Once a year we have a State of the Union address. This is when the President comes before, well, before the rest of the major figures of the federal government, although specifically to Congress, and gives a speech on "The State of the Union." It's in our constitution. I've been watching these for years with great fascination. I am far more compelled by a State of the Union address than I've ever been for a Super Bowl. Usually the State of the Union is highly optimistic, mainly because we have a legend in our country that if the President suggests that the Union is weak, Daniel Webster will come bursting out of his grave and the taxpayers will have to pay for his reburial.
Which translates to: every time, regardless of how much or little I like the Presidents, I really want to believe what they say in the State of the Union. What they say usually bears little resemblance to consensus reality in the present and the future (and sometimes even the past). What they say is more often than not a platform for political agendas and specific hobby horses they are trying to pass into reality at that given time (although, judging by the constant, predictable, petulant refusal of whatever the other political party is to clap, it gives you an idea of how effective it's going to be.) Usually one can get a glimpse into what the President is going to be focusing on and where he would like to steer the nation in spite of the opposing parties attempting to steer in the other direction simply out of spite and consequences be damned. Make no mistake, I'm not pointing specific fingers. Both major political parties do this.
This time our President focused largely on the economic crisis and jobless rates. It's nice to hear him speak so much about creating new jobs, doing right by big corporations and what not. I don't think much will come of it, but our economy has sort of a "clapping for Tinkerbell" aspect to it. If the President got up there and said "We're all doomed! DOOMED!" you can bet the stock market would tank the moment Darth Vader rings the starting bell.
By all indicators from economists on all sides of the political spectrum, I think I've become convinced that the worst is over and we are beginning to see growth. However, don't be fooled. It's growth like a bean planted in a kindergarten classroom on the day when you first see the tiniest sprig of green in the dirt. Bear in mind, the kindergartners are the people and the corporations who have a tendency to leave the fragile new plants in the sun or drown them in water or leave the class bunny out of its cage to eat all of the new growth. You see, this animal spirit manifests itself in, to use Freudian metaphors, the collective people who make up the economy, the people and the corporations, who are like a giant id. They feed their base desires and fly fully at whatever emotion they're feeling. The government acts as sort of an ego which comes in on occasion, very rarely (much like all of our own ids), to try to keep the unruly id from self-destructing. And hopefully the joint efforts of the two will, much like the science of emergence, create a super-ego which will guide the body (the economy in this metaphor). Unfortunately, the id rages to keep itself fat, drunk and happy, guzzling resources and getting away with whatever it can get away with, while the super-ego dithers over where and when to step in, how to step in, the right and left side turning on one another like an allergy until the body is so low on nutrients that it starts to devour itself from starvation.
Obama did not say any of this.
Obama talked about clean energy. The only clear dig I saw him take at the previous administration was mentioning climate change deniers in the face of staggering scientific evidence. He talked about leading the world in clean energy in one of the more jock-ish sections of the speech.
He spoke out about the need for the best education in the world. In one of my favorite moments, he said, "The best anti-poverty program around is a world-class education." For which I wanted to stand up and applaud, but we were in the car at that point. Although he then went on to say how a high school education no longer guarantees a job and how we need to reform colleges both inside and out. Which is nice and all well and good if a bit behind the times. My immediate thought was "A Bachelor's degree... Heck, a PHD no longer guarantees a job in this country much less a high school diploma!"
Then he talked about health care reform. I wasn't sure he was going to go there with as disgusting a turn that whole topic has taken. But he did. I still stand by what I've said before that I think given the direction it's going, when his administration is done, people like me will be in either exactly the same position with health care or worse. It's a nice thought, but I think it's going to end up in a one term president embarrassment. Our nation is horribly impatient and unforgiving; and leaders who inherit a load of headaches from the sins of their predecessors don't tend to fare well in America no matter how much headway they make. Again, I would love love love to see real health care reform that helps the people happen in America. I know this isn't the most civic minded things for me to say, but I'll believe it when I see it.
He talked about reform. Then he talked about the war and did a bit of sabre rattling at other nations we're nervous about, which I really wish he wouldn't. I had a friend who was of voting age in the 1960s who told me once that he didn't vote anymore. That was because he had voted for Lyndon Johnson who promised to be the anti-war president, the president who would scale back and stop the war. My friend felt so burned by it that he never voted again. I think about that every time Obama talks about the war.
Look, I would really, really like to like Obama. I really want to. As it's going, I think at best he'll be our generation's Carter, at worst our Johnson or Hoover.
He talked about the deficit of trust in the people toward their government which I yes and amen.
He ended with a touching bit about Haiti and that was that. You can read the full text of his speech here.
I am of so many minds about politics. I usually end up trying my best to be apolitical, especially on this blog, but it's one of those things that effect our lives so we must take an interest in it, although our power is so strangled and impotent, so it's kind of a big frustration. I want there to be a great leader, an amazing heroic figure who is going to march in and lead us all to a grand new future. But I don't think we have one; and I think we may have reached a point in our history where a person like that couldn't make it to any real point of power. Which leaves me with us, the people, who I think are the ones who could work for a better future. But we don't.
And I'm sure Obama's words about the "deficit of trust" will haunt me, one who naturally leans heavily to the Left, for years to come as I see myself acting out that very phrase. I guess it points to where my hope is and where it isn't.
And this is where I find myself at the end of January almost every year. It's a bit like having a favorite party holiday that every year ends up not living up to your expectations.
