The Fight is On

It is no secret that our country is under intense economic pressure. The credit is frozen, GDP is falling, unemployment is rising, bankruptcy is at historical highs, 1 out of every 200 homes will be foreclosed upon, and banks are holding at least $2 trillion in troubled assets. We are in deep shit and have been in a recession longer than the Bush administration wanted to admit. Meanwhile, Obama is telling us that “we can't go back to an economy that's built on a pile of sand.” But that's easier said than done. People's lives hang in the balance with an unemployment rate at 8.5% and growing closer and closer to double digits.



So what have the powers to be been doing to get us back on track? Currently, we have three main tools to fight recession.

The first tool to fighting a recession is to have the Federal Reserve use expansionary monetary policy to increase the money supply. This is accomplished by the Fed purchasing bonds from the open market and by lowering interest rates. More money in the system tends to increase investment and output. Unfortunately, not much economical traction resulted from the Fed slashing interest rates down to 1% and by buying up bonds. Creditors did not lower their interest rates or begin loaning more freely. So at this point. expansionary monetary policy is useless. This comes to a great shame, since credit makes the world go 'round.

The second tool is an economic stimulus package. Many economists believe that a successful stimulus package should be around 4% of the GDP. The current stimulus package is only around 2.5%. Assuming these statistics are correct, two things can be said. One, this current stimulus package won't do enough to stimulate the economy. Two, there's probably going to be another stimulus package within 12-18 months. But we all know that the Republicans will obstruct the process every step of the way. Ironically, 40% of the current stimulus package is in their beloved tax cuts that they themselves helped orchestrate, only to vote against it! Don't forget we're in two wars and we should be RAISING taxes. But I digress. The Obama administration should be focusing their efforts on a proper stimulus package. We cannot forget that the purpose of a stimulus package is to stimulate demand and it's no secret that our infrastructure has been neglected for going on a decade. But that's a story for another day.

The third tool is to bailout the troubled institutions. Also known as Bush's Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Remember that $700 billion bailout that Bush shoved down our throats last year out of nowhere? Congress passed this bailout bill under the pretense that the money was supposed to be used to buy up toxic assets (investments that hemorrhage value and not generate it) and get them off of the banks' books. However, Bush spent almost half the money buying up Wall Street bank's stock, not toxic assets. This is called recapitalization. Basically, this strategy is when the government buys up a bunch of preferred stock with the intention of injecting enough capital into banks so they can unfreeze the credit and begin loaning again. It's fair to say that this approach has indeed worked in the past (USA during WWII, Sweden in the 1990's, Japan in 1998). But even if the entire $700 billion was spent on buying up stocks it still wouldn't be enough because that figure is just too low relative to our GDP (Krugman 2009). That is why I'm saddened to see the Obama administration following in Bush and Paulson's footsteps. Obviously, this approach is just burning money and the fact that credit is still frozen is evidence enough.

Econ 101 teaches us that mismanaged and inefficient companies are supposed to fail so that their assets can be absorbed by more efficient and profitable companies. That's the law of the jungle. Right now, it's like we're giving life support to an antelope that was just mauled by a lion. One day when that antelope can get up and stand it will still just be a weaker version of its former self and an even easier meal. Some of these institutions should indeed be allowed to fail, but certainly not all. I understand that at this point the administration is trying to avoid further lack of consumer confidence in our markets. Many tough decisions need to be made and I agree something needs to be done. However, an underfinanced recapitalization effort is clearly not the way to go. Good thing there's a new plan in the works.

Recently Obama has added a new dimension to his bailout plan that I'm optimistic about. His plan is more or less to attract private investors to buy up around $1 trillion of these mortgage backed (toxic) assets. His plan includes loaning the investors up to 85% of the money to use towards purchasing these assets and matching every investor dollar with up to six dollars of tax payer money. Using private capital to handle these toxic assets will shift much of the burden off of tax payers, even though the government will certainly subsidize the losses (and profits). I don't have all the details on this plan quite yet and I'm sure these figures are subject to change. However, it definitely sounds better than simply buying shares of stock.

