?
It is discouraging to look around you and see that greed and avarice has been allowed to become institutionalized in this way. They made bad decisions with our money, wrecked the economy, got bailed out, and are now preparing to move on like it never happened. It is too bad the millions of people out of work right now and others taking pay cuts don’t have someone to bail them out. If they had taken the money they spent on the bailouts and funneled it to better unemployment benefits and job training, and let those banks fail as they should have, there would have been a terrible lesson for them, and something would have been learned. Instead they are back to their same old tricks and gouging the average person with outrageous interest rates and fees.
It is indeed shameful that so many have been made to suffer by the bad decisions of so few people, and that those very people, that caused so much harm are once again living the high life. Have we indeed lost our minds?
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Let's Talk about China for a minute
Is anybody else becoming concerned about China's ability to bully the US? The most recent example involves the intentional under-valuing of Chinese currency against the dollar. The CNN article is here -
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/04/04/us.china.treasury/index.html
Over the past few years the US has been subjected to toxic toys tainted with all kinds of carcinogenic substances, drywall made from sulfur, toxic dog food, tainted pharmaceuticals, etc. Does anyone really believe that they didn’t know that the toys had lead paint or that their drugs were not made according to the FDA standards? The Chinese believe that they can spoon feed us crap and we will just eat it. We don’t even call them out on it. This president just meekly sits by and lets them continue to do us from behind. Obama sure has changed the view of the US in the eyes of the world. Now apparently we will take whatever crap is laid before us and eat it happily. I hope by November enough people come to realize the disaster that this administration represents and move to retake the congress.
This latest affront involves a concerted effort by the Chinese Central Bank to undervalue the Chinese currency. The real effect of this move is to hamper any recovery by the US economy and cost us jobs. A free market economy REQUIRES a currency that also is market driven. This is economic warfare. The Chinese are pumping our country full of toxic products and attacking our economy. When do we wake up and defend ourselves?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/04/04/us.china.treasury/index.html
Over the past few years the US has been subjected to toxic toys tainted with all kinds of carcinogenic substances, drywall made from sulfur, toxic dog food, tainted pharmaceuticals, etc. Does anyone really believe that they didn’t know that the toys had lead paint or that their drugs were not made according to the FDA standards? The Chinese believe that they can spoon feed us crap and we will just eat it. We don’t even call them out on it. This president just meekly sits by and lets them continue to do us from behind. Obama sure has changed the view of the US in the eyes of the world. Now apparently we will take whatever crap is laid before us and eat it happily. I hope by November enough people come to realize the disaster that this administration represents and move to retake the congress.
This latest affront involves a concerted effort by the Chinese Central Bank to undervalue the Chinese currency. The real effect of this move is to hamper any recovery by the US economy and cost us jobs. A free market economy REQUIRES a currency that also is market driven. This is economic warfare. The Chinese are pumping our country full of toxic products and attacking our economy. When do we wake up and defend ourselves?
Alabama Prom News Item
I was just reading the article from CNN about the high school senior that was suspended for not meeting the dress code for her senior prom. Here is the link - http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/04/01/dnt.suspended.over.prom.dress.wbrc?iref=allsearch
My problem continues to be - Why does this crap make the news? The implication from CNN is that there is something wrong here that made this "news worthy." The horror and disbelief that a high school senior would be suspended for three days just for violating the dress code at the prom. What a load of crap. The students were told not once, not twice, but three times about the dress code and what the consequences would be if they violated the code. Simple stuff like no cleavage and the dress needs to be no higher that six inches above the knee. Not exactly draconian.
Why did CNN choose to air this piece? Eighteen students were denied entry due to dress code violations, but they chose other punishments. The local community defined an acceptable standard of dress for this school and community sponsored event. Had the article been about the stupidity of our over-indulged and under-parented kids I could understand it. The problem is that a national news agency chose to air a piece that implied some kind of wrong-doing on the part of the school. The local people have the right to impose a set of rules concerning public events. CNN should stick to reporting news and stop trying to create controversy. Maybe they could take some more time to report on the abject failure of the Obama administration to do anything meaningful to help the people of this country rather than borrowing from our children to reward their cronies.