Sorry to end on such a downer note. See, this is why I don't talk politics very often but, like Michael Corleone, every time I think I'm out, they drag me back in.
As a coda, I would like to add that the gross inadequacies of our local television networks were such that we did not have the usual troupe of political nerds before the event discussing what may or may not be said in the speech. I decided to continue this happy serendipity and, at the time of writing this, I have not read a single analysis or reaction or even listened to the Republican rebuttal (because I decided that my time would be more pleasantly spent chewing a wad of aluminum foil and shoving sharpened bamboo shoots under my own fingernails.) I did this so that my reactions would be purely my own reactions to what was said.
And this is what I came up with!
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Thursday News In Review
State of the Union News:
It's been a busy week for America. Senator Harry Reid stood in front of a microphone a few days ago and shocked the nation when he said that the health care reform bill would include a public option after all. I don't know about you, but I thought the hope for a public option was long dead. So we were pretty jazzed and amazed by the news in our house. Since then we've heard weird rumblings about states being able to opt out of the public option, the public option operating much like an HMO and so forth. But we're ignoring those for now and trying very hard to live optimistically, especially since, as I've said before, the health care reform when it finally rolls off the factory floor will most likely look nothing like anything being bandied about right now.
Meanwhile in North Carolina, there's been a bit of an uproar over a grossly misguided move on the part of Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Right on the heels of the news of customer's rates being raised 11 percent next year, customers received a slick, glossy, expensive looking note from Blue Cross telling them to oppose the public option and mail the enclosed, postage paid letter to their senator. Paid for by, you guessed it, the rates that they just raised. So they raised their customers rates to campaign against the public option and had the unmitigated gall to beg the same customers to oppose the public option. It is backfiring tremendously.
Also in America this week, news came out today that the Recession is over as there has been a slight fluttering rise in the GDP. As one wag on Twitter (@badbanana) noted earlier, the 15 million unemployed probably have the time to set up balloons and streamers to celebrate.
Cutesy, old timey videos aside, this is a small bit of good news. Economists still expect unemployment to hit 10 percent. President Obama told business leaders today, “The benchmark I use to measure the strength of our economy is not just whether our GDP is growing, but whether we’re creating jobs, whether families are having an easier time paying their bills, whether our businesses are hiring and doing well.”
Which I suppose indicates that the economy is a sparrow being sucked into a jet engine.
I'm reminded of when I was working and in the mornings I would hear the news about the housing bubble bursting and the great wave of recession washing over American industry. I heard all of the possibilities explained and I remember thinking very often "I wonder when this is really going to effect me personally." The answer was about 6 months. Which makes me really want to move on to much happier news.
Space News:
NASA launched a new kind of shuttley rockety sort of space explorey thing today. It looks kind of like a Q-Tip with a needle sticking out the top of it. But as opposed to a Q-Tip with a needle sticking out of the top of it, turns out this is a very good thing. The Ares I-X is being tested as a viable replacement to the aged space shuttle design. This should serve to push space exploration (and space exploration safety) forward.
Now Who's The Dummy? News:
Disney announced this week that they will give refunds for the Baby Einstein series of videos (which include Baby Mozart, Baby Galileo and, my personal favorite, Baby Artaud.) This is an admission that the videos do not make babies smarter nor serve to educate them in any measurable way. In 2006, the people of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission over claims that such videos were being marketed as "educational." As a result, the word "educational" was removed future advertising. Claiming that was not enough, the groups lawyers threatened a class action lawsuit. Disney will be offering full price refunds through March 10th on the products which do not make children smarter.
Classical Music News:
Michelle Obama will bring a classical concert to the East Room of the White House next week. superstar violinist Joshua Bell (who just returned from Warsaw after playing a benefit for a Polish Jewish Heritage Museum), guitarist Sharon Isbin, cellist Alisa Weilerstein and pianist Awadagin Pratt will play. The event is meant to highlight the importance of arts education and apparently to make me into a huge fan of Michelle Obama. In conjunction with the concert, over 120 music workshops will be sponsored by the White House at sundry junior high and high schools throughout the country.
It's been a busy week for America. Senator Harry Reid stood in front of a microphone a few days ago and shocked the nation when he said that the health care reform bill would include a public option after all. I don't know about you, but I thought the hope for a public option was long dead. So we were pretty jazzed and amazed by the news in our house. Since then we've heard weird rumblings about states being able to opt out of the public option, the public option operating much like an HMO and so forth. But we're ignoring those for now and trying very hard to live optimistically, especially since, as I've said before, the health care reform when it finally rolls off the factory floor will most likely look nothing like anything being bandied about right now.
Meanwhile in North Carolina, there's been a bit of an uproar over a grossly misguided move on the part of Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Right on the heels of the news of customer's rates being raised 11 percent next year, customers received a slick, glossy, expensive looking note from Blue Cross telling them to oppose the public option and mail the enclosed, postage paid letter to their senator. Paid for by, you guessed it, the rates that they just raised. So they raised their customers rates to campaign against the public option and had the unmitigated gall to beg the same customers to oppose the public option. It is backfiring tremendously.
Also in America this week, news came out today that the Recession is over as there has been a slight fluttering rise in the GDP. As one wag on Twitter (@badbanana) noted earlier, the 15 million unemployed probably have the time to set up balloons and streamers to celebrate.