It is also probably pretty relevant to discuss our debt here as well, because there's no free lunch. The stimulus packages and TARP funds cost money. Money we don't have. So we need to raise the capital, mostly by selling bonds (creating debt). As of right now, when most people think of U.S. debt, China comes to mind. But you'd probably be pretty surprised to find out who we actually owe the most money to. The answer is: ourselves. As of right now over 50% of the our debt is to different branches of the government and the Federal Reserve (remember the Federal Reserve is as federal as Federal Express). For example, the money that is collected from the Social Security (FICA) tax is, by law, required to be held in government bonds. These bonds account for 23% of our total debt (as of 2006, however the statistic is higher today) and are used to finance much of our current deficit. In fact, as of right now, only between 25-30% of our total debt is owned foreignly. Furthermore, China only owns about 23-24% (Dec 08) of that debt. Or in another words, 6.5% of our total debt. So rest assured that it is virtually a statistical impossibility that China can bankrupt us by calling in our debt. We also have to remember to compare our debt relative to our GDP. Because this is the best measure we have when considering how much of a debt we can accumulate and manage to pay back. When we consider the size of our GDP (also the fact that it increases 1.5-2.5% annually) and the amount of debt we actually owe ourselves, we reach the conclusion that we can still safely borrow trillions without much concern in our ability to make interest payments and eventually pay back the principal (Colander 08). With that said, we also need to keep in mind that deficit spending is absolutely critical right now and the ideology that “government should quit spending” is a detrimental concept. Especially when this notion is backed by “intimidating” figures that do not carry very much weight in proportion to our GDP.





Something else we need to realize is that many of our current problems are due to a lack of regulation or good old fashion deregulation of the financial system. The shady derivative market (the main source of the toxic assets) would have never happened with regulations and the commercial banks would have never acquired these investment risks under Glass-Steagall... I think we're going to regress back into the constant boom and bust business cycles that were dominant prior to the Great Depression, before major financial regulations. It's obvious that since the financial system has been in the process of being deregulated problems have continuously arisen. The Savings and Loan crisis, the dirty accounting of Enron and others, the derivative and subprime market are all fine examples. It's not a coincidence that these sorts of issues didn't happen between the New Deal and Reagan's administration, and that it was only after the Reaganomic trend that all these banking problems surfaced. That's what deregulation does. It's a get rich quick scheme for politicians and bankers, usually at the expense of the tax payers and working Americans.

In the end, citizens and policy makers will have to make some hard decisions. Many of these problems will not correct themselves. Not to mention Republican obstruction will be flagrant every step of the way. But the bottom line is that we can't let everything fail while crossing our fingers and hoping we can restructure after the dust has settled. Hoover's laissez faire approach, balanced budget agenda, and late actions catapulted us into the great depression. So we can imagine what will happen if we do nothing. Economists who were whistle blowing on the housing bubble were marginalized. It's time to start listening to the people who know how markets work, not politicians, lobbyists, bankers, or news commentators. Disagreements will exist and that is normal, especially with problems of this magnitude. However, listening to “socialism” and “anti-government spending” rhetoric right now is just a distraction from the real issues plaguing us. As new plans and suggestions are proposed, we can't just look at the nominal values and say “it's too much money” without comparing the figures to our GDP. A billion dollars sounds like a lot, but it's only .007% of a $13.84 trillion GDP. Yes, that's right, not even a hundredth of a percent. How much of a dent do you think that billion will make? But that doesn't mean the billion should be pissed away. Our economic moves must be planned and concise. Hit and miss right now is bad for business, like an inadequate stimulus and underfinanced recapitalization plans. It's a waste of money if we're not going to do it right. And that's the bottom line.




Works Cited


Andrews, Edmund, and Er. "U.S. Expands Plan to Buy Banks? Troubled Assets." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 01 May 2009 .

Andrews, Edmund, Eric Dash, and Graham Bowley. "Toxic Asset Plan Foresees Big Subsidies for Investors." NY Times. 20 Mar. 2009.

"Bureau of Labor Statistics Data." Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject. 01 May 2009 .

Colander, David. Macroeconomics. 7th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2008.

"Foreclosure Statistics." FDIC: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Mortgage Bankers Association. 01 May 2009 .

