Michael Phelps was caught kissing a bong. I say 'kissing a bong' because that's all the picture of him smoking actually shows, and even then it's questionable if it's actually him. Doesn't really make much difference, as he did admit it was him and has issued his apology. So far, he's lost a sponsorship and won a three-month suspension. The local sheriff is under pressure to bring charges as if Phelps were just any other man.
So, we can add Michael Phelps, fourteen time Olympic Gold Medal winner, to the list of millions of political victims of the United States Federal Government's War on Personal Freedom. What's interesting is that we cannot add the names William J Clinton, George W Bush, or Barack H Obama to that list. Yes, those are the names of the three previous presidents of the United States. Which means that the three of the men tasked by the Constitution, and the people, to enforce the laws of the United States have broken those laws. Not only were these men not punished, but eventually were rewarded by reaching the highest level of elected office in this country. President Bush didn't admit to his actions, though the evidence is enough to state he did it, but both Presidents Clinton and Obama admitted to it before their election. Not only do we have these three men, but scores of current and previous members of Congress, and at least 40% of the American public have admitted to smoking the ganja at least once.
Despite his actions, President Obama has made no indication that he intends to address the problem that is America's War on Personal Freedom. In case it's not clear, I will not use the euphemistic War on Drugs to address America's unconstitutional drug policies. In this country, even though it is not currently in effect, the American government can pull anyone over the age of 18, press them into uniform, and send them to fight, kill, or die in the name of the government. Yet, we cannot be trusted with the substances we can put within our own bodies? Or to act responsibly? Are we adults, or are we children?
There are several arguments against the War on Personal Freedom. To address my chosen moniker, I will start with the philosophical. Obviously I believe that this country is supposed to be about freedom. It says so in our founding documents, it's a common theme in our political debates, and in most of our patriotic songs we hear it mentioned. Yet, our government seems to feel that freedom should not include the recreational use of particular substances. Currently, the number of deaths caused by illegal drug overdose is less than 14,000 per year. While it is possible to argue that this number could be raised if currently illegal drugs were made legal, the real question becomes how many could this be, and what is the cost of avoid them?
Take a look a this report of the number of deaths from drug overdose in Belgium, where most drugs illegal here in America are freely available. It tops out just under 140 deaths in 1994. In 1994, there were just over ten million people in Belgium, so total deaths are 0.00014% of the population per year. If we apply that to America's current population of just over three hundred million people, we get around 42,000. This may seem like a large number of people, but it's still barely more than one thousandth of one percent of the people in this country, and would account for 1.7% of the 2,431,351 deaths that would occur if these drugs were legal (this result comes from this report and adding the 28,000 difference between current and possible overdose deaths). So, that's roughly 28,000 people possibly saved by the War on Personal Freedom, but what are the costs?
For now, I am going to stick with the philosophical, but I will be going into the economic, diplomatic, and other costs later. The philosophical costs are pretty straight forward. Consider the story of Kathryn Johnston. This 92 year old Atlanta woman was killed in an illegal drug raid in 2006. Or the story of Tarika Wilson and her toddler son. Tarika was killed in a questionable drug raid and her young son was wounded. Stories like these abound throughout the United States, people killed, maimed, and tortured because our police and our courts will do anything for a drug bust. Half a million people rotting in jail for non-violent drug offenses. Time again to return to Franklin's quote about security and freedom. How much of either did Kathryn and Tarika have? What about Tarika's young son? It should be important to point out, if you didn't read the article in question, that Katrhyn Johnston broke no laws, not even drug laws. This is the philosophical cost of America's War on Personal Freedom, the death of innocents and the loss of all of our freedom.
Now for my Socratic argument. Think on these things and see to what truths they lead you. If we are conducting a 'War on Drugs', against whom do we fight? It can't be the drugs, they are not people and can have no individual motivation. While it's called a war, it is conducted by the policing agencies of the federal, state, and local governments, so the enemy cannot be a foreign nation. Who are the victims in this war? What about collateral damage?
To the legal argument against this war. When the Constitution was written, it was written as a list of clearly enumerated rights provided to the government. This was the concept that was supposed to be written into the tenth amendment to protect future generations against government expansion. While successive Supreme Courts have ignored this particular prevision to the benefit of themselves and the Federal Government, it still hold legal weight. I have written previously that America is supposed to be about self-governance, and that the legal structure of the United States is supposed to support this. Read carefully over the Constitution. You will find no mention of Congress having the right to ban any product out right. Indeed, consider the Nineteenth Amendment. It bans the production, distribution, and sale of alcohol. If Congress had the power to ban any product it chose, why the need for such an amendment? Because Congress does not have this power. And any power not provided to the Congress is held by the States and the People there-in.
As the legal argument is so straight-froward, I'll move on the economic. For an up to the minute cost, feel free to see this link. At time of this writing, the combined monies in the War on Personal Freedom total over five billion. Yeah, we're barely over a month into 2009 and already our governments have spent five billion dollars fighting this war. If spending continues, the cost in 2009 will be more than sixty billion. This doesn't include the costs of pushing a multi-billion dollar industry into the hands of criminals and generally out of our economy.
This is the important part of the economic argument. Black markets exist outside the white markets that make up an economy. How much is estimated for the value of this trade? Some estimates have been as high as half a trillion dollars world wide, though around $300 billion is more accurate. American's alone spent nearly fifty billion dollars (additional statistics sited here on that site) on drugs in 2000. So, not only is the United States going to spend $60 billion dollars on its true illegal war, but it's going to allow the possible tax income on an additional $60 billion go because of it.
What else could this large sum provide in the real economy? Wealth begets wealth. Any business reinvests in itself, allowing for a more productive work-force and economy. The secondary costs of this war cannot be estimated. There is no way to tell what could be earned if the profits of the drug trade were in the legal economy and could be reinvested and set to work like the profits of all other products.
Then there are the human costs. I've discussed some of them previously, but now I'm going to talk about the secondary costs. Consider this: In Los Angeles alone there were 587 gang related homicides in 2001. One third of these victims are generally non-gang related, or innocent bystanders. These would be the 'collateral damage' of America's War on Personal Freedom. Gangs are supported by the money of illicit drug trafficking (and other crime). If drugs were made legal, the funds which support these gangs would dry up, and the gangs themselves would become much less of a threat. Without the money provided by the drug trade, they would lose the ability to purchase weapons, bribe officials, and engage in other crimes. While I am not trying to argue that gangs would go away entirely, they would loose a great deal of their power and with it, the threat would be reduced.
Our illegal drug war doesn't just cost Americans. It effects our relations with the world, our neighbors, and our relations with them. Mexico is currently the hardest hit by this. Drug traffickers use the country as a staging point to smuggle their product into the US. These drug cartels are in open war against the Mexican government, and all actions taken by that government do not steam the tide. These cartels engage in kidnapping, extortion, and other crimes to support their main business; the distribution of drugs. Mexico isn't the only casualty. Operation Just Cause in 1989 against Panama to remove Manuel Noriega was part of our War on Personal Freedom, as Noriega had financed his actions through the trade of cocaine. Columbia has only in the past decade managed to fight down the drug cartels into a manageable threat, and the cost of thousands of lives. Even today, our brave solders fight the Taliban and others in Afghanistan who are financed by the production and selling of poppies for heron production.
After an exhausting search, the only answer I can find for the number of deaths by gang-related violence in the US as whole in 2007 was 15,000. That's sixty billion dollars spent here, increased violence in other countries, complications in the War on Terror and other diplomatic problems, lost tax revenue, and lost freedom for all Americans. And for what? So that people can die by others' violent actions rather than their own folly.
I do not advocate the recreational use of any drugs, legal or illegal. At no point should any of my arguments be construed such as to suggest that people should use these substances for any reason. However, in the light of the costs and the possible benefits, especially the cost in American freedom and safety from inappropriate government action, how can anyone continue to call the War on Personal Freedom anything but what it is?