Cutesy, old timey videos aside, this is a small bit of good news. Economists still expect unemployment to hit 10 percent. President Obama told business leaders today, “The benchmark I use to measure the strength of our economy is not just whether our GDP is growing, but whether we’re creating jobs, whether families are having an easier time paying their bills, whether our businesses are hiring and doing well.”
Which I suppose indicates that the economy is a sparrow being sucked into a jet engine.
I'm reminded of when I was working and in the mornings I would hear the news about the housing bubble bursting and the great wave of recession washing over American industry. I heard all of the possibilities explained and I remember thinking very often "I wonder when this is really going to effect me personally." The answer was about 6 months. Which makes me really want to move on to much happier news.
Space News:
NASA launched a new kind of shuttley rockety sort of space explorey thing today. It looks kind of like a Q-Tip with a needle sticking out the top of it. But as opposed to a Q-Tip with a needle sticking out of the top of it, turns out this is a very good thing. The Ares I-X is being tested as a viable replacement to the aged space shuttle design. This should serve to push space exploration (and space exploration safety) forward.
Now Who's The Dummy? News:
Disney announced this week that they will give refunds for the Baby Einstein series of videos (which include Baby Mozart, Baby Galileo and, my personal favorite, Baby Artaud.) This is an admission that the videos do not make babies smarter nor serve to educate them in any measurable way. In 2006, the people of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission over claims that such videos were being marketed as "educational." As a result, the word "educational" was removed future advertising. Claiming that was not enough, the groups lawyers threatened a class action lawsuit. Disney will be offering full price refunds through March 10th on the products which do not make children smarter.
Classical Music News:
Michelle Obama will bring a classical concert to the East Room of the White House next week. superstar violinist Joshua Bell (who just returned from Warsaw after playing a benefit for a Polish Jewish Heritage Museum), guitarist Sharon Isbin, cellist Alisa Weilerstein and pianist Awadagin Pratt will play. The event is meant to highlight the importance of arts education and apparently to make me into a huge fan of Michelle Obama. In conjunction with the concert, over 120 music workshops will be sponsored by the White House at sundry junior high and high schools throughout the country.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Because We Can
Well then, I guess my Thursday News In Review came a few hours before a very important and controversial story. President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (or, rather, he won the prize. He still has to go to Oslo to pick it up.)
Immediately the reactions/kneejerk opinions were flowing online and on NPR. Seeing as how haste seems to rule the day, I figured I ought to get right on a blog entry about it. One of the first opinions I got a kick out of was from Drew Carey, of all people (don't judge. I'm following him on Twitter because if he gets a million followers by the end of the year he will donate a million dollars to the Livestrong Foundation. See, now you feel all bad and you're going to go follow him now. Atta boy.) I thought Carey summed it up nicely when he said, "I can't believe I just won an OSCAR after only having a couple of pitch meetings! Thanks everyone!" I had a long moment of hesitation before quoting a game show host on this subject, but I decided that the nature of the story rather made it appropriate.
And let me just take a moment to say, "Way to go upstaging us bombing the moon, Mr. President."
Look, the Nobel Prize was not handed down from God. It's not given out by a great hoary, dry iced filled council room of The Three Most Important People In The World. It's the behest of the long dead inventor of dynamite, and a bunch of Swedish blokes decide who gets what. It's not canon. It's not a scientific equation, and if you have the money you can do whatever you want. I have every right to say that Murder of Angels by Caitlin R. Kiernan is one of the finest novels by a living author in print. I believe that to be the case. If I had a giant pool of money I might establish a literary award to slap on the cover of future editions of the book. The "Paul Mathers' Award of Literary Merit" or some such nonsense and maybe if I had enough money and I died and I left future decisions to a crusty panel of academics, people might actually start to feel that my award actually meant something aside from the personal taste of a small group. So you see, The Nobel Prize is sort of like the Oprah Book Club. A wealthy and influential name giving more money and more global prestige to slightly less wealthy and influential names. The only thing they succeed in doing by making poor choices is tarnishing their own reputation for the future.
So, that's my main reaction.
My secondary reaction is that the decision seems rather hasty (which is funny because I wrote that very line when I started writing this post this morning and as soon as I finished writing that line the power went out for three hours. It made me have to sit on the topic and think about it for a few hours before posting this.) It's not the first ghastly move made by the Nobel committee. I would remind everyone that Henry Kissinger of all people has a Nobel Peace Prize. As did Yasser Arafat. The Peace Prize!
Also, Al Gore won for his mad Powerpoint skills.
I've heard people already comment that Greg Mortenson, the Three Cups of Tea dude, was robbed. I am inclined to agree, although I would also point out that Gandhi was robbed five times. I've read several people pointing out that this announcement comes right on the heels of Obama calling for a step up of US military presence in Afghanistan. Personally, I'm a little more upset about the timing of the nomination which came right at the beginning of Obama's presidency before he'd even unpacked. The Nobel Committee, tellingly on the defensive even in announcing the winner, claims that they want to forward the mission of Obama and thank him for restoring the public face of America to the rest of the world (which is to say he wins for not being Bush.) So they straight up admit that it's based on an image and a plan rather than any actual achievement.
Again, as I've said before about Obama, I would like to believe all of the Hope hype. I would like to believe that Obama is going to usher in the Golden Age of America. I truly hope he does. I truly hope he turns out to have been the greatest president in American history. I genuinely think I would like the man in person. But here I sit almost six months after my lay-off. I've looked rabidly for work every day of those six months (except Sundays.) Really I think Job One for the president and all of America should be the creation of jobs, pressing the GDP to the metal, and replacing our current foundation on debt with a foundation on quality goods and services. The economy is so stinking bad, the jobless rate is so abysmal that it's hard to imagine the leader of a nation in such a state receiving such an award while we're still so sunk in it.