Krugman, Paul. The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008. New York: W.W. Norton and Company Inc., 2009.

"Nobel Prize Krugman says US and EU stimulus packages insufficient MercoPress." MercoPress South Atlantic News Agency. 01 May 2009 .

"Ownership of the Debt." Financial Management Service: A Bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Dec. 2006. U.S. Department of the Treasury.

"PolitiFact | Columnist Will correct that initial TARP money did not buy toxic assets." St. Petersburg Times Online. 01 May 2009 .

"Stimulus Watch: Government Responses to the Financial & Economic Crisis | US Budget Watch." US Budget Watch | A Project of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. 01 May 2009 .

The Campaign of Fear

When did the Republican base become such cowards? Weren't these supposed to be the fearlessly patriotic guys and gals ready to selflessly fight off the evils of the world? These days it seems as though the rank and file Republicans are being intimidated into submission. The right-wing media and party leaders have been perpetually subjugating the base with petty bickering and fear mongering for quite sometime. Socialism and terrorism are part of the pay dirt being mined lately. Granted, these are issues that should be approached with genuine concern. But nowhere near the degree of fear that Republican Party leaders and right-wing media have been exploiting.

Unquestionably, a certain amount of fear is required for basic survival. Otherwise we would be doing things like taunting stingrays. However, purposely inducing fear and panic for political gain is not only unethical but dangerous. Make no mistake, fear is in fact being manufactured and peddled to anybody who will listen. The right wing-media and party leaders have been exploiting cultural resentments with fear to win elections. And, frankly, it works reasonably well. Let's explore a brief history of the Republican's use of fear for political gain.

Reagan can take much of the credit for the current Republican use of fear in politics. In 1964, Reagan gave the famous “A Time for Choosing” speech (more commonly known as “The Speech”) at the RNC for Goldwater's presidential nomination. Subsequently, this speech was the catalyst in Reagan's political career. During the speech Reagan used “code” language to take jabs at groups and stir up fears in people. He subtly raised points about black welfare recipients to appeal to (racist) people who believed that was where most of their tax dollars were going. He reaffirmed their fears and played into this stereotype. Reagan also used this opportunity to begin the “smaller government” rhetoric we're familiar with to this day. He convinced the growing Republican base that government programs were inherently wasteful by giving misleading statistics like: “Federal employees number 2.5 million, and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation's work force is employed by the government.” This particular statistic was misleading because in 1964 the majority of federal employees worked in the postal service or the defense department. Furthermore, the majority of state and local employees were school teachers, policemen, or firemen (Krugman 2007). Reagan also used Communism as leverage in the new Republican fear movement. Granted, a nuclear armed Soviet Union was nothing to sneeze at. It was still just a play designed to inflict fear of Communist interests coming to America and taking away our things.

However, let us not forget Nixon's contributions to the “campaign of fear” in the 1968 election. As Nixon himself so eloquently put it, “people react to fear, not love.” He played on the fear of the increasing crime rates (between 1957 and 1970 the crime rate more than tripled) and the expanding hippy population. Nixon's catch phrase “law and order” rallied support to the conservative movement. Nixon blamed “liberal permissiveness” as the cause for the increasing crime rate, radical demonstrations, and antiwar protests of the era. Smear tactics, however, were nothing new to politics. But mainstream fear tactics were. Consequently, the Republicans saw an opportunity to build their base through fear. Unfortunately, for the new conservative movement, Watergate would set them back a bit, but not for long. After Carter's term, Reagan would reclaim conservative ground with the full force of his fear mongering agenda and win the 1981 election by a landslide. Nevertheless, it was truly the mid to late 60s where the “campaign of fear” really began to take form.