To our so-called leaders: We are adults. Treat us as such and stop this costly and illegal war.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Michael Phelps was caught kissing a bong. I say 'kissing a bong' because that's all the picture of him smoking actually shows, and even then it's questionable if it's actually him. Doesn't really make much difference, as he did admit it was him and has issued his apology. So far, he's lost a sponsorship and won a three-month suspension. The local sheriff is under pressure to bring charges as if Phelps were just any other man.
So, we can add Michael Phelps, fourteen time Olympic Gold Medal winner, to the list of some half-million political victims of the United States Federal Government's War on Personal Freedom. What's interesting is that we cannot add the names William J Clinton, George W Bush, or Barack H Obama to that list. Yes, those are the names of the three previous presidents of the United States. Which means that the three of the men tasked by the Constitution, and the people, to enforce the laws of the United States have broken those laws. Not only were these men not punished, but eventually were rewarded by reaching the highest level of elected office in this country. President Bush didn't admit to his actions, though the evidence is enough to state he did it, but both Presidents Clinton and Obama admitted to it before their election. Not only do we have these three men, but scores of current and previous members of Congress, and at least 40% of the American public have admitted to smoking the ganja at least once.
Despite his actions, President Obama has made no indication that he intends to address the problem that is America's War on Personal Freedom. In case it's not clear, I will not use the euphemistic War on Drugs to address America's unconstitutional drug policies. In this country, even though it is not currently in effect, the American government can pull anyone over the age of 18, press them into uniform, and send them to fight, kill, or die in the name of the government. Yet, we cannot be trusted with the substances we can put within our own bodies? Or to act responsibly? Are we adults, or are we children?
There are several arguments against the War on Personal Freedom. To address my chosen moniker, I will start with the philosophical. Obviously I believe that this country is supposed to be about freedom. It says so in our founding documents, it's a common theme in our political debates, and in most of our patriotic songs we hear it mentioned. Yet, our government seems to feel that freedom should not include the recreational use of particular substances. Currently, the number of deaths caused by illegal drug overdose is less than 14,000 per year (Using . While it is possible to argue that this number could be raised if currently illegal drugs were made legal, the real question becomes how many could this be, and what is the cost of avoid them?
Take a look a this report of the number of deaths from drug overdose in Belgium, where most drugs illegal here in America are freely available. It tops out just under 140 deaths in 1994. In 1994, there were just over ten million people in Belgium, so total deaths are 0.00014% of the population per year. If we apply that to America's current population of just over three hundred million people, we get around 42,000. This may seem like a large number of people, but it's still barely more than one ten-thousandth of one percent of the people in this country, and would account for 1.7% of the 2,431,351 deaths that would occur if these drugs were legal (this result comes from this report and adding the 28,000 difference between current and possible overdose deaths). So, that's roughly 28,000 people possibly saved by the War on Personal Freedom, but what are the costs?
For now, I am going to stick with the philosophical, but I will be going into the economic, diplomatic, and other costs later. The philosophical costs are pretty straight forward. Consider the story of Kathryn Johnston. This 92 year old Atlanta woman was killed in an illegal drug raid in 2006. Or the story of Tarika Wilson and her toddler son. Tarika was killed in a questionable drug raid and her young son was wounded. Stories like these abound throughout the United States, people killed, maimed, and tortured because our police and our courts will do anything for a drug bust. Half a million people rotting in jail for non-violent drug offenses. Time again to return to Franklin's quote about security and freedom. How much of either did Kathryn and Tarika have? What about Tarika's young son? It should be important to point out, if you didn't read the article in question, that Katrhyn Johnston broke no laws, not even drug laws. This is the philosophical cost of America's War on Personal Freedom, the death of innocents and the loss of all of our freedom.
Now for my Socratic argument. Think on these things and see to what truths they lead you. If we are conducting a 'War on Drugs', against whom do we fight? It can't be the drugs, they are not people and can have no individual motivation. While it's called a war, it is conducted by the policing agencies of the federal, state, and local governments, so the enemy cannot be a foreign nation. Who are the victims in this war? What about collateral damage?
To the legal argument against this war. When the Constitution was written, it was written as a list of clearly enumerated rights provided to the government. This was the concept that was supposed to be written into the tenth amendment to protect future generations against government expansion. While successive Supreme Courts have ignored this particular prevision to the benefit of themselves and the Federal Government, it still hold legal weight. I have written previously that America is supposed to be about self-governance, and that the legal structure of the United States is supposed to support this. Read carefully over the Constitution. You will find no mention of Congress having the right to ban any product out right. Indeed, consider the Nineteenth Amendment. It bans the production, distribution, and sale of alcohol. If Congress had the power to ban any product it chose, why the need for such an amendment? Because Congress does not have this power. And any power not provided to the Congress is held by the States and the People there-in.
As the legal argument is so straight-froward, I'll move on the economic. For an up to the minute cost, feel free to see this link. At time of this writing, the combined monies in the War on Personal Freedom total over five billion. Yeah, we're barely over a month into 2009 and already our governments have spent five billion dollars fighting this war. If spending continues, the cost in 2009 will be more than sixty billion. This doesn't include the costs of pushing a multi-billion dollar industry into the hands of criminals and generally out of our economy.
This is the important part of the economic argument. Black markets exist outside the white markets that make up an economy. How much is estimated for the value of this trade? Some estimates have been as high as half a trillion dollars world wide, though around $300 billion is more accurate. American's alone spent nearly fifty billion dollars (additional statistics sited here on that site) on drugs in 2000. So, not only is the United States going to spend $60 billion dollars on its true illegal war, but it's going to allow the possible tax income on an additional $60 billion go because of it.
What else could this large sum provide in the real economy? Wealth begets wealth. Any business reinvests in itself, allowing for a more productive work-force and economy. The secondary costs of this war cannot be estimated. There is no way to tell what could be earned if the profits of the drug trade were in the legal economy and could be reinvested and set to work like the profits of all other products.
Then there are the human costs. I've discussed some of them previously, but now I'm going to talk about the secondary costs. Consider this: In Los Angeles alone there were 587 gang related homicides in 2001. One third of these victims are generally non-gang related, or innocent bystanders. These would be the 'collateral damage' of America's War on Personal Freedom. Gangs are supported by the money of illicit drug trafficking (and other crime). If drugs were made legal, the funds which support these gangs would dry up, and the gangs themselves would become much less of a threat. Without the money provided by the drug trade, they would lose the ability to purchase weapons, bribe officials, and engage in other crimes. While I am not trying to argue that gangs would go away entirely, they would loose a great deal of their power and with it, the threat would be reduced.
Our illegal drug war doesn't just cost Americans. It effects our relations with the world, our neighbors, and our relations with them. Mexico is currently the hardest hit by this. Drug traffickers use the country as a staging point to smuggle their product into the US. These drug cartels are in open war against the Mexican government, and all actions taken by that government do not steam the tide. These cartels engage in kidnapping, extortion, and other crimes to support their main business; the distribution of drugs. Mexico isn't the only casualty. Operation Just Cause in 1989 against Panama to remove Manuel Noriega was part of our War on Personal Freedom, as Noriega had financed his actions through the trade of cocaine. Columbia has only in the past decade managed to fight down the drug cartels into a manageable threat, and the cost of thousands of lives. Even today, our brave solders fight the Taliban and others in Afghanistan who are financed by the production and selling of poppies for heron production.
After an exhausting search, the only answer I can find for the number of deaths by gang-related violence in the US as whole in 2007 was 15,000. That's three thousand more than my estimate of the number saved by this illegal war. That's sixty billion dollars spent here, increased violence in other countries, complications in the War on Terror and other diplomatic problems, lost tax revenue, and lost freedom for all Americans. And for what? So that people can die by others' violent actions rather than their own folly.
I do not advocate the recreational use of any drugs, legal or illegal. At no point should any of my arguments be construed such as to suggest that people should use these substances for any reason. However, in the light of the costs and the possible benefits, especially the cost in American freedom and safety from inappropriate government action, how can anyone continue to call the War on Personal Freedom anything but what it is?
