Well fellow Americans, how does it feel to be on the modern-day equivalent of the Titanic? After today's vote against legislation that would have injected $700 billion into the credit stream of our country and possibly save it from a recession, our elected representatives voted with the idea of saving their seat in Congress in the upcoming (and arguably worthless) November election. I say worthless because by that point in time, the US may actually be worth nothing. McCain and Obama will be vying for a bankrupt country and may have to pony up their campaign contributions to pay for moving expenses into the Citibank White House. I figure the government will need corporate sponsorship by that point in time.
Lawmakers said they rejected the bill because their offices were flooded with phone calls and emails from their constituency demanding that they not vote in favor of the bill. Ya know, the same informed public that can't find the home states of McCain or Obama on a map, the same informed public that more obsessed with what Britney's hair style is than figuring out their finances, the same informed public that bought the houses that they are currently defaulting on and have put the country in the crisis that it is in. Screaming and yelling, the constituents said, "Make sure those money-grubbing executives don't get one dime in severance!" even though the $700 billion is designed to pay for the mortgages that they couldn't afford (and I blame the banks too but they are run by the people who vote, hence why I say constituents). So Democratic and Republican members of the House voted against bi-partisan legislation in order to ensure that they got the votes of the people who may not have a clue about what is really going on and are quite possibly the reason for this mess to begin with. They voted to protect their seat in Congress instead of voting to preserve a country. Do they not get that it could be a Pyrrhic victory in that they will be re-elected to a country that may not exist by the time the election is over? Blinders on, the mantra of "must get re-elected" was heard out of more than one lawmaker today.
Listen, I am not a Bush fan, not by any stretch of the imagination. I've criticized him before on this blog and still think he's made some incredibly HUGE mistakes while in office. But I will grant him this - he understands the severity of this situation and is working his tail off to get this country upright before he exits from office. He's not trying to preserve his legacy at this moment, he's just trying to preserve the country so that history will be able to note his legacy. And on top of that, his own party put him out to dry? This was legislation that was proposed by his administration with bi-partisan help to draft it, and then voted down BY HIS OWN REPUBLICANS. When a President is stabbed in the back by his own party, you gotta question why and what motivation these people have. Even John McCain, the Republican nominee to be the next President, knew that it would be suicide for the House to vote this down; and yet down it went.
And so did the market. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) fell by 777 points. Look it up folks, that's a record. Even during the collapse of the Great Depression the stock market didn't fall that much. Now to be fair, 777 points in today's market was 7.0% of the total value whereas the worst days in history saw a 20% drop. Nevertheless, I'm not thinking that this 777 is exactly a lucky number. Other measures of the American markets showed similarly bad numbers; NASDAQ was down 9.1%, S&P 500 was down 8.8%. American markets weren't the only ones affected. Japan - down 4.6%, Australia - down 5.3%, Canada - down 7%, England - down 5.3%, and the list continues.
Some blame Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for the failure because she made a speech criticizing Republicans as the voting was taking place and some think that some Republicans voted against the legislation just to smite Pelosi for saying that. I really hope for the sake of this country, and possibly the world, that those representatives were NOT that spiteful. Why the world? If the US falls, who becomes the superpower to take care of the world? Who stands up to aggression by terrorists or radical fundamentalists? Who patrols the seas to ensure that shipping isn't pirated? You think the Russians or the Chinese can step up at the moment? As a former sailor I can tell you this - neither one of those navies (or armies for that matter) is ready to step up and conduct operations on a regional or global scale.
So tonight I am absolutely amazed at the turn of events that has happened in the United States over the last 96 hours. The warning was shouted from the crow's nest long ago about the economic iceberg yet people still think that we are on the unsinkable ship. Can anyone think of a time in US history where they has been worse time in our country? Economic collapse is imminent, fighting a war on two fronts against a word (terror, or unknown opponent if you want to get more technical), and Janet Jackson was hospitalized tonight, unable to make her concert (had to throw in a jab at the entertainment press). We only need one more bad thing to happen and the four horsemen of the apocalypse will come riding into Washington to announce their own takeover. Citibank taking over Wachovia will look like nothing compared to that.