In recent days, the Socialism card has been being dealt by Republican Party leaders and right-wing media to stir up fear in the unenlightened. Sadly, most of the protesting Republicans that are lashing out against socialism do not fully understand what it even is. Simply put, socialism is when the government controls the means of production and distribution. There is relatively no evidence for a current socialist agenda coming from the Obama administration. This rising fear of socialism is being produced by news commentators like Rush Limbaugh and the Fox News crew. A recent argument by Glenn Beck was the rise of socialism due to the fact that our government put a cap on CEO bonuses in some of the recently bailed out companies. The cap was clearly a populist move. Furthermore, when AIG bonuses were not capped a populist outrage cried out. It's obvious that taxpayers do not want their money going to the greedy corporate executives who helped create our current financial crisis. It's not socialism. Moreover, the redistribution of wealth to the poor is grossly over exaggerated by conservative proponents. Currently, the government takes approximately one out of every seven dollars citizens earn and redistributes it to someone else. That statistic does seem pretty significant. However, only about one-sixth of that is directed towards the poor. In other words, about 17 cents out of every 7 dollars actually goes to the poor. The other five-sixths of the redistributions go to well organized groups like businesses, labor union interests, the elderly, and various subsidies. Moreover, the people receiving these redistributions often have incomes well above the average person (Gwartney 2008). But I don't see how this redistribution of wealth is moving us toward socialism. It's not doing anything to destroy the class structure or an attempt for government to control the means of production and distribution. It's just more pandering to lobbyists and other special interest groups. What's more capitalist than that? There are, however, a great deal of arguments within the "redistribution of wealth." But, as far as I can tell, socialism doesn't really apply. This whole socialist agenda that the Republicans are trying to pin on the Democrats is a complete farce that is designed to instill fear into all who will listen.

What about terrorism? Ultimately, Bin Laden accomplished his goal of bankrupting America. Our fear of radical Muslims gave the Bush administration the power it needed to drag us into a war with Iraq without provocation. They convinced us that Iraq was our main problem even after they couldn't make a connection between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein (shockingly, a great deal of the nation still is under the impression that Iraq actually had something to do with 911). The alleged “weapons of mass destruction” were found to be nothing more than a trumped up intelligence report orchestrated by Cheney himself. The administration continually pinned our fears against us and got legislation like the Bush Doctrine and USA Patriot Act passed. They used our fear to strip our constitutional rights and dictate our foreign policies. Our country was waist deep in Iraq before the general public figured out that we invaded wrong people. Once the initial panic attack for most of the country was over, who were the ones still living in fear? Just about anybody who watched Fox News religiously, namely conservatives. Fox News glorified the war in Iraq as our mission from God and condemned all who opposed it as unpatriotic. But let's face facts, radical Islam has no state or formal army. They're a pack of wild strays and barely warrant a response much beyond total annihilation. Our country should not have been dragged into Iraq and down into the gutter over this. We, as a nation, let 911 cloud our judgment. We demanded retribution and all we got was the shaft (and a big bill). Bush used our fears to pursue his own oil-ladened agenda. To top things off, in one of the final interviews Bush did as president, Larry King asked him whether U.S. Forces ever came close to capturing Bin Laden. Bush replied, “I don't know -- I can't answer that. I really don't know. I'm not trying to hide anything." And I believe him. I bet he really had no clue. It just goes to show where his priorities really were. They weren't anywhere near 911 retribution.

The right-wing media gets much of the credit for distributing the propaganda in the “campaign of fear.” By right-wing media, I mean the news commentators that spread grossly biased views and misinformation. Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are at the top of the mainstream right-wing media. Lately, many people who have been watching Fox News really believe the world is coming to an end. In fact, just last week Fox News released an article titled Five Ways the World Can End. The possible scenarios, according to them, are: massive asteroid impact, massive volcanic eruptions, nuclear war, a black hole, or the expanding sun. Under the nuclear war scenario the article states:

“The odds of total nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia seem remote now, and no other nations currently have the thousands of warheads it would take for such a doomsday scenario to occur. But there's always a chance of a full-scale nuclear exchange between future superpowers.”

The article is pleasantly reminding us of all the loose nukes from the Soviet Union which are now, more or less, in the hands of Russia. A country we've had shaky relations with. Interestingly, the article mentioned that global warming would not be a “doomsday scenario.” Evidently black holes are more dangerous than greenhouse gases tearing holes in the ozone.