To our so-called leaders: We are adults. Treat us as such and stop this costly and illegal war.
So, we can add Michael Phelps, fourteen time Olympic Gold Medal winner, to the list of some half-million political victims of the United States Federal Government's War on Personal Freedom. What's interesting is that we cannot add the names William J Clinton, George W Bush, or Barack H Obama to that list. Yes, those are the names of the three previous presidents of the United States. Which means that the three of the men tasked by the Constitution, and the people, to enforce the laws of the United States have broken those laws. Not only were these men not punished, but eventually were rewarded by reaching the highest level of elected office in this country. President Bush didn't admit to his actions, though the evidence is enough to state he did it, but both Presidents Clinton and Obama admitted to it before their election. Not only do we have these three men, but scores of current and previous members of Congress, and at least 40% of the American public have admitted to smoking the ganja at least once.
Despite his actions, President Obama has made no indication that he intends to address the problem that is America's War on Personal Freedom. In case it's not clear, I will not use the euphemistic War on Drugs to address America's unconstitutional drug policies. In this country, even though it is not currently in effect, the American government can pull anyone over the age of 18, press them into uniform, and send them to fight, kill, or die in the name of the government. Yet, we cannot be trusted with the substances we can put within our own bodies? Or to act responsibly? Are we adults, or are we children?
There are several arguments against the War on Personal Freedom. To address my chosen moniker, I will start with the philosophical. Obviously I believe that this country is supposed to be about freedom. It says so in our founding documents, it's a common theme in our political debates, and in most of our patriotic songs we hear it mentioned. Yet, our government seems to feel that freedom should not include the recreational use of particular substances. Currently, the number of deaths caused by illegal drug overdose is less than 14,000 per year (Using . While it is possible to argue that this number could be raised if currently illegal drugs were made legal, the real question becomes how many could this be, and what is the cost of avoid them?
Take a look a this report of the number of deaths from drug overdose in Belgium, where most drugs illegal here in America are freely available. It tops out just under 140 deaths in 1994. In 1994, there were just over ten million people in Belgium, so total deaths are 0.00014% of the population per year. If we apply that to America's current population of just over three hundred million people, we get around 42,000. This may seem like a large number of people, but it's still barely more than one ten-thousandth of one percent of the people in this country, and would account for 1.7% of the 2,431,351 deaths that would occur if these drugs were legal (this result comes from this report and adding the 28,000 difference between current and possible overdose deaths). So, that's roughly 28,000 people possibly saved by the War on Personal Freedom, but what are the costs?
For now, I am going to stick with the philosophical, but I will be going into the economic, diplomatic, and other costs later. The philosophical costs are pretty straight forward. Consider the story of Kathryn Johnston. This 92 year old Atlanta woman was killed in an illegal drug raid in 2006. Or the story of Tarika Wilson and her toddler son. Tarika was killed in a questionable drug raid and her young son was wounded. Stories like these abound throughout the United States, people killed, maimed, and tortured because our police and our courts will do anything for a drug bust. Half a million people rotting in jail for non-violent drug offenses. Time again to return to Franklin's quote about security and freedom. How much of either did Kathryn and Tarika have? What about Tarika's young son? It should be important to point out, if you didn't read the article in question, that Katrhyn Johnston broke no laws, not even drug laws. This is the philosophical cost of America's War on Personal Freedom, the death of innocents and the loss of all of our freedom.
Now for my Socratic argument. Think on these things and see to what truths they lead you. If we are conducting a 'War on Drugs', against whom do we fight? It can't be the drugs, they are not people and can have no individual motivation. While it's called a war, it is conducted by the policing agencies of the federal, state, and local governments, so the enemy cannot be a foreign nation. Who are the victims in this war? What about collateral damage?
To the legal argument against this war. When the Constitution was written, it was written as a list of clearly enumerated rights provided to the government. This was the concept that was supposed to be written into the tenth amendment to protect future generations against government expansion. While successive Supreme Courts have ignored this particular prevision to the benefit of themselves and the Federal Government, it still hold legal weight. I have written previously that America is supposed to be about self-governance, and that the legal structure of the United States is supposed to support this. Read carefully over the Constitution. You will find no mention of Congress having the right to ban any product out right. Indeed, consider the Nineteenth Amendment. It bans the production, distribution, and sale of alcohol. If Congress had the power to ban any product it chose, why the need for such an amendment? Because Congress does not have this power. And any power not provided to the Congress is held by the States and the People there-in.
As the legal argument is so straight-froward, I'll move on the economic. For an up to the minute cost, feel free to see this link. At time of this writing, the combined monies in the War on Personal Freedom total over five billion. Yeah, we're barely over a month into 2009 and already our governments have spent five billion dollars fighting this war. If spending continues, the cost in 2009 will be more than sixty billion. This doesn't include the costs of pushing a multi-billion dollar industry into the hands of criminals and generally out of our economy.
This is the important part of the economic argument. Black markets exist outside the white markets that make up an economy. How much is estimated for the value of this trade? Some estimates have been as high as half a trillion dollars world wide, though around $300 billion is more accurate. American's alone spent nearly fifty billion dollars (additional statistics sited here on that site) on drugs in 2000. So, not only is the United States going to spend $60 billion dollars on its true illegal war, but it's going to allow the possible tax income on an additional $60 billion go because of it.
What else could this large sum provide in the real economy? Wealth begets wealth. Any business reinvests in itself, allowing for a more productive work-force and economy. The secondary costs of this war cannot be estimated. There is no way to tell what could be earned if the profits of the drug trade were in the legal economy and could be reinvested and set to work like the profits of all other products.
Then there are the human costs. I've discussed some of them previously, but now I'm going to talk about the secondary costs. Consider this: In Los Angeles alone there were 587 gang related homicides in 2001. One third of these victims are generally non-gang related, or innocent bystanders. These would be the 'collateral damage' of America's War on Personal Freedom. Gangs are supported by the money of illicit drug trafficking (and other crime). If drugs were made legal, the funds which support these gangs would dry up, and the gangs themselves would become much less of a threat. Without the money provided by the drug trade, they would lose the ability to purchase weapons, bribe officials, and engage in other crimes. While I am not trying to argue that gangs would go away entirely, they would loose a great deal of their power and with it, the threat would be reduced.
Our illegal drug war doesn't just cost Americans. It effects our relations with the world, our neighbors, and our relations with them. Mexico is currently the hardest hit by this. Drug traffickers use the country as a staging point to smuggle their product into the US. These drug cartels are in open war against the Mexican government, and all actions taken by that government do not steam the tide. These cartels engage in kidnapping, extortion, and other crimes to support their main business; the distribution of drugs. Mexico isn't the only casualty. Operation Just Cause in 1989 against Panama to remove Manuel Noriega was part of our War on Personal Freedom, as Noriega had financed his actions through the trade of cocaine. Columbia has only in the past decade managed to fight down the drug cartels into a manageable threat, and the cost of thousands of lives. Even today, our brave solders fight the Taliban and others in Afghanistan who are financed by the production and selling of poppies for heron production.
After an exhausting search, the only answer I can find for the number of deaths by gang-related violence in the US as whole in 2007 was 15,000. That's three thousand more than my estimate of the number saved by this illegal war. That's sixty billion dollars spent here, increased violence in other countries, complications in the War on Terror and other diplomatic problems, lost tax revenue, and lost freedom for all Americans. And for what? So that people can die by others' violent actions rather than their own folly.
I do not advocate the recreational use of any drugs, legal or illegal. At no point should any of my arguments be construed such as to suggest that people should use these substances for any reason. However, in the light of the costs and the possible benefits, especially the cost in American freedom and safety from inappropriate government action, how can anyone continue to call the War on Personal Freedom anything but what it is?