My rant to Congress is this - people with a whole lot more knowledge about the impending financial meltdown are telling you what to do and you're listening to people who can't balance their checkbooks. For once, defer to those who know and make the right decision. Fuck politics, fuck your re-election, fuck the pissed-off voters. Doing the right thing may be the hard thing, especially when it may cost you your elected position but in the end, at least you'll know that you did the right thing in trying to save this country from an epidemic of unemployment and depression.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
a load of crap
Forgive me readers but I'm not my usual self at the moment. However, I wanted to take this opportunity to express myself about a topic that is current and relevant to me, and maybe for others out there.
About a month ago, I celebrated my 38th birthday, marking a point of roughly 20 years worth of dating. Yes indeed, I don't know quite how I've managed to make it this far without finding the right woman for me (it must be a talent). I've also come to the conclusion that 20 years of any experience makes me an expert in the area and I've decided to put up a post about the load of crap that is put out by certain magazines and advice columnists.
"A solid romantic relationship should be built upon a solid friendship." Or something along those lines... The myth that is published over and over by gossip magazines or people who write for papers that have been married for a ba-zillon years. The people who write this crap are full of what they write. After 20 years of dating in different styles, I can assure you that this method does not work. Women do want their lover to be their friend but not vice versa. A tip to all the single boys out there who might read this - do not follow this advice of doing the friendship thing first.
Yes I am writing this because of a recently failed attempt at a relationship, one where I laid the ground work of friendship (to make her more comfortable) and then attempted to move this on to the next stage. What happened in this case, as has happened in the past, is that the woman knows she has a friend in waiting and can break glass in case of need of penis.
Being a friend first is the wrong tactic to take if you are interested in someone. The relationship that develops is one that puts the wrong ideas into each person's head. The interested party believes that being a friend first means gaining trust and becoming a significant part of the others life. To the person who is being befriended, they believe that they have made a friend of the opposite sex and that this opposite gendered friend will always be there but they also know they can take advantage of this friendship when needed (being horny does amazing things to people).
So since this last failure came to be, it got me to thinking about my tactics used when it comes to dating. I surveyed my memories of the last 20 years and thought of my successful (2+ years) romantic relationships and those that have flopped. Of all my successful relationships, precisely zero started off as friendships and progressed from there. To put that into perspective, that includes 3 significant others in 6 years of relationships (over 30% of my dating time) and a fiancee in the mix. While none of those relationships resulted in a long, lasting commitment (hence why I'm still single), I can relate back to those relationships and note the following. My long term relationships were not built on friendship but romantic intentions.
I then looked at my data for relationships that started off as friendships and the attempt to develop it into something more. I stopped counting when I got to 10 because I was starting to make myself depressed to think of the time that I wasted. The time that it takes to lay the foundation for a friendship and develop it further is many fold greater than if the woman knows where you stand up front. The relationships I counted spanned the time of almost 12 years (!) and not one has produced a single, viable, long term, romantic relationship (although I did get laid once by one of them; she was desperate I guess).
The last category is "women who know your intentions and still don't want to date you" and while there are plenty of women in that classification, at least the failed relationships took less time to fail than the friendship route. When a Dutch woman said she didn't want to see me again after the second date because I reminded her too much of her ex, at least it was quick and relatively painless. Another woman, this one from the States, decided she didn't want to continue our relationship of two months because she had found another man; it was over quickly again. In both of those cases (any many more), the romantic side was quashed and I was able to move on to the next person who could be a better match for me.
With time not exactly on my side, I've realized too late this fundamental flaw in the Cinderella media - friendship does not make good romance. The movies show it this way and the good guy/girl friend ends up being the best companion but that's just Hollywood. In my real world experience, this isn't the case and you shouldn't waste your time. So if you're in the dating world, take this advice: Be clear from the start what your intentions are and save yourself the hassle, heartache, and wasted time.
About a month ago, I celebrated my 38th birthday, marking a point of roughly 20 years worth of dating. Yes indeed, I don't know quite how I've managed to make it this far without finding the right woman for me (it must be a talent). I've also come to the conclusion that 20 years of any experience makes me an expert in the area and I've decided to put up a post about the load of crap that is put out by certain magazines and advice columnists.