Beyond blatant end of the world scenarios, Fox News also breeds contempt for the Democrat Party. Show me somebody who watches Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, or Sean Hannity regularly that doesn't think Obama is a radical Islamic, terrorist, or socialist. Your search would be in vain. The fear mongering being displayed by these guys has truly captivated a large portion of the Republican base. What I find even worse is the party leaders are taking their cues from Rush Limbaugh. Nobody stirs up more hate and fear than this guy. That's how far off base this party has become. Even RNC chairman Michael Steele spoke out about Rush, calling him a mere "entertainer" whose show is "incendiary" and "ugly.” But then almost immediately retracted his statement with an apology.

For the past 30 some odd years the Republican Party has been using scare tactics to win elections. From the days of Nixon and Reagan to the recent days of George W. Bush, fear has played a critical role in the manipulation of the Republican base. The media and party leaders have been bombarding the public with a “campaign of fear” designed to keep them docile and submissive. And it's been working. I, however, will not argue against the freedom of speech. It is our constitutional right to say what we like. I can only hope that the people being intimidated by these fear tactics will eventually wake up and pay attention to the events unfolding around them. If we let other people do the thinking for us we'll never progress as a nation (ironically, progressive is an antonym for conservative). None of us should let ourselves be controlled through fear. We are Americans. We freed ourselves from British tyranny and gave birth to a nation. We stood in the face of real Communist threats during two World Wars and a Cold War. We landed on the moon and invented nuclear weapons. How did the Republican Party leaders and right-wing media make so many of us become afraid of our own shadows? How did we collectively lose our cool and let the Bush administration drag us into a war with a country that had nothing to do with 911? The answer is too many of us take information at face value without evaluating it critically. We must learn to question our fears and the motives behind the people trying to perpetuate them. Because if we don't, we really are just a herd of sheeple. I, for one, cannot accept that fate.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,477084,00.html

A few more excerpts from the Cynic’s Dictionary

Credit Card- Plastic passport to the valley of the shadow of debt.

Credit Rating- A confidential report card circulated among creditors for the purpose of ascertaining whether a given consumer has incurred enough debts to be considered a sound risk.

Socialism- Transformation of the state into a milquetoast Robin Hood, a pudgy gray bureaucrat who robs from the spirit to give to the poor

Unemployment- The usual alternative to overwork. A full-time job that depletes energy and morale even more effectively than one's former occupation.

Union- An exclusive club for manual laborers, esp. those with well-placed in-laws. Formerly the socialist underbelly of the American corporation; now notable for having transformed blue-collar workers into staunch conservatives with a patch of lawn to keep impeccably trimmed and weeded.

Xenophobia- A pervasive fear and loathing of anything foreign, commonly voiced by Americans of European ancestry as they dine on pork lo mein while enjoying Arnold Schwarzenegger on their Japanese VCRs.


-From: The Cynic's Dictionary by Rick Bayan

When the Patriots Became Unpatriotic

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”... The United States Constitution (Preamble)

When did patriotism become such a cliché? Has its abundant use desensitized our country to the actual meaning? Let's get it straight right now. Patriotism is the love for ones country and the fundamental ideas from which it was founded and portrays. Land of the free and home of the brave, sound familiar? The definition is simple enough. However, the devil is in the details. Many choose to express their patriotism in a variety of manners. The founding fathers rebelled against the British and historians tell their stories. Since then, soldiers have fought and died in the name of patriotism. Politicians enact it in legislation and policies. School teachers instill patriotism into the minds of young Americans everyday during the pledge of allegiance. Even the protester with a picket sign on the white house lawn chanting about civil rights is showing their patriotism. However, contrary to popular belief, patriotism is not shown in a lapel pin, bumper sticker, or even a belt buckle (all of which were more than likely made in China anyway). These are merely superficial expressions of patriotism and not the actual act. Moreover, patriotism is not synonymous to a political party or to a particular group. In fact, party politics abuse of the word “patriotism” is why I sit here writing this. Still interested? Well pull up a chair and lend me your ear.

During the early 1600's, separatists fleeing religious persecution from the Church of England began to settle here in America in what they named New England. We know them as the Pilgrims. Soon the popularity of the New World grew and more joined the settlements. Well it wasn't long until the new residents sought to officially liberate themselves from English tyranny. Those who stood against the British were the first patriots. This progressive bunch included Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and many others. These were the original patriots and they upheld republicanism ideals.