I was just reading the article from CNN about the high school senior that was suspended for not meeting the dress code for her senior prom. Here is the link - http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/04/01/dnt.suspended.over.prom.dress.wbrc?iref=allsearch
My problem continues to be - Why does this crap make the news? The implication from CNN is that there is something wrong here that made this "news worthy." The horror and disbelief that a high school senior would be suspended for three days just for violating the dress code at the prom. What a load of crap. The students were told not once, not twice, but three times about the dress code and what the consequences would be if they violated the code. Simple stuff like no cleavage and the dress needs to be no higher that six inches above the knee. Not exactly draconian.
Why did CNN choose to air this piece? Eighteen students were denied entry due to dress code violations, but they chose other punishments. The local community defined an acceptable standard of dress for this school and community sponsored event. Had the article been about the stupidity of our over-indulged and under-parented kids I could understand it. The problem is that a national news agency chose to air a piece that implied some kind of wrong-doing on the part of the school. The local people have the right to impose a set of rules concerning public events. CNN should stick to reporting news and stop trying to create controversy. Maybe they could take some more time to report on the abject failure of the Obama administration to do anything meaningful to help the people of this country rather than borrowing from our children to reward their cronies.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
What is gay?
I have been very interested in the debate about gay rights and gay marriage. I have been particularly interested in the evolving definition of being gay. Some define it as a sexual preference. Some say it is just the way you are and were born that way. Some say it is the result of some trauma from childhood.
This is more than and intellectual exercise because it shapes the legal arguments that are presented when gay people seek "equality" in various areas. If it is is a sexual preference then we clearly see it as choice. If it is a choice, why would you get special rights because you choose to have sex with someone of the same sex. The argument that gays are born that way and it is somehow genetic is more problematic because that has not been proven in any way and there is still the question of "so what?".
We use terms like heterosexual, homosexual, and asexual to describe our inclinations towards sex. Sex is a powerful motivator. One only has to watch the news for a few minutes to see somebody somewhere involved in a sexual scandal. The problem is that these descriptions involve our behavior, not who we are. Our sexual proclivities do not define us in the way that race, gender, and age do. None of the normal protected classes involve any type of behavior that defines the group. You can not be considered gay unless you are sexually attracted to members of thre same sex, therefore that is the defining attribute.
No other group in history has been given rights based strictly on their behavior. This is a very slippery slope indeed. If you start to define peoples legal rights solely based on their desire to have sex with a particular group we will be in bigger trouble than we already are. I personally don't care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes. I do, however, object to anyone seeking special rights simply because they choose to define themselves differently in sexual terms. I also believe that I have the rigtht to disagree with any behavior I find objectionable.
This is more than and intellectual exercise because it shapes the legal arguments that are presented when gay people seek "equality" in various areas. If it is is a sexual preference then we clearly see it as choice. If it is a choice, why would you get special rights because you choose to have sex with someone of the same sex. The argument that gays are born that way and it is somehow genetic is more problematic because that has not been proven in any way and there is still the question of "so what?".
We use terms like heterosexual, homosexual, and asexual to describe our inclinations towards sex. Sex is a powerful motivator. One only has to watch the news for a few minutes to see somebody somewhere involved in a sexual scandal. The problem is that these descriptions involve our behavior, not who we are. Our sexual proclivities do not define us in the way that race, gender, and age do. None of the normal protected classes involve any type of behavior that defines the group. You can not be considered gay unless you are sexually attracted to members of thre same sex, therefore that is the defining attribute.
No other group in history has been given rights based strictly on their behavior. This is a very slippery slope indeed. If you start to define peoples legal rights solely based on their desire to have sex with a particular group we will be in bigger trouble than we already are. I personally don't care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes. I do, however, object to anyone seeking special rights simply because they choose to define themselves differently in sexual terms. I also believe that I have the rigtht to disagree with any behavior I find objectionable.