To our so-called leaders: We are adults. Treat us as such and stop this costly and illegal war.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Serendipity
Check out this article today in the UK Guardian by Jonathan Freedland. While I may disagree with his opinion on the recent Israeli action in Gaza, it illustrates my point about the West's general treatment of Israel quite nicely.
So, thank you, Mr Freedland. You made my point very well. Though, if I may, the anti-semetism running rampant in Europe is neither new nor is it separated from the condemnation of Operation Cast Lead. I would say that the condemnation is coming from the antisemitism. The sooner you, and people like you, accept that, the sooner we might be able to talk about this situation honestly. While I'm not one to call 'racism' to defend my position, I do think that the West's treatment of Israel is the result of antisemitism. There is no defensible reason to treat Israel, and Jews in general, the way it is being treated.
And yes, I am saying the Mr. Freedland's position on Operation Cast Lead is indefensible. To condem Israel for this defensive action, to focus on the exaggerated deaths claimed by Hamas rather than the known deaths of Israelis from Hamas rocket attacks, and to claim that the recent increase in antisemitic action in England and elsewhere is a result of this action is morally wrong. That is exactly the point I was trying to make in my previous posting.
So, thank you, Mr Freedland. You made my point very well. Though, if I may, the anti-semetism running rampant in Europe is neither new nor is it separated from the condemnation of Operation Cast Lead. I would say that the condemnation is coming from the antisemitism. The sooner you, and people like you, accept that, the sooner we might be able to talk about this situation honestly. While I'm not one to call 'racism' to defend my position, I do think that the West's treatment of Israel is the result of antisemitism. There is no defensible reason to treat Israel, and Jews in general, the way it is being treated.
And yes, I am saying the Mr. Freedland's position on Operation Cast Lead is indefensible. To condem Israel for this defensive action, to focus on the exaggerated deaths claimed by Hamas rather than the known deaths of Israelis from Hamas rocket attacks, and to claim that the recent increase in antisemitic action in England and elsewhere is a result of this action is morally wrong. That is exactly the point I was trying to make in my previous posting.
Israel and Hamas
The Palestinian people have long suffered. They have had foreign invaders ruling their lands for thousands of years, starting with the Babylonians, then the Persians, then the Romans, and many more until finally the British drove the Ottomans out during the First World War and ruled until Israeli independence in1948. It is important to point out that when I say 'the Palestinian people', I refer to all the people of Palestine, not just the Muslims who have adopted the title for themselves. Understanding this history will take us a long way in understanding the desires of both the Israelis and the people now called the Palestinians.
It is the natural desire of people to rule themselves, both as individuals and as a nation. As I believe it to be the best state of Man for him to rule himself, please keep in mind that I support a free and independent Palestinian state for these people. It is what they deserve as human beings, and a goal which should be desired by all. However, this goal will not be realized until such time that Hamas and other similar organizations are discredited, unsupported, and disbanded.
Before I elaborate on this statement, I will review the modern history behind the current situation. As I said before, the Palestinian people have long suffered, and at no time is this more true than the treatment of the Islamic people we now call Palestinians during the last half of the twentieth century. If you think this a statement against Israel, please read on and see that it is not. Israel has not always acted perfectly, but they are not the source of Palestinian suffering.
While most claim that Israeli independence was granted by the UN, this is not the whole story. Hundreds of thousands of Jews emigrated to Palestine during British rule, even when Britain restricted their immigration during the 1930s due to Arabic pressures. During the Holocaust and directly after, this level of emigration increased dramatically, and the Jews of Palestine began a series of diplomatic and military actions to gain their independence. This was acknowledged by the British and the UN in 1947. It was at this time that Israel and Trans-Jordan were created to be the free lands for the Jewish and Muslim residents of the lands.
Israel granted full citizenship to its Muslim people, complete with freedom to practice their religion, keep their property, and all the rights granted to their Jewish citizens. Their Arabic neighbors did not do the same, but instead seized Jewish property, attempted forced conversions, and used other tactics to remove or drive out their Jewish residents. Their actions succeeded well and more Jewish people emigrated into the new Israel nation. There is no real evidence to suggest that the Israelis wanted anything but to live free and in peace in their ancestral homeland.
They would not have this option. In May, 1948 six different Arabic nations declared war and invaded Israel. They were supported by the Muslim citizens of Israel, many of whom provided passive or active support in the effort. They provided guidance through the country, food and logging to solders, and some even joined in active military action against the Israeli Defense Forces. Perhaps Israel was wrong, but while driving out the invaders, the swept along the Muslim citizens as well and forced them all from the country. I say perhaps they were wrong, but I do not think so. While many innocent Muslims were certainly caught by this action and forced from their homes and lands, the Israels had little choice in what they did. A new, young nation cannot always take the time to determine who exactly is a threat when it is defending itself against total destruction.
The real question is, what was the reward to the Muslim Israelis (not yet called Palestinians) who supported their Muslim brethren? They were denied citizenship in Arabic lands, forced into refugee camps, and left to rot by the Arabic governments where they were. And so here they have remained until this day, some sixty years later. As a comparison, consider the people of Tibet, driven from their homes by the Chinese into India. These refugees, with no cultural, religions, or ethnic ties to their host country, are given full rights of citizenship by the Indians.
There is also the matter of the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights. All three of these areas were captured by Israel during defensive actions against Arabic aggressive wars. While this exasperated the refugee situation, these occupations were necessary defensive actions. The Golan Heights have been returned, and Gaza was granted full independence in 2005, with all Jewish citizens forcefully removed by the Israeli government. The short-term occupation of the Sinai by Israel in the 1950s was a response to Egyptian refusal to allow shipping through the Suez Canal and was one of the few aggressive actions taken by the country. They withdrew under UN pressure, only to have Egypt again close the area to Israeli shipping. This action was later stopped due to diplomatic action.
This has been the history of Israel. Constant aggressive action by their Arabic neighbors, UN pressure against them, and being demonized by the world for the plight of what we now call the Palestinians. In less than 30 years, they fought no less than five defensive wars against multiple Arabic countries. Despite these monumental challenges, they have not only survived but they have thrived. They have managed to maintain an open, free, and prosperous society that still provides all their citizens with all the rights that we here in American consider basic. It is a diplomatic country, with freedom of speech, press, and religion. They are an egalitarian society, with women and ethnic minorities in top positions.
And what of the Palestinians? I have often said 'what we now call' in this essay, and for good reason. These Muslims had no identifier until then 1970s, when the Palestinian Liberalization Organization under Yasser Arafat began to call them Palestinians as a PR ploy. Since that time, pressure against Israel has only increased, despite everything they have done to make life better for the Palestinians.
Consider the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. After three decades of building infrastructure in the area, the Israelis left it all intact and removed all their citizens from the area. The Palestinians had roads, schools, hospitals, water and power, orchards, hydroponic farms . . . in short, everything they needed to provide for a prosperous free country. What has Hamas, supposedly in the name of these people, done with it? They indoctrinate the children to hate Jews with propaganda, terrorize their people with threats, take all their foreign aide to purchase weapons, and use the homes of innocents as launching points for their unguided rockets. They send their young men, and women, into Israel with explosives to target civilians. For more than three years and over 6,000 rocket attacks, with hundreds of deaths, the Israelis responded with diplomatic action and embargoes. They still allowed humanitarian aide to pass, but attempted to stop what weapon shipments they could. They still provided power and water to Gaza.
And when they finally did take military action, how did they do so? Was it carpet bombing and gas attacks? No, it was precision bomb attacks preceded with thousands of telephone calls and leaflets letting the innocents of Gaza know what was coming, despite the lost of strategic and tactical surprise. They have consistently chosen to use troops on the ground over air strikes to minimize civilian causalities despite the increased danger to Israeli forces. And how does the UN and the Western world respond? With more derision, a focus on the exaggerated claims of Palestinian deaths by Hamas, and a forced cease-fire agreement that Hamas violated within days.