The model of republicanism is based on public officials being voted (not inherited) into office because they are believed to be the best suited for the particular job. This in combination with the three separate branches of government helps ensure that no particular person or group has absolute power. Furthermore, our founding fathers enacted our Constitution for the lawmakers to abide by when writing new legislation and enforcing the law. They were firm believers in the individual-rights of the people and also emphasized the separation of church and state. That is what America was founded on and its motto: E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one).

Freedom or safety: Who decides and where's the patriotism? The Bill of Rights guarantees all American citizens a number of basic individual rights. These rights range from “A right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty” to “A right to be treated the same as others, regardless of race, sex, religious preference, and other personal attributes.” Even though these rights are guaranteed, they are still open to interpretation and criticism. It is the role of the courts to translate these rights into the laws of the land. Unquestionably, that is how the system works. However, I am a partial public-order advocate. This means that under certain circumstances, I believe public safety should take precedence over individual rights. Please note, that this model basically assumes that everybody is playing by the same set of rules and that those rules could be bent or broken for the sake of public safety. For example, racial profiling for terrorists at an airport is considered an infringement on basic civil rights. However, for the sake of public safety, such methods should be considered in a "ticking bomb" type of scenario. So in essence, under extreme circumstances, I believe that if people aren't willing to allow some of the rules to be bent for the sake of public safety, they are NOT PATRIOTS. But not to the degree that the USA PATRIOT ACT assumes from Americans.

The USA PATRIOT ACT is a seemingly clever acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. In a nutshell, this Act's purpose is designed to dramatically enhance police investigatory authority. Many of the methods however are widely considered controversial and unconstitutional. For instance, “sneek and peek” searches were broadened to further empower the prosecution. This means that searches can be done in the absence of individuals without prior notice more easily under this Act. Another extremely unsettling provision in the USA PATRIOT ACT is in Sec 213: Authority For Delaying Notice of the Execution of a Warrant. What this means is that authorities can perform searches or other court orders without immediately providing a warrant. Obviously the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other individual-rights advocate groups believe that this provision is a direct infringement on the Fourth Amendment Right that protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment also is supposed to guarantee that a search warrant is provided to the person whose property will be searched before the actual search is to take place. Sadly, these examples of the provisions within the Patriot Act barely grazes the civil right infringements inherent to this legislation.

Social conservative, friend or foe? Well the answer is subjective to the individual and varies in regards to historical timescales. Throughout written history many socially conservative individuals have made their marks in their respective times and civilizations (for better or worse). Political leaders who have been socially conservative range from Ronald Reagan to Adolf Hitler. Truthfully, the comparison isn't that far off base either. Sure, one was a tyrant and the other was Hitler. But together, they held the same sort of philosophies that are inherent to conservatism. They both wanted to maintain the status quo. The question is: How can we ever advance as a nation if we seek to maintain a failing status quo?

Let's take a look at some of the current socially conservative standpoints here in America. Lately gay marriage and abortion are among the major aspects of the status quo that right wingers fight to conserve. As a patriot, I believe that EVERY American is entitled to the same basic rights and freedoms of choice. I'll never understand why conservatives fight to preserve the definition of marriage to include only a “man and a woman.” The basis of the argument always rests on the bible (which of course condoned slavery) and the notion that somehow gay marriage will lessen the sanctity of heterosexual marriage. It is delusional thought and sounds much like the religious persecution that our founding fathers fought against. Furthermore, it's not simply the title of marriage that gays are currently fighting for. They're fighting for partnership rights that are inherent to traditional marriages, i.e., insurance coverage, credit benefits, etc. Then there is the dirty little topic of abortion. For some reason this is a touchy subject. I can understand the appreciation of every human life. But lets face facts. Abortions take place for a variety of reasons that range from rape and incest to the health of the mother. Of course the arguments against abortion fall back on religion (and besides, a clump of cells has no consciousness). However, the world does not march to the beat of the same drum. Sure, gay dudes creep me out and I'll never get pregnant, but I won't be the one promoting limitations on the rights of Americans. You know why? Because anybody who wishes to limit the fundamental rights of other Americans IS NOT A PATRIOT.