If the Nobel committee were time travelers I would feel a lot better about this but as you well know there are only 16 time travelers walking the Earth today and none of them are on the Nobel committee.
All of which is a long winded way of saying, yes, I agree with most people I've talked to, including a good portion who are otherwise Obama lovers, that the prize seems very hasty, very image based, and kind of embarrassing. That's the thing about money. When you have it, you can do whatever you want with it no matter how ill advised, tasteless or regrettable. If you don't believe me, Google Bellagio.
Immediately the reactions/kneejerk opinions were flowing online and on NPR. Seeing as how haste seems to rule the day, I figured I ought to get right on a blog entry about it. One of the first opinions I got a kick out of was from Drew Carey, of all people (don't judge. I'm following him on Twitter because if he gets a million followers by the end of the year he will donate a million dollars to the Livestrong Foundation. See, now you feel all bad and you're going to go follow him now. Atta boy.) I thought Carey summed it up nicely when he said, "I can't believe I just won an OSCAR after only having a couple of pitch meetings! Thanks everyone!" I had a long moment of hesitation before quoting a game show host on this subject, but I decided that the nature of the story rather made it appropriate.
And let me just take a moment to say, "Way to go upstaging us bombing the moon, Mr. President."
Look, the Nobel Prize was not handed down from God. It's not given out by a great hoary, dry iced filled council room of The Three Most Important People In The World. It's the behest of the long dead inventor of dynamite, and a bunch of Swedish blokes decide who gets what. It's not canon. It's not a scientific equation, and if you have the money you can do whatever you want. I have every right to say that Murder of Angels by Caitlin R. Kiernan is one of the finest novels by a living author in print. I believe that to be the case. If I had a giant pool of money I might establish a literary award to slap on the cover of future editions of the book. The "Paul Mathers' Award of Literary Merit" or some such nonsense and maybe if I had enough money and I died and I left future decisions to a crusty panel of academics, people might actually start to feel that my award actually meant something aside from the personal taste of a small group. So you see, The Nobel Prize is sort of like the Oprah Book Club. A wealthy and influential name giving more money and more global prestige to slightly less wealthy and influential names. The only thing they succeed in doing by making poor choices is tarnishing their own reputation for the future.
So, that's my main reaction.
My secondary reaction is that the decision seems rather hasty (which is funny because I wrote that very line when I started writing this post this morning and as soon as I finished writing that line the power went out for three hours. It made me have to sit on the topic and think about it for a few hours before posting this.) It's not the first ghastly move made by the Nobel committee. I would remind everyone that Henry Kissinger of all people has a Nobel Peace Prize. As did Yasser Arafat. The Peace Prize!
Also, Al Gore won for his mad Powerpoint skills.
I've heard people already comment that Greg Mortenson, the Three Cups of Tea dude, was robbed. I am inclined to agree, although I would also point out that Gandhi was robbed five times. I've read several people pointing out that this announcement comes right on the heels of Obama calling for a step up of US military presence in Afghanistan. Personally, I'm a little more upset about the timing of the nomination which came right at the beginning of Obama's presidency before he'd even unpacked. The Nobel Committee, tellingly on the defensive even in announcing the winner, claims that they want to forward the mission of Obama and thank him for restoring the public face of America to the rest of the world (which is to say he wins for not being Bush.) So they straight up admit that it's based on an image and a plan rather than any actual achievement.
Again, as I've said before about Obama, I would like to believe all of the Hope hype. I would like to believe that Obama is going to usher in the Golden Age of America. I truly hope he does. I truly hope he turns out to have been the greatest president in American history. I genuinely think I would like the man in person. But here I sit almost six months after my lay-off. I've looked rabidly for work every day of those six months (except Sundays.) Really I think Job One for the president and all of America should be the creation of jobs, pressing the GDP to the metal, and replacing our current foundation on debt with a foundation on quality goods and services. The economy is so stinking bad, the jobless rate is so abysmal that it's hard to imagine the leader of a nation in such a state receiving such an award while we're still so sunk in it.
If the Nobel committee were time travelers I would feel a lot better about this but as you well know there are only 16 time travelers walking the Earth today and none of them are on the Nobel committee.
All of which is a long winded way of saying, yes, I agree with most people I've talked to, including a good portion who are otherwise Obama lovers, that the prize seems very hasty, very image based, and kind of embarrassing. That's the thing about money. When you have it, you can do whatever you want with it no matter how ill advised, tasteless or regrettable. If you don't believe me, Google Bellagio.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Movie Review: Capitalism: A Love Story
First a few words on seeing this film in the theater. Laurie and I have seen four movies in the theater in the three years we've been together. We don't go to movie theaters, and we have what we feel are very good reasons for that. This was a special case as it's timely (in fact likely to be dated fairly quickly), plus we like to cast our economic vote for more films like this being made (and possibly less being made like the ones we saw previews for) and we had eight bucks left on two year old movie theater gift cards.