Hamas and their fellow organizations have used the Palestinians as cannon fodder. They send their 'suicide' bombers into Israeli citizens, targeting civilians. They force their way into private homes using physical intimidation to set up their launch pads. They hide weapons and military supplies under mosques, hospitals, and apartment buildings. When the Israelis come, they use more women and children as human shields, then they cry to the world about the 'horrors' visited upon them.
When are we in the West, and especially America, going to stop playing their game? When are we going to denounce this barbarism for what it is? When are we going to tell the UN to support Israel or loose American support? We shouldn't support Israel because it is a Jewish state. Israel is nation of freedom in a land of oppression. Before the invasion of Iraq, it was the only Middle Eastern country to practice any form of democracy, to provide freedom of speech and press, equal rights to women and other minorities, and it's still the only country to provide full freedom of religion. Don't these things mean anything to us?
When are we going to acknowledged that Hamas and similar organizations are the true source of modern Palestinian suffering? When are we going to stand up together and name these organizations for the barbaric tribes of death that they are? In the past three years, the UN Human Rights council has passed more than 20 resolutions against Israel, but not a single one against Hamas, Hezbollah, or any other terrorist organization. These organizations feed their people into a meat grinder day after day while the UN and Western media organizations denounce the Israelis who have put themselves at risk to protect the innocents of their own country and the Palestinians. These actions are completely and totally unacceptable to me, and should be to any society that would call itself civilized.
Every statement that isn't my opinion in the essay is verifiable through a quick and easy Google search using key terms. Feel free to verify. I will stand beside my support of Israel and against Hamas until my last breath. If you disagree with my opinion here, I ask you only one question.
Are you proud to support Hamas?
It is the natural desire of people to rule themselves, both as individuals and as a nation. As I believe it to be the best state of Man for him to rule himself, please keep in mind that I support a free and independent Palestinian state for these people. It is what they deserve as human beings, and a goal which should be desired by all. However, this goal will not be realized until such time that Hamas and other similar organizations are discredited, unsupported, and disbanded.
Before I elaborate on this statement, I will review the modern history behind the current situation. As I said before, the Palestinian people have long suffered, and at no time is this more true than the treatment of the Islamic people we now call Palestinians during the last half of the twentieth century. If you think this a statement against Israel, please read on and see that it is not. Israel has not always acted perfectly, but they are not the source of Palestinian suffering.
While most claim that Israeli independence was granted by the UN, this is not the whole story. Hundreds of thousands of Jews emigrated to Palestine during British rule, even when Britain restricted their immigration during the 1930s due to Arabic pressures. During the Holocaust and directly after, this level of emigration increased dramatically, and the Jews of Palestine began a series of diplomatic and military actions to gain their independence. This was acknowledged by the British and the UN in 1947. It was at this time that Israel and Trans-Jordan were created to be the free lands for the Jewish and Muslim residents of the lands.
Israel granted full citizenship to its Muslim people, complete with freedom to practice their religion, keep their property, and all the rights granted to their Jewish citizens. Their Arabic neighbors did not do the same, but instead seized Jewish property, attempted forced conversions, and used other tactics to remove or drive out their Jewish residents. Their actions succeeded well and more Jewish people emigrated into the new Israel nation. There is no real evidence to suggest that the Israelis wanted anything but to live free and in peace in their ancestral homeland.
They would not have this option. In May, 1948 six different Arabic nations declared war and invaded Israel. They were supported by the Muslim citizens of Israel, many of whom provided passive or active support in the effort. They provided guidance through the country, food and logging to solders, and some even joined in active military action against the Israeli Defense Forces. Perhaps Israel was wrong, but while driving out the invaders, the swept along the Muslim citizens as well and forced them all from the country. I say perhaps they were wrong, but I do not think so. While many innocent Muslims were certainly caught by this action and forced from their homes and lands, the Israels had little choice in what they did. A new, young nation cannot always take the time to determine who exactly is a threat when it is defending itself against total destruction.
The real question is, what was the reward to the Muslim Israelis (not yet called Palestinians) who supported their Muslim brethren? They were denied citizenship in Arabic lands, forced into refugee camps, and left to rot by the Arabic governments where they were. And so here they have remained until this day, some sixty years later. As a comparison, consider the people of Tibet, driven from their homes by the Chinese into India. These refugees, with no cultural, religions, or ethnic ties to their host country, are given full rights of citizenship by the Indians.
There is also the matter of the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights. All three of these areas were captured by Israel during defensive actions against Arabic aggressive wars. While this exasperated the refugee situation, these occupations were necessary defensive actions. The Golan Heights have been returned, and Gaza was granted full independence in 2005, with all Jewish citizens forcefully removed by the Israeli government. The short-term occupation of the Sinai by Israel in the 1950s was a response to Egyptian refusal to allow shipping through the Suez Canal and was one of the few aggressive actions taken by the country. They withdrew under UN pressure, only to have Egypt again close the area to Israeli shipping. This action was later stopped due to diplomatic action.
This has been the history of Israel. Constant aggressive action by their Arabic neighbors, UN pressure against them, and being demonized by the world for the plight of what we now call the Palestinians. In less than 30 years, they fought no less than five defensive wars against multiple Arabic countries. Despite these monumental challenges, they have not only survived but they have thrived. They have managed to maintain an open, free, and prosperous society that still provides all their citizens with all the rights that we here in American consider basic. It is a diplomatic country, with freedom of speech, press, and religion. They are an egalitarian society, with women and ethnic minorities in top positions.
And what of the Palestinians? I have often said 'what we now call' in this essay, and for good reason. These Muslims had no identifier until then 1970s, when the Palestinian Liberalization Organization under Yasser Arafat began to call them Palestinians as a PR ploy. Since that time, pressure against Israel has only increased, despite everything they have done to make life better for the Palestinians.
Consider the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. After three decades of building infrastructure in the area, the Israelis left it all intact and removed all their citizens from the area. The Palestinians had roads, schools, hospitals, water and power, orchards, hydroponic farms . . . in short, everything they needed to provide for a prosperous free country. What has Hamas, supposedly in the name of these people, done with it? They indoctrinate the children to hate Jews with propaganda, terrorize their people with threats, take all their foreign aide to purchase weapons, and use the homes of innocents as launching points for their unguided rockets. They send their young men, and women, into Israel with explosives to target civilians. For more than three years and over 6,000 rocket attacks, with hundreds of deaths, the Israelis responded with diplomatic action and embargoes. They still allowed humanitarian aide to pass, but attempted to stop what weapon shipments they could. They still provided power and water to Gaza.
And when they finally did take military action, how did they do so? Was it carpet bombing and gas attacks? No, it was precision bomb attacks preceded with thousands of telephone calls and leaflets letting the innocents of Gaza know what was coming, despite the lost of strategic and tactical surprise. They have consistently chosen to use troops on the ground over air strikes to minimize civilian causalities despite the increased danger to Israeli forces. And how does the UN and the Western world respond? With more derision, a focus on the exaggerated claims of Palestinian deaths by Hamas, and a forced cease-fire agreement that Hamas violated within days.
Hamas and their fellow organizations have used the Palestinians as cannon fodder. They send their 'suicide' bombers into Israeli citizens, targeting civilians. They force their way into private homes using physical intimidation to set up their launch pads. They hide weapons and military supplies under mosques, hospitals, and apartment buildings. When the Israelis come, they use more women and children as human shields, then they cry to the world about the 'horrors' visited upon them.
When are we in the West, and especially America, going to stop playing their game? When are we going to denounce this barbarism for what it is? When are we going to tell the UN to support Israel or loose American support? We shouldn't support Israel because it is a Jewish state. Israel is nation of freedom in a land of oppression. Before the invasion of Iraq, it was the only Middle Eastern country to practice any form of democracy, to provide freedom of speech and press, equal rights to women and other minorities, and it's still the only country to provide full freedom of religion. Don't these things mean anything to us?