Misunderstanding Homophobia
I have to chuckle every time I see the gay community refer to all of the nasty homophobes out there. How many people out there are actually AFRAID of homosexuals? Gays seem to be such a misunderstood group. They seem to just want to get along and be left alone. NOT.
If you don't read the comments posted on many of the articles about gay rights and gay marriage then you should. The vitriol spewed is amazing and vicious. Anyone that does not agree with the gay position is bigoted and promoting hate. How ridiculous is that. When did the rest of us lose our right to disagree? Do we not have the same right to try to prevent the promotion of behavior we find objectionable as they do to promote it?
People who use terms like bigotry and hate are trying to take the moral high-ground in an argument, but the very people that use those arguments about gay rights deride anyone that disagrees on moral grounds. Am I just missing something here? You can argue for something on moral grounds such as bigotry and hate but the other side's moral arguments are not valid. I guess I am still missing something
In America, a debate should be held and then the people should decide.
If you don't read the comments posted on many of the articles about gay rights and gay marriage then you should. The vitriol spewed is amazing and vicious. Anyone that does not agree with the gay position is bigoted and promoting hate. How ridiculous is that. When did the rest of us lose our right to disagree? Do we not have the same right to try to prevent the promotion of behavior we find objectionable as they do to promote it?
People who use terms like bigotry and hate are trying to take the moral high-ground in an argument, but the very people that use those arguments about gay rights deride anyone that disagrees on moral grounds. Am I just missing something here? You can argue for something on moral grounds such as bigotry and hate but the other side's moral arguments are not valid. I guess I am still missing something
In America, a debate should be held and then the people should decide.
Obama does it again - There's oil in them there hills
Yesterday Obama announced that we would start drilling for oil in previously closed areas. I laugh every time I see him reversing his position on yet another issue. The poor guy is either incredibly naive, not too bright, or a consumate liar. From the day he took office he has been backtracking on his campaign promises. Gitmo is still open, we have expanded the war in Afghanistan, no US court trials for the terrorists, etc., etc.
The job is a little more complicated than maybe he thought given his vast amount of experience before taking office. I wonder when the puppet strings of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will begin to chafe?
The job is a little more complicated than maybe he thought given his vast amount of experience before taking office. I wonder when the puppet strings of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will begin to chafe?
About the Mississipi Prom cancellation
I just read the CNN article about the judge's ruling on the MS prom issue. I have to ask have we lost our minds? Why does a judge get to decide what we choose to do locally at a school?
The gist of the ruling was that her civil rights had been violated by the dress code but that the school had the right to cancel the prom. Why are we even having this discussion? We can't even have a dress code any more? If you don't agree with the dress code then don't go to the prom.
These people decided to cancel their prom rather than have an openly gay couple in attendance with one of them wearing a man's tuxedo. Why can't they do this? Why can't the local people decide that they do not want to be subjected to behavior they find objectionable? There are dozens of laws on the books concerning objectionable behavior. The people and their elected representatives get to decide what is objectionable. There is no spitting on the sidewalk or crude language in public. Why are those laws ok, but people flaunting sexual behavior that many find objectionable is not?
We do not need a judge to tell us what is or is not objectionable, we get to decide that for ourselves. In 2004 MS passed an ammendment banning gay marriage and gays are not considered a class by the government. Why are we even having this discussion?
The gist of the ruling was that her civil rights had been violated by the dress code but that the school had the right to cancel the prom. Why are we even having this discussion? We can't even have a dress code any more? If you don't agree with the dress code then don't go to the prom.
These people decided to cancel their prom rather than have an openly gay couple in attendance with one of them wearing a man's tuxedo. Why can't they do this? Why can't the local people decide that they do not want to be subjected to behavior they find objectionable? There are dozens of laws on the books concerning objectionable behavior. The people and their elected representatives get to decide what is objectionable. There is no spitting on the sidewalk or crude language in public. Why are those laws ok, but people flaunting sexual behavior that many find objectionable is not?
We do not need a judge to tell us what is or is not objectionable, we get to decide that for ourselves. In 2004 MS passed an ammendment banning gay marriage and gays are not considered a class by the government. Why are we even having this discussion?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)