When we walked in there was the cognitive dissonance of the preview for Disney's A Christmas Carol. As you well remember, Dickens wrote A Christmas Carol as a tract denouncing the corrupt business practices of his day. Now it's going to be Disney's seasonal millions maker. In a way, it was both fitting and abominable. Coupled with that, I was grossly insulted by every one of the previews for upcoming films. Also, one of the strangest parts, which I'd forgotten, of seeing a Michael Moore film (and this one in particular) in the theater is the experience of having people around me laughing uproariously at parts when I am earnestly weeping. Mind you, they are laughing in solidarity to the points being made, but still. In this case it was the people behind us who looked like college kids with wealthy parents. Long may they still be able to laugh about such things. I cried most of the way through the film.
I waited until the end of my last post to trot out the Roman Empire. Michael Moore started with it. As usual, I won't go into great specific detail as you should all go experience it for yourself. The film discusses a dozen or so aspects of the economic mess we're in. In fact, I would almost say in one of my few critiques of the film that he may have bitten off a way bigger topic than two hours can do justice. However, I think both Laurie and I benefited greatly from having heard this interview last week before seeing the film. I thought it laid a groundwork for those who see the film. I would encourage you to listen to the interview and then see it for yourself regardless of your preconceptions, whatever they may be.
I thought he was very honest and fair in his pinning of responsibility on both political parties and more specifically to the bankers who pull their strings. There are graphic foreclosures and accounts of deaths, lay-offs and factory closings, in sum, grotesque business practices. I thought he did a very good job and spent a very good amount of time on the "why" of it. He introduced us to some of the more lugubrious members of our government and banking systems. He explained de-regulation and how we came to such a point of unfettered grief to where, as he puts it, all of America is turning into Flint, Michigan.
I especially appreciated the portions where he appealed to religion, mainly because I found it refreshing to hear Christianity regarded in a positive light rather than the mustache twirling villains we're so often cast as in modern Hollywood. Although I did notice he seemed to talk mainly to Catholics, I have to whole-heartedly agree with their assessment of contemporary American capitalism and Christianity.
I heard a film review before going to see it where the reviewer said that a few of the scenes seemed opportunistic to him. For example, when someone is honestly crying and the camera is eating it up. I disagree. The purpose of the film is to speak on the topic, and in order to do so Moore talks to people affected by the problem. It wouldn't be the film that it is, nor would it be very honest if it didn't include the stories of those who have been hurt. I thought Moore handled those situations very tactfully with great respect for the people suffering. People get really weird about Michael Moore. I don't think he's a god among men or anything, but people seem to try to get their negativity around whatever they can possibly think of in regards to him. I don't know. I get that he is famous and wealthy and all that while he says these things, but that's just it! How many other rich and famous people are devoting their careers to these topics?!!?
Some of Moore's gimmicks, like trying to get the money back from the banks or attempting to citizen's arrest CEOs, I personally feel are some of the weaker points, a sort of gratuitous comedy, but they also illustrate a larger problem in my mind. They are a bit like The Porter Scene in Macbeth, where if you didn't have the comic relief it would be hours of nothing but grim. But they also remind me of something New York Rob used to say to me. He said he wishes there was a building somewhere with "The Establishment" in big lighted letters on top so you could, you know, go pee on that building or throw eggs at it or something. Moore can go to a building and his very presence will make people nervous. Not so with me or you. I don't know any CEOs of major banks, and if I try to call them they will not panic. They will simply disregard me.
Also, a scene where workers staged a sit-down strike for their wages at their factory which was closing made me think, "Well, that's all well and good, they got their severance pay, but where are those people going to find jobs when this is over and their $6000 has run out?"
If I were making the film, rather than the revolutionary rhetoric, I would have focused a bit more on a point he makes in passing toward the beginning which is that all votes are created equal. That's part of the beauty of democracy.
As I said in a previous post, Capitalism is not the American System. Democracy is. Moore saves what was to me the big guns for the end of the film. He reminded me of something I knew, a certain great political figure in American history who proposed a second bill of rights, seeing America for the great country it is, which included jobs and health care for all. Then he died. We're still working on what he proposed about 60 years ago. I'd forgotten all about it and was glad that Moore mentioned it.
I would recommend the film to anyone. It's a well made op-ed piece on what may end up being the biggest issue of our day. How we deal with the economic mess will probably define this period of history. Although, if you've never seen a Michael Moore film before, first of all, you should see one. There's a reason why he's one of the world's most respected documentary film makers alive. But personally I would recommend Sicko before this one. I thought it was a much more concise film - no matter how glad I was to see Wallace Shawn in this one.
When we walked in there was the cognitive dissonance of the preview for Disney's A Christmas Carol. As you well remember, Dickens wrote A Christmas Carol as a tract denouncing the corrupt business practices of his day. Now it's going to be Disney's seasonal millions maker. In a way, it was both fitting and abominable. Coupled with that, I was grossly insulted by every one of the previews for upcoming films. Also, one of the strangest parts, which I'd forgotten, of seeing a Michael Moore film (and this one in particular) in the theater is the experience of having people around me laughing uproariously at parts when I am earnestly weeping. Mind you, they are laughing in solidarity to the points being made, but still. In this case it was the people behind us who looked like college kids with wealthy parents. Long may they still be able to laugh about such things. I cried most of the way through the film.