When are we going to acknowledged that Hamas and similar organizations are the true source of modern Palestinian suffering? When are we going to stand up together and name these organizations for the barbaric tribes of death that they are? In the past three years, the UN Human Rights council has passed more than 20 resolutions against Israel, but not a single one against Hamas, Hezbollah, or any other terrorist organization. These organizations feed their people into a meat grinder day after day while the UN and Western media organizations denounce the Israelis who have put themselves at risk to protect the innocents of their own country and the Palestinians. These actions are completely and totally unacceptable to me, and should be to any society that would call itself civilized.
Every statement that isn't my opinion in the essay is verifiable through a quick and easy Google search using key terms. Feel free to verify. I will stand beside my support of Israel and against Hamas until my last breath. If you disagree with my opinion here, I ask you only one question.
Are you proud to support Hamas?
Friday, January 30, 2009
President Obama and the Current Crisis
Congratulations are in order. To President Obama, I give my congratulations freely and openly. It was a hard-run campaign against tough and seasoned opponents. You not only won; you did so decisively and mostly honorably and for that, I honor you. Know that until such time as you step down, I will hope you are a good and strong President, that you lead this country with honor, integrity, and intelligence, and that your time as President is successful, not in the political sense, but in the governmental.
To those closer to my own political ideology; we owe our President full faith and loyalty, even when we disagree. Even though we do not agree with our President on many things, we should take pride in what he, and this county, have managed to accomplish. President Obama is not just the first black President. He's the first minority to be elected to the highest office in any country, anywhere, in the history of the world. For that, we can all be proud. Perhaps we are finally turning the corner away from our past and towards a better future when it comes to race relations. While most of us have long sense abandoned the immorality of racism, some of us have not and we need to move past the assumption. Much of that now falls on the President's shoulders, and how he approaches his unique position. Some of that falls on our shoulders, and how we express our disagreements and our difficulties.
I would like to say that I now have hope for the future. I didn't particularly like President Bush's style, his communication, or many of his policies. He grew the size of our government more than any president before him, increased spending without actually paying for it, and involved us in two foreign wars without the necessary increases in military force to provide for them. He continued the long standing policy of ignoring our boarders, at a time when security alone demanded strong attention. Yes, I could sit here for a long time and discuss what President Bush did wrong. But at least he tried to maintain the mostly free-market economy which provides this country with all of its power, political, economic, and military.
With President Obama, I have no such hope. He's already working towards increasing the level of government involvement in healthcare. That's one sixth of the economy. He talks about pushing some form of cap and trade or carbon tax, affecting the energy back-bone of our economy. His tax policies clearly demonstrate a desire to cripple the production of this country. Then we have this despicable 'stimulus' package.
The first problem is that we do not have an economic crises. I know, we are in a recession. Large amounts of wealth have been lost, but it's not real wealth. Homes are still standing, property is still available, and production moves along briskly. People are being laid off as business struggle for the capital to maintain previous business levels, but all of these are temporary situations.
What we have is a government crises. The very source of this mess isn't in the private sector, and it isn't going to be fixed until that source is acknowledged. Government intervention is what has caused the crises. As with most things, it started with good intentions, but as the desire to good things no matter the real world costs increased, so did the possible damages that would occur when things finally fell apart. Most people tend to think of the Free Market as a theory, or an idea. In this they are incorrect. The Free Market is a force, like gravity or nuclear forces. It does what it does. We can mitigate, control, and effect, but we cannot control. As we grow to better understand the nature of that force, we can plan on it and we can turn it to our advantage, but we still will not have actual control.
To help illustrate my point, allow me to use a metaphor. Think of the Mississippi river. The whole of it's banks are levied, there are locks and controls all along its length to try and mitigate flooding. Most of the time they work fine, because most of the time the force of the river is well understood. It's a function of the amount of water currently being drained into the river. When rain fall is unusually heavy however, the levies cannot hold the banks. One of my strongest memories of my childhood comes from flying out of St. Louis in '94. The whole of the city was under water, the heavy storms having flooded the banks.
While the levies work great upriver, downriver can be a very different story. Levies may control flooding, most of the time, but they also increase the amount of force behind the river, causing it to flow faster the more the shores are levied. This is illustrated by the trouble Baton Rouge has with flooding. There are several rivers in and around the city, the largest being the Mississippi itself, but several tributaries are near the city and empty into it close by. Even the smallest rainfall can create flooding throughout the city in a very short amount of time. These factors almost certainly contributed to the massive flooding caused by Hurricane Katrina a few years ago.
The levies are necessary, as people live all along the banks and without them, the Mississippi would return it's normal meandering path and fill its floodplains, making life there impossible. Yet understanding the effect of the levies can help us understand how to plan and prepare for when they fail. Understanding market forces is no different.
While my metaphor is imperfect, it can help to understand how the current crises is not one caused by the market. Just as levies were built to try and focus the Mississippi, government policy was enacted to try and focus the market towards politically desirable ends. What were these policies? They were primarily the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and later revisions to that act, and the establishment of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in
conjunction with other rules such as the mark-to-market rule
What do these policies do, and why are they the main cause of the current crises? Again, it starts with good intentions. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 established by law that a loan could not be refused due to the location of the borrower and that lenders had to provide services to anyone within their sphere of business. In short, no 'redlining' and removing whole neighborhoods out of your range of service. This has minor impact on the lending business, forcing them to accept greater risk. However, the lending market was able to absorb this greater risk and things went along fine. The earlier establishment of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with their congressional orders to increase home ownership, further mitigated the dangers of this greater risk. Yet they increased the danger downriver. By having large organizations absorbing the greatest level of risk, it concentrated the risk that one of these would eventually falter due to defaults. Starting to sound familiar yet?
Enter the mark-to-market rule. Again, it starts with good intentions. The mark-to-market rule requires companies to mark all assets at their current market value. Just like the levies on a river, during normal times this allows for better transparency, more honest reporting, and an easier time understanding a company's true worth. But what happens when the rains come? When the value of a particular type of asset, such as a mortgage, begins to plummet, the market cannot provide a value and the asset must be marked as a full loss. The property may still be there, the borrower may still be paying in full every month, and the property may still be of the same monetary value in resell, but the holder of the mortgage must write it down as a full lose because the asset has no value in the current market.
Rivers flow into one another. When the Mississippi is filled with water from heavy rains, it has less room for the waters from its tributaries. The further downriver one moves, the more effect this will have. While the Missouri may be able to empty easily into the Mississippi, the Red River will have more problems, and its level will also rise in response. The market is not much different. As financial companies struggle to determine their current assets, they are unable to provide loans to other companies. Credit begins to freeze, other companies struggle to pay their bills, provide production, and meet demand. Some companies are forced to release some workers, and others become worried, cutting down on spending and thus cutting back on demand. This cuts into more businesses, creating more lay-offs and a higher demand for credit to try and keep current production . . . And thus the levies created to protect us from the river break and it all comes spilling out.
Under this light it becomes apparent that any stimulus is probably not going to work without first addressing the underlying causes of the problem. And our political leadership has yet to try and address these underlying problems. In fact, this so-called leadership has yet to even acknowledge the effect of these policies on our economy.
Then there are the problems with the bill itself. It's filled with fluff spending projects. Support for the arts, community action groups, and many more of the usual dredge of useless government programs that will have little to no effect. Even the Congressional Budget Office has published findings that most of the money will not work itself into the economy for years, so how much immediate stimulus can it actually provide?
Further more, from where is the money going to come? Despite apparent popular belief, government does not create wealth. Its budget of 1.6 trillion dollars is all raised from taxes on the economy as a whole. Before it can spend anything, it must first get that money from somewhere. It can raise it through taxes, which will fall as the economy shrinks, it can borrow, or it can print more money. Any money raised in taxes is pulled from the economy, borrowed money creates a greater debt to be paid later, increasing the demand for taxes later, and printing more money creates inflation, eroding whatever effect spending it would have in the first place.