"A solid romantic relationship should be built upon a solid friendship." Or something along those lines... The myth that is published over and over by gossip magazines or people who write for papers that have been married for a ba-zillon years. The people who write this crap are full of what they write. After 20 years of dating in different styles, I can assure you that this method does not work. Women do want their lover to be their friend but not vice versa. A tip to all the single boys out there who might read this - do not follow this advice of doing the friendship thing first.
Yes I am writing this because of a recently failed attempt at a relationship, one where I laid the ground work of friendship (to make her more comfortable) and then attempted to move this on to the next stage. What happened in this case, as has happened in the past, is that the woman knows she has a friend in waiting and can break glass in case of need of penis.
Being a friend first is the wrong tactic to take if you are interested in someone. The relationship that develops is one that puts the wrong ideas into each person's head. The interested party believes that being a friend first means gaining trust and becoming a significant part of the others life. To the person who is being befriended, they believe that they have made a friend of the opposite sex and that this opposite gendered friend will always be there but they also know they can take advantage of this friendship when needed (being horny does amazing things to people).
So since this last failure came to be, it got me to thinking about my tactics used when it comes to dating. I surveyed my memories of the last 20 years and thought of my successful (2+ years) romantic relationships and those that have flopped. Of all my successful relationships, precisely zero started off as friendships and progressed from there. To put that into perspective, that includes 3 significant others in 6 years of relationships (over 30% of my dating time) and a fiancee in the mix. While none of those relationships resulted in a long, lasting commitment (hence why I'm still single), I can relate back to those relationships and note the following. My long term relationships were not built on friendship but romantic intentions.
I then looked at my data for relationships that started off as friendships and the attempt to develop it into something more. I stopped counting when I got to 10 because I was starting to make myself depressed to think of the time that I wasted. The time that it takes to lay the foundation for a friendship and develop it further is many fold greater than if the woman knows where you stand up front. The relationships I counted spanned the time of almost 12 years (!) and not one has produced a single, viable, long term, romantic relationship (although I did get laid once by one of them; she was desperate I guess).
The last category is "women who know your intentions and still don't want to date you" and while there are plenty of women in that classification, at least the failed relationships took less time to fail than the friendship route. When a Dutch woman said she didn't want to see me again after the second date because I reminded her too much of her ex, at least it was quick and relatively painless. Another woman, this one from the States, decided she didn't want to continue our relationship of two months because she had found another man; it was over quickly again. In both of those cases (any many more), the romantic side was quashed and I was able to move on to the next person who could be a better match for me.
With time not exactly on my side, I've realized too late this fundamental flaw in the Cinderella media - friendship does not make good romance. The movies show it this way and the good guy/girl friend ends up being the best companion but that's just Hollywood. In my real world experience, this isn't the case and you shouldn't waste your time. So if you're in the dating world, take this advice: Be clear from the start what your intentions are and save yourself the hassle, heartache, and wasted time.
Monday, September 22, 2008
times of turmoil
This culture shock thing sure has my brain looping all around. Or maybe it is the gravity of the situation that currently grips the country that I've just moved to. Or maybe its a combination of both of them - I can't quite tell. In any case, the days are feeling a bit on the surreal side here and I'm not having such an easy time wrapping my head around it all.
The government bailout of Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and AIG are unprecedented in history. The Albuquerque Journal's Saturday front page story was a black background with white lettering stating the severity of the financial crisis that was averted. Quotes from politicians and economists splattered across the black, crying out how the country was days away from a meltdown and ATMs across the country were hours away from being turned off. If things work out, Ben Bernanke could considered to be one of the smartest and greatest patriots of 21st century America.
My father called for a family meeting on Saturday to discuss what happened last week. He was furious with how we got into this crisis and how Democrats were to blame for this. The facts (not all verified by me) as stated by him were these:
In late 1999, Bill Clinton repealed the Glass-Stegall Act of 1933 (another bill taking its place, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, was sponsored by Republicans and voted into effect by Congress with such numbers that it was veto-proof). The act was created in the wake of the 1929 crash of the stock market to prevent investment banks and lending banks from becoming one in the same. When Clinton repealed the act, the division between investment banks and lending banks became non-existent and the two were free to dabble in the other.
Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank (D) then led the crusade to get homes for every American. Banks were fined for not lending to people and people were buying houses left and right - even ones they couldn't afford. Banks just figured that if an owner couldn't make their payment, the bank would repossess and the increased value of the house would make up for it. Only problem is that the bubble on the housing market finally started to pop about a year ago and foreclosures could no longer cover the costs. Lending banks took a gamble on investing (in real estate) and were losing - big time. Lehman, AIG, Morgan Sterns, Freddie & Fannie - all were in the papers last week as they became the beginning of what could have been the end of the banking system in the United States. Check your history; when banks fail, so do countries.
It took almost 9 years for the collapse to happen but it came to head last week and it instantly put my father into a tailspin. A quick flash to the Great Depression and its 25% unemployment had my father preaching to me to get a job, no matter what it was, just get a job NOW. My father rarely tells me what to do, leaving me to do what I need to in order to make myself happy and fulfilled, but the impending doom of another possible depression sent him reeling. I imagine that his exposure to the markets and with his company small enough to get crushed by a recession/depression, he has plenty of reason for concern. It is this turmoil that makes my return to the US an uncertain thing, one that makes my head spin in oh so many ways.
So what is to happen? My gut feeling is that Bernanke will prove to be a great patriot and this financial crisis averted. Hopefully Congress will keep their paws off of this and let the people who know best do what they do best and revive the economy. But it does put things into perspective and being unemployed isn't the greatest of feelings at the moment.
The government bailout of Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and AIG are unprecedented in history. The Albuquerque Journal's Saturday front page story was a black background with white lettering stating the severity of the financial crisis that was averted. Quotes from politicians and economists splattered across the black, crying out how the country was days away from a meltdown and ATMs across the country were hours away from being turned off. If things work out, Ben Bernanke could considered to be one of the smartest and greatest patriots of 21st century America.
My father called for a family meeting on Saturday to discuss what happened last week. He was furious with how we got into this crisis and how Democrats were to blame for this. The facts (not all verified by me) as stated by him were these:
In late 1999, Bill Clinton repealed the Glass-Stegall Act of 1933 (another bill taking its place, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, was sponsored by Republicans and voted into effect by Congress with such numbers that it was veto-proof). The act was created in the wake of the 1929 crash of the stock market to prevent investment banks and lending banks from becoming one in the same. When Clinton repealed the act, the division between investment banks and lending banks became non-existent and the two were free to dabble in the other.
Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank (D) then led the crusade to get homes for every American. Banks were fined for not lending to people and people were buying houses left and right - even ones they couldn't afford. Banks just figured that if an owner couldn't make their payment, the bank would repossess and the increased value of the house would make up for it. Only problem is that the bubble on the housing market finally started to pop about a year ago and foreclosures could no longer cover the costs. Lending banks took a gamble on investing (in real estate) and were losing - big time. Lehman, AIG, Morgan Sterns, Freddie & Fannie - all were in the papers last week as they became the beginning of what could have been the end of the banking system in the United States. Check your history; when banks fail, so do countries.
It took almost 9 years for the collapse to happen but it came to head last week and it instantly put my father into a tailspin. A quick flash to the Great Depression and its 25% unemployment had my father preaching to me to get a job, no matter what it was, just get a job NOW. My father rarely tells me what to do, leaving me to do what I need to in order to make myself happy and fulfilled, but the impending doom of another possible depression sent him reeling. I imagine that his exposure to the markets and with his company small enough to get crushed by a recession/depression, he has plenty of reason for concern. It is this turmoil that makes my return to the US an uncertain thing, one that makes my head spin in oh so many ways.
So what is to happen? My gut feeling is that Bernanke will prove to be a great patriot and this financial crisis averted. Hopefully Congress will keep their paws off of this and let the people who know best do what they do best and revive the economy. But it does put things into perspective and being unemployed isn't the greatest of feelings at the moment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