I waited until the end of my last post to trot out the Roman Empire. Michael Moore started with it. As usual, I won't go into great specific detail as you should all go experience it for yourself. The film discusses a dozen or so aspects of the economic mess we're in. In fact, I would almost say in one of my few critiques of the film that he may have bitten off a way bigger topic than two hours can do justice. However, I think both Laurie and I benefited greatly from having heard this interview last week before seeing the film. I thought it laid a groundwork for those who see the film. I would encourage you to listen to the interview and then see it for yourself regardless of your preconceptions, whatever they may be.
I thought he was very honest and fair in his pinning of responsibility on both political parties and more specifically to the bankers who pull their strings. There are graphic foreclosures and accounts of deaths, lay-offs and factory closings, in sum, grotesque business practices. I thought he did a very good job and spent a very good amount of time on the "why" of it. He introduced us to some of the more lugubrious members of our government and banking systems. He explained de-regulation and how we came to such a point of unfettered grief to where, as he puts it, all of America is turning into Flint, Michigan.
I especially appreciated the portions where he appealed to religion, mainly because I found it refreshing to hear Christianity regarded in a positive light rather than the mustache twirling villains we're so often cast as in modern Hollywood. Although I did notice he seemed to talk mainly to Catholics, I have to whole-heartedly agree with their assessment of contemporary American capitalism and Christianity.
I heard a film review before going to see it where the reviewer said that a few of the scenes seemed opportunistic to him. For example, when someone is honestly crying and the camera is eating it up. I disagree. The purpose of the film is to speak on the topic, and in order to do so Moore talks to people affected by the problem. It wouldn't be the film that it is, nor would it be very honest if it didn't include the stories of those who have been hurt. I thought Moore handled those situations very tactfully with great respect for the people suffering. People get really weird about Michael Moore. I don't think he's a god among men or anything, but people seem to try to get their negativity around whatever they can possibly think of in regards to him. I don't know. I get that he is famous and wealthy and all that while he says these things, but that's just it! How many other rich and famous people are devoting their careers to these topics?!!?
Some of Moore's gimmicks, like trying to get the money back from the banks or attempting to citizen's arrest CEOs, I personally feel are some of the weaker points, a sort of gratuitous comedy, but they also illustrate a larger problem in my mind. They are a bit like The Porter Scene in Macbeth, where if you didn't have the comic relief it would be hours of nothing but grim. But they also remind me of something New York Rob used to say to me. He said he wishes there was a building somewhere with "The Establishment" in big lighted letters on top so you could, you know, go pee on that building or throw eggs at it or something. Moore can go to a building and his very presence will make people nervous. Not so with me or you. I don't know any CEOs of major banks, and if I try to call them they will not panic. They will simply disregard me.
Also, a scene where workers staged a sit-down strike for their wages at their factory which was closing made me think, "Well, that's all well and good, they got their severance pay, but where are those people going to find jobs when this is over and their $6000 has run out?"
If I were making the film, rather than the revolutionary rhetoric, I would have focused a bit more on a point he makes in passing toward the beginning which is that all votes are created equal. That's part of the beauty of democracy.
As I said in a previous post, Capitalism is not the American System. Democracy is. Moore saves what was to me the big guns for the end of the film. He reminded me of something I knew, a certain great political figure in American history who proposed a second bill of rights, seeing America for the great country it is, which included jobs and health care for all. Then he died. We're still working on what he proposed about 60 years ago. I'd forgotten all about it and was glad that Moore mentioned it.
I would recommend the film to anyone. It's a well made op-ed piece on what may end up being the biggest issue of our day. How we deal with the economic mess will probably define this period of history. Although, if you've never seen a Michael Moore film before, first of all, you should see one. There's a reason why he's one of the world's most respected documentary film makers alive. But personally I would recommend Sicko before this one. I thought it was a much more concise film - no matter how glad I was to see Wallace Shawn in this one.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Covering Capitalism
Many years ago, when Laurie was just a friend of mine, one evening at a study she told me a story about when she was a teenager and they unplugged a jukebox at a camp because the kids kept playing "One Tin Soldier" over and over and over. She was amazed that I had never heard One Tin Soldier. I think later that night I drove down for one of my Orange Country trips (which I used to do when I was single - leave to drive to OC at 9pm and get there just before sunrise.) Within 24 hours I was at a friends house and asking them about One Tin Soldier. It turned out everyone else on Earth had heard the song before, but I got the strange idea in my head that I should record a cover of the song, never having heard it before, of what I might suppose it might go like. I envisioned a whole album of covers of songs I'd never heard. My version was highly percussive and had a lot to do with Red Buttons making time go slow and Jonathan Winters' head rising like the sun.
I'm about to do something similar and, probably, about to finally write the post that will make everyone furious with me. Deo Volente, Laurie and I are spending the last of our movie theater gift certificates tomorrow to go see Michael Moore's new film "Capitalism: A Love Story." I thought I might say a few words here in the autumn of 2009 just before seeing the film; and then after seeing the film I can write a review and see what the two entries look like next to one another.
I've enjoyed some of Moore's films and I would direct you to my recent post of separating art from artist. I thought Sicko hit the nail right on the head; and I cried most of the way through Bowling For Columbine. And when I disagree with him, he at least gets us thinking and talking about why, which I think is always good. In the end, I like his op-ed pieces. I take them as op-ed pieces, (not as journalism) regardless of what I think of him or how much or little I agree with them. At the very least, I think he puts on a good show and sparks some nifty conversations. And sometimes he hits it hard and he hits it exactly on the head.