Pay close attention to the numbers here. The federal budget is 1.6 trillion dollars. That's all of its current spending projects, including so-called entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. The federal fiscal year runs from October through September. That means that the stimulus plans passed this fiscal year already account for more than 1.5 trillion dollars, or very near the whole of the budget. In order to pay for all of this, the federal government is going to have to borrow, tax, or print money equal to its entire budget. How badly will that effect the future economy?
I sit here and I watch this slow-speed train wreck, wondering if there is anything I can do. Am I to be a modern Cassandra, to watch the destruction of our future, to call out against it, yet to go unheard and unbelieved? What am I to do?
The short answer is that there is nothing I can do. I can look out for myself, do what I can to ensure my own survival, but little more. I will continue to put my voice out there to be heard by those who wish the hear it, and maybe it will be enough. I highly doubt it, but still I can try. And, I can give my thanks to the House Republicans and their Democrat colleges who voted against this slow suicide. You men and women are true heroes on this day. Others may degrade you, others may ask why it took you so long.
For this American, I cannot find the desire to care why it took so long. You men and women stood for principle this day, and you did what you could. Keep up the good work. For the 244 of you who voted for this monstrosity, I hope you are voted out next term. You deserve greater punishment for your attempt to destroy my children's futures.
To those closer to my own political ideology; we owe our President full faith and loyalty, even when we disagree. Even though we do not agree with our President on many things, we should take pride in what he, and this county, have managed to accomplish. President Obama is not just the first black President. He's the first minority to be elected to the highest office in any country, anywhere, in the history of the world. For that, we can all be proud. Perhaps we are finally turning the corner away from our past and towards a better future when it comes to race relations. While most of us have long sense abandoned the immorality of racism, some of us have not and we need to move past the assumption. Much of that now falls on the President's shoulders, and how he approaches his unique position. Some of that falls on our shoulders, and how we express our disagreements and our difficulties.
I would like to say that I now have hope for the future. I didn't particularly like President Bush's style, his communication, or many of his policies. He grew the size of our government more than any president before him, increased spending without actually paying for it, and involved us in two foreign wars without the necessary increases in military force to provide for them. He continued the long standing policy of ignoring our boarders, at a time when security alone demanded strong attention. Yes, I could sit here for a long time and discuss what President Bush did wrong. But at least he tried to maintain the mostly free-market economy which provides this country with all of its power, political, economic, and military.
With President Obama, I have no such hope. He's already working towards increasing the level of government involvement in healthcare. That's one sixth of the economy. He talks about pushing some form of cap and trade or carbon tax, affecting the energy back-bone of our economy. His tax policies clearly demonstrate a desire to cripple the production of this country. Then we have this despicable 'stimulus' package.
The first problem is that we do not have an economic crises. I know, we are in a recession. Large amounts of wealth have been lost, but it's not real wealth. Homes are still standing, property is still available, and production moves along briskly. People are being laid off as business struggle for the capital to maintain previous business levels, but all of these are temporary situations.
What we have is a government crises. The very source of this mess isn't in the private sector, and it isn't going to be fixed until that source is acknowledged. Government intervention is what has caused the crises. As with most things, it started with good intentions, but as the desire to good things no matter the real world costs increased, so did the possible damages that would occur when things finally fell apart. Most people tend to think of the Free Market as a theory, or an idea. In this they are incorrect. The Free Market is a force, like gravity or nuclear forces. It does what it does. We can mitigate, control, and effect, but we cannot control. As we grow to better understand the nature of that force, we can plan on it and we can turn it to our advantage, but we still will not have actual control.
To help illustrate my point, allow me to use a metaphor. Think of the Mississippi river. The whole of it's banks are levied, there are locks and controls all along its length to try and mitigate flooding. Most of the time they work fine, because most of the time the force of the river is well understood. It's a function of the amount of water currently being drained into the river. When rain fall is unusually heavy however, the levies cannot hold the banks. One of my strongest memories of my childhood comes from flying out of St. Louis in '94. The whole of the city was under water, the heavy storms having flooded the banks.
While the levies work great upriver, downriver can be a very different story. Levies may control flooding, most of the time, but they also increase the amount of force behind the river, causing it to flow faster the more the shores are levied. This is illustrated by the trouble Baton Rouge has with flooding. There are several rivers in and around the city, the largest being the Mississippi itself, but several tributaries are near the city and empty into it close by. Even the smallest rainfall can create flooding throughout the city in a very short amount of time. These factors almost certainly contributed to the massive flooding caused by Hurricane Katrina a few years ago.
The levies are necessary, as people live all along the banks and without them, the Mississippi would return it's normal meandering path and fill its floodplains, making life there impossible. Yet understanding the effect of the levies can help us understand how to plan and prepare for when they fail. Understanding market forces is no different.
While my metaphor is imperfect, it can help to understand how the current crises is not one caused by the market. Just as levies were built to try and focus the Mississippi, government policy was enacted to try and focus the market towards politically desirable ends. What were these policies? They were primarily the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and later revisions to that act, and the establishment of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in
conjunction with other rules such as the mark-to-market rule
What do these policies do, and why are they the main cause of the current crises? Again, it starts with good intentions. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 established by law that a loan could not be refused due to the location of the borrower and that lenders had to provide services to anyone within their sphere of business. In short, no 'redlining' and removing whole neighborhoods out of your range of service. This has minor impact on the lending business, forcing them to accept greater risk. However, the lending market was able to absorb this greater risk and things went along fine. The earlier establishment of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with their congressional orders to increase home ownership, further mitigated the dangers of this greater risk. Yet they increased the danger downriver. By having large organizations absorbing the greatest level of risk, it concentrated the risk that one of these would eventually falter due to defaults. Starting to sound familiar yet?
Enter the mark-to-market rule. Again, it starts with good intentions. The mark-to-market rule requires companies to mark all assets at their current market value. Just like the levies on a river, during normal times this allows for better transparency, more honest reporting, and an easier time understanding a company's true worth. But what happens when the rains come? When the value of a particular type of asset, such as a mortgage, begins to plummet, the market cannot provide a value and the asset must be marked as a full loss. The property may still be there, the borrower may still be paying in full every month, and the property may still be of the same monetary value in resell, but the holder of the mortgage must write it down as a full lose because the asset has no value in the current market.
Rivers flow into one another. When the Mississippi is filled with water from heavy rains, it has less room for the waters from its tributaries. The further downriver one moves, the more effect this will have. While the Missouri may be able to empty easily into the Mississippi, the Red River will have more problems, and its level will also rise in response. The market is not much different. As financial companies struggle to determine their current assets, they are unable to provide loans to other companies. Credit begins to freeze, other companies struggle to pay their bills, provide production, and meet demand. Some companies are forced to release some workers, and others become worried, cutting down on spending and thus cutting back on demand. This cuts into more businesses, creating more lay-offs and a higher demand for credit to try and keep current production . . . And thus the levies created to protect us from the river break and it all comes spilling out.
Under this light it becomes apparent that any stimulus is probably not going to work without first addressing the underlying causes of the problem. And our political leadership has yet to try and address these underlying problems. In fact, this so-called leadership has yet to even acknowledge the effect of these policies on our economy.
Then there are the problems with the bill itself. It's filled with fluff spending projects. Support for the arts, community action groups, and many more of the usual dredge of useless government programs that will have little to no effect. Even the Congressional Budget Office has published findings that most of the money will not work itself into the economy for years, so how much immediate stimulus can it actually provide?
Further more, from where is the money going to come? Despite apparent popular belief, government does not create wealth. Its budget of 1.6 trillion dollars is all raised from taxes on the economy as a whole. Before it can spend anything, it must first get that money from somewhere. It can raise it through taxes, which will fall as the economy shrinks, it can borrow, or it can print more money. Any money raised in taxes is pulled from the economy, borrowed money creates a greater debt to be paid later, increasing the demand for taxes later, and printing more money creates inflation, eroding whatever effect spending it would have in the first place.