I have been noticing a reoccurring trend in the corners of the right and left wings. Since we have had a Democratic president the right wingers have been creating gigantic fields of static. But not all the right wingers. The majority of the business class Republicans did not vote for McCain. They knew McCain could not deliver the sort of economic support needed in these troubling times. After all, the Republican party has dramatically strayed from its traditional business class ideals (remember a thing called balanced budgets?). But I digress. The right wingers I am referring to are the far right Evangelical base. The ones who don't necessarily care for or really even understand how the economy works. Now because their candidate lost, they've become doomsayers and began generating turmoil for the new Democratic president. The same thing happened with Clinton. The far right criticized everything he did particularly for the first 6 months of his administration and he didn't accomplish much that wasn't under intense scrutiny (and ultimately Clinton was responsible for the largest economic expansion in history). Unfortunately, this criticism wasn't constructive. To the contrary, this criticism was destructive. Here is where the right wing and left wing differs. Generally speaking, from my experiences, when the right loses, they want the left to fail, just so they can say “I told you so.” When the right wing is in power, like during the Bush administration, the majority of the left didn't want bush to fail. They simply wanted him to do his job. Sure, the left heavily criticized everything, but it was for a different reason. The left criticized because they expected more from an elected official. Granted, a minority were indeed rooting for Bush to fail, especially in Iraq, but nowhere near the percentages of the right on every issue. In any case, the fact remains the same: Anybody, on any side that wants the other political party to FAIL, is NOT A PATRIOT.

Patriotism is a touchy subject for some and it's important to remember that I'm not pushing an agenda. I don't want to give a group special treatment. I am simply pointing out the inconsistency of the thought patterns being displayed by my fellow Americans. I believe every American is entitled to the same rights and choices. Restricting the rights of other Americans is small scale treason. It's a disloyalty to our Constitution and seriously injures the core fundamentals our country was founded on. I also believe that if a particular person or group purposely yearns for the opposite political party to fail they are NOT patriotic. The bottom line is simple. An individual cannot claim patriotism simply by displaying American flags or saying they are patriotic. Patriotism is an ideal that is lived and adhered to. It's not a negotiable concept or inherent to a political party. We cannot cherry pick which constitutional rights we choose to uphold. Our forefathers liberated our country from these same types of restrictions and wrote us out the Bill of Rights. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington would roll over in their graves if they saw how these political ideologies infringe on our individual rights. I don't know when it happened, but somewhere along the line the patriots became unpatriotic.

A final thought:

I believe organized religion creates large degrees of cognitive dissonance in people. I've seen people torn between issues like evolution and creationism simply because of what they hear in church. Deep down inside, they know that the scientific evidence is overwhelming and all but impossible to ignore. However, their religion binds them to false notions of the physical world and they go through great mental debates where they justify these false notions with vague generalizations written in the bible. My greatest fear is that this mentality will keep procrastinating the advancement of our nation until it ends like a Greek tragedy....Mythologies need to be excluded from issues of state. Thomas Jefferson was adamant about this philosophy in the constitution (and for just cause). We cannot advance as a nation when so many members care more about restricting the rights of others than the faith they put into science. Just because people believe in god, doesn't give them the right to go around and act like complete morons. This attitude compromises the integrity of all the sacrifices done by true patriots.

Murder Weapon Found!

During my most recent "bottle-digging" outing I found this old pistol.



I was in search of old bottles in downtown Sacramento by the Amtrak station when I came across a nice little drainage area. I dug around with a shovel and my hands for awhile. I found an assortment of bottles that were dated between 1920-1950. And as I was uncovering the bottles I plucked out this gun like Little Jack Horner did with the plum. It is an old .22 six shooter. The wooden handle is completely disintegrated and the metal is rusted over. Needless to say, this was the find of the day. I cannot help but to wonder how it had made its way to the drainage area. Perhaps it was inoperable and cast aside. Or perhaps it was an old murder weapon long forgotten about.