Now, to Capitalism as an economic system. Here's a clip of Senator Sanders responding to a question by Michael Moore:
I don't think Capitalism is necessarily a great evil in and of itself. Like Moore, I understand that it is not by necessity the American Way. Democracy is The American Way. We can have whatever economic system we choose. I have no problem with rewarding good production and hard work. In fact, I would like to see that.
It's always puzzled me how a first world country, born from The Enlightenment, can have people who die of heart attacks because they don't call the ambulance because their family could not afford the medical bills. Or how there can be people, like me, who desperately want to work, when clearly there is an abundance of work that could be done to build our nation, but are unable to find work because no one is hiring. Or that people who want to work lose their houses and cannot afford food. Meanwhile, the top 1% gets a new, bigger flatscreen iTV. I'm inclined, with Senator Sanders, to agree that a lot of Europe seems to put us to shame. Not that I think Europe is some Utopia by any means. Also, upon consideration of the temperature set by television's screaming heads, I should probably add that I love my country.
It would seem to me that our country could be a hot-bed of progress, innovation, ideas, culture, and philanthropy. At the moment, I think we're slouching toward the polar opposite. There could be jobs for all! When I took a business leadership course in college (I think I was planning on using the concepts in stage management) I did a report on Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream and their corporate structure, which includes taking scrupulous, almost Nordic, care of their employees, and the CEOs not making more than seven times what their lowest employees was paid (I say "was" because they eventually ended up having to sell the whole company to Hagen Das in one of the more depressing bits of business news of the last 20 years.)
I'm not here for an anti-capitalism rant. I do think capitalism can be a good incentive system. I think that people striving for better stuff is fine, so long as one's not glutting while someone else willing to work, unable to find work, is outside starving, sick without means for medical care and being foreclosed upon. And so long as the people who are doing the work that deserves the rewards are getting the rewards, but that is so very rarely the case. Unfortunately, unfettered capitalism seems to have led to a sort of Social Darwinistic economy where the "fittest" are either:
1) those born to rich parents;
2) those so brutal, amoral, and backstabbing that they politic, coerce, and destroy their way to the top or;
3) the kind of entertainer or athlete that advertisers and corporations feel okay backing because they do nothing to disrupt the culture of consumption.
I am achingly aware that money does not really exist. It is merely an agreed upon idea. However, as most of you who have reached adulthood have probably noticed, even in America you can die from a lack of agreed upon ideas.
So, as with Twitter, I don't think Capitalism is in and of itself evil, but the people who wield it often are. The way we use it often is. The top feeders in modern America seem to have come from the Charles Dickens Villain School of Business and Economics. The recent bank bailout debacle serves to illustrate again that people are not inclined to do the right thing.
Yesterday, I had a whole post on Classicism worked out in my head until I took the dogs out and a truck drove by. The truck was playing music of a man screaming as though he were about to kill people and the discordant cacophony behind his vocals were tailored to a pace to mimic a heart that is about to explode in panic. I thought about how things are getting kind of bad around here, and are in fact getting kind of bad all over the place. I don't come from a great golden age of decency. I am a child of the '80s. But I can say that things did not used to be as bad in America as they are now. People did not behave in the manner they now behave. Entropy ravages our closed system. And I started thinking about the murderous, vile, selfish hearts of humanity. But, 'twas ever thus. The murder in the hearts of those walking around, the selfishness and hatred, could be a fitting description of the days of Noah, or of the men of the city that Lot and his family fled in Genesis.
My brother brought up this morning in conversation how the church should take care of its own. I agree! Last night Laurie was asking me if I regretted that I don't have money and travel; and I said words to this effect: "Laurie, I am a man with a lot of regrets from his time in this world thus far. That is not one of them. I am very smart and could have sought after money and travel. But what is this world to me? Without Christ's abundant grace, I have nothing."
And again I would point out that we can talk about economics until doomsday, but a world without Christ is going to be wicked and sinful. A world without Christ has no hope. Without Christ, all is worthless.
I would also point out that the Bible doesn't command me to endorse a particular mode of government or economic structure.
But don't let's just tear down. When the economy collapsed, I thought it seemed like a very good time to re-organize, re-think, and re-structure. The video below is an interview (it's about 15 minutes long, but way better than whatever you were going to do with those 15 minutes anyway) with Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglizt about the gross mishandling of the banking crisis, how the economy really looks now, and some archaic aspects of our current economic structure (although I was laid off from a business with the 19th century mode of ownership that he was talking about. The dis-unity is a bit of a problem too, especially when you have 19th century style businesses competing with slick 21st century structured businesses and then wondering why they're having so much trouble.) To those already made politically uneasy by some of what I'm saying, I would point out that Stiglitz criticized Obama just as much as Bush. (Lately I've been using the word Carter-esque way more than I ever hoped to use it again in my life.) I thought it was a fair and thought provoking analysis of the current economic situation, which included some solutions which I don't think even went far enough and won't happen anyway. But, I thought I would pass it on.
You know, this is such a wonderful country. I love this country dearly. So much so that I think it would be an enormous tragedy to see it fall over something so stupid as the mismanagement of the economy. We wouldn't be the first to fall in such a way. The Roman Empire had a more dignified death.
I'm about to do something similar and, probably, about to finally write the post that will make everyone furious with me. Deo Volente, Laurie and I are spending the last of our movie theater gift certificates tomorrow to go see Michael Moore's new film "Capitalism: A Love Story." I thought I might say a few words here in the autumn of 2009 just before seeing the film; and then after seeing the film I can write a review and see what the two entries look like next to one another.