Pay close attention to the numbers here. The federal budget is 1.6 trillion dollars. That's all of its current spending projects, including so-called entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. The federal fiscal year runs from October through September. That means that the stimulus plans passed this fiscal year already account for more than 1.5 trillion dollars, or very near the whole of the budget. In order to pay for all of this, the federal government is going to have to borrow, tax, or print money equal to its entire budget. How badly will that effect the future economy?
I sit here and I watch this slow-speed train wreck, wondering if there is anything I can do. Am I to be a modern Cassandra, to watch the destruction of our future, to call out against it, yet to go unheard and unbelieved? What am I to do?
The short answer is that there is nothing I can do. I can look out for myself, do what I can to ensure my own survival, but little more. I will continue to put my voice out there to be heard by those who wish the hear it, and maybe it will be enough. I highly doubt it, but still I can try. And, I can give my thanks to the House Republicans and their Democrat colleges who voted against this slow suicide. You men and women are true heroes on this day. Others may degrade you, others may ask why it took you so long.
For this American, I cannot find the desire to care why it took so long. You men and women stood for principle this day, and you did what you could. Keep up the good work. For the 244 of you who voted for this monstrosity, I hope you are voted out next term. You deserve greater punishment for your attempt to destroy my children's futures.
Return to the Debate
To my readers, how you few you may be, I apologize for my long absence. I must admit that I gave into despair shortly before the election. I know that without regular posts, I cannot expect regular readership, and thus cannot expect to have any effect.
I will now make it a point to publish at least once a week, and if I see any additional long-term absences forthcoming, I will try to give good warning. So, let's get things started once again, shall we?
I will now make it a point to publish at least once a week, and if I see any additional long-term absences forthcoming, I will try to give good warning. So, let's get things started once again, shall we?
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Open Letter to Congressman McCaul, 10th District, Texas
I doubt you remember me, Congressman, but we did meet a few months ago when you came down to [my employer] with Congressman Smith. I tell you this so hopefully you'll realize that I'm a serious observer and I have been paying attention to what you've been doing up there on our behalf. I've reviewed your record, looking into past action. Congressman, you are a good and honorable public servant. And this coming from a man generally suspicious of government and politicians.
And let me just say that your recent action against the bailout bill was right. You did the right thing in voting it down. It's not just the price tag involved, although that is a major factor. If our Congress wishes to spend 700 billion dollars it does not have, let it send it to the people. Seriously, break it down for every American over 18 and send it out. That will solve the problems with solvency as much as giving it people who have proved their incompetence. More importantly, our government is not empowered by the constitution to take this action. No economic situation grants the Congress a power not enumerated in that document. Any bailout action is wrong, no matter the reasons or the fail-safes or guards. Let those institutions that have pushed themselves over the limit fail. It will hurt a lot of people, but all of us are on the line in this bailout and if the government goes insolvent, then it all comes crashing down. Not only that, but any bailout will only encourage further inappropriate and stupid action on the behalf of those institutions you are trying to help. And that will cost this country further pain.
Now is not the time for rash action. Now is not the time for extraordinary measures but extraordinary courage. I can only imagine how difficult it must be for a man tied to public opinion to vote against a measure that so many call our only chance. But you must stay the course and show the leadership I know you are capable of showing and bring as many of your colleagues along with you as you can. We, the American People, need you and your colleagues to show courage in the face of hard times. We need you to be willing to risk your positions and vote down this bill once again. Keep it down. Kill it. Make it clear that government will not be stepping in and doing what it always does, throwing money at a problem and hoping it goes away. We need real solutions, Congressman, not pretty promises and more debt to foreign countries. Or hadn't you noticed that bad debt is what got us into this situation in the first place?
Once you have killed this bill, we need more courage. We need someone, anyone, to stand up and start talking about what really caused this problem. You and those of your colleagues who have the courage need to talk about the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and its effects. Especially in how it was utilized by certain organizations and how it was enforced by regulatory agencies. We need people to stand up and talk about the actions of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae with their implicit government backing and control. We need to looking into the origins of the subprime mortgage market, how it was used, and why it was created. We need our leaders to talk about the effect of the mark-to-market rule which is causing banks to write down perfectly good loans as losses. We need our leadership to lead and admit the failings of Sarbanes-Oxley and how that piece of over-regulation has contributed to the current crises. These are the cause of our problems. We need brave Congressman and others willing to stand up and explain why this is not a failing of the free market and why this is the failing of the government to execute its powers correctly.
I am asking you, Congressman, please show some leadership this week. Don't follow an hysterical mass into more failure. Lead an intelligent and capable people out of this darkness. Have the courage to uncover and talk about the truth on this issue. Have the courage to lead your colleagues into making better decisions based around the facts and the truth. Have the courage to take hard truths to the American people. We can handle it. We can accept it. All you need to do is give us the chance.
I certainly hope that this reaches you, Congressman. I hope that you personally read this message and you consider what it says. I also wish to inform you that I have a personal site at changethedebate.blogspot.com where I will be posting this as an open letter.
My e-mail should be included on this message.
I remain your friend and supporter,
Charles Campbell
And let me just say that your recent action against the bailout bill was right. You did the right thing in voting it down. It's not just the price tag involved, although that is a major factor. If our Congress wishes to spend 700 billion dollars it does not have, let it send it to the people. Seriously, break it down for every American over 18 and send it out. That will solve the problems with solvency as much as giving it people who have proved their incompetence. More importantly, our government is not empowered by the constitution to take this action. No economic situation grants the Congress a power not enumerated in that document. Any bailout action is wrong, no matter the reasons or the fail-safes or guards. Let those institutions that have pushed themselves over the limit fail. It will hurt a lot of people, but all of us are on the line in this bailout and if the government goes insolvent, then it all comes crashing down. Not only that, but any bailout will only encourage further inappropriate and stupid action on the behalf of those institutions you are trying to help. And that will cost this country further pain.
Now is not the time for rash action. Now is not the time for extraordinary measures but extraordinary courage. I can only imagine how difficult it must be for a man tied to public opinion to vote against a measure that so many call our only chance. But you must stay the course and show the leadership I know you are capable of showing and bring as many of your colleagues along with you as you can. We, the American People, need you and your colleagues to show courage in the face of hard times. We need you to be willing to risk your positions and vote down this bill once again. Keep it down. Kill it. Make it clear that government will not be stepping in and doing what it always does, throwing money at a problem and hoping it goes away. We need real solutions, Congressman, not pretty promises and more debt to foreign countries. Or hadn't you noticed that bad debt is what got us into this situation in the first place?
Once you have killed this bill, we need more courage. We need someone, anyone, to stand up and start talking about what really caused this problem. You and those of your colleagues who have the courage need to talk about the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and its effects. Especially in how it was utilized by certain organizations and how it was enforced by regulatory agencies. We need people to stand up and talk about the actions of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae with their implicit government backing and control. We need to looking into the origins of the subprime mortgage market, how it was used, and why it was created. We need our leaders to talk about the effect of the mark-to-market rule which is causing banks to write down perfectly good loans as losses. We need our leadership to lead and admit the failings of Sarbanes-Oxley and how that piece of over-regulation has contributed to the current crises. These are the cause of our problems. We need brave Congressman and others willing to stand up and explain why this is not a failing of the free market and why this is the failing of the government to execute its powers correctly.
I am asking you, Congressman, please show some leadership this week. Don't follow an hysterical mass into more failure. Lead an intelligent and capable people out of this darkness. Have the courage to uncover and talk about the truth on this issue. Have the courage to lead your colleagues into making better decisions based around the facts and the truth. Have the courage to take hard truths to the American people. We can handle it. We can accept it. All you need to do is give us the chance.
I certainly hope that this reaches you, Congressman. I hope that you personally read this message and you consider what it says. I also wish to inform you that I have a personal site at changethedebate.blogspot.com where I will be posting this as an open letter.
My e-mail should be included on this message.
I remain your friend and supporter,
Charles Campbell
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)