I've enjoyed some of Moore's films and I would direct you to my recent post of separating art from artist. I thought Sicko hit the nail right on the head; and I cried most of the way through Bowling For Columbine. And when I disagree with him, he at least gets us thinking and talking about why, which I think is always good. In the end, I like his op-ed pieces. I take them as op-ed pieces, (not as journalism) regardless of what I think of him or how much or little I agree with them. At the very least, I think he puts on a good show and sparks some nifty conversations. And sometimes he hits it hard and he hits it exactly on the head.
Now, to Capitalism as an economic system. Here's a clip of Senator Sanders responding to a question by Michael Moore:
I don't think Capitalism is necessarily a great evil in and of itself. Like Moore, I understand that it is not by necessity the American Way. Democracy is The American Way. We can have whatever economic system we choose. I have no problem with rewarding good production and hard work. In fact, I would like to see that.
It's always puzzled me how a first world country, born from The Enlightenment, can have people who die of heart attacks because they don't call the ambulance because their family could not afford the medical bills. Or how there can be people, like me, who desperately want to work, when clearly there is an abundance of work that could be done to build our nation, but are unable to find work because no one is hiring. Or that people who want to work lose their houses and cannot afford food. Meanwhile, the top 1% gets a new, bigger flatscreen iTV. I'm inclined, with Senator Sanders, to agree that a lot of Europe seems to put us to shame. Not that I think Europe is some Utopia by any means. Also, upon consideration of the temperature set by television's screaming heads, I should probably add that I love my country.
It would seem to me that our country could be a hot-bed of progress, innovation, ideas, culture, and philanthropy. At the moment, I think we're slouching toward the polar opposite. There could be jobs for all! When I took a business leadership course in college (I think I was planning on using the concepts in stage management) I did a report on Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream and their corporate structure, which includes taking scrupulous, almost Nordic, care of their employees, and the CEOs not making more than seven times what their lowest employees was paid (I say "was" because they eventually ended up having to sell the whole company to Hagen Das in one of the more depressing bits of business news of the last 20 years.)
I'm not here for an anti-capitalism rant. I do think capitalism can be a good incentive system. I think that people striving for better stuff is fine, so long as one's not glutting while someone else willing to work, unable to find work, is outside starving, sick without means for medical care and being foreclosed upon. And so long as the people who are doing the work that deserves the rewards are getting the rewards, but that is so very rarely the case. Unfortunately, unfettered capitalism seems to have led to a sort of Social Darwinistic economy where the "fittest" are either:
1) those born to rich parents;
2) those so brutal, amoral, and backstabbing that they politic, coerce, and destroy their way to the top or;
3) the kind of entertainer or athlete that advertisers and corporations feel okay backing because they do nothing to disrupt the culture of consumption.
I am achingly aware that money does not really exist. It is merely an agreed upon idea. However, as most of you who have reached adulthood have probably noticed, even in America you can die from a lack of agreed upon ideas.
So, as with Twitter, I don't think Capitalism is in and of itself evil, but the people who wield it often are. The way we use it often is. The top feeders in modern America seem to have come from the Charles Dickens Villain School of Business and Economics. The recent bank bailout debacle serves to illustrate again that people are not inclined to do the right thing.
Yesterday, I had a whole post on Classicism worked out in my head until I took the dogs out and a truck drove by. The truck was playing music of a man screaming as though he were about to kill people and the discordant cacophony behind his vocals were tailored to a pace to mimic a heart that is about to explode in panic. I thought about how things are getting kind of bad around here, and are in fact getting kind of bad all over the place. I don't come from a great golden age of decency. I am a child of the '80s. But I can say that things did not used to be as bad in America as they are now. People did not behave in the manner they now behave. Entropy ravages our closed system. And I started thinking about the murderous, vile, selfish hearts of humanity. But, 'twas ever thus. The murder in the hearts of those walking around, the selfishness and hatred, could be a fitting description of the days of Noah, or of the men of the city that Lot and his family fled in Genesis.
My brother brought up this morning in conversation how the church should take care of its own. I agree! Last night Laurie was asking me if I regretted that I don't have money and travel; and I said words to this effect: "Laurie, I am a man with a lot of regrets from his time in this world thus far. That is not one of them. I am very smart and could have sought after money and travel. But what is this world to me? Without Christ's abundant grace, I have nothing."
And again I would point out that we can talk about economics until doomsday, but a world without Christ is going to be wicked and sinful. A world without Christ has no hope. Without Christ, all is worthless.
I would also point out that the Bible doesn't command me to endorse a particular mode of government or economic structure.
But don't let's just tear down. When the economy collapsed, I thought it seemed like a very good time to re-organize, re-think, and re-structure. The video below is an interview (it's about 15 minutes long, but way better than whatever you were going to do with those 15 minutes anyway) with Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglizt about the gross mishandling of the banking crisis, how the economy really looks now, and some archaic aspects of our current economic structure (although I was laid off from a business with the 19th century mode of ownership that he was talking about. The dis-unity is a bit of a problem too, especially when you have 19th century style businesses competing with slick 21st century structured businesses and then wondering why they're having so much trouble.) To those already made politically uneasy by some of what I'm saying, I would point out that Stiglitz criticized Obama just as much as Bush. (Lately I've been using the word Carter-esque way more than I ever hoped to use it again in my life.) I thought it was a fair and thought provoking analysis of the current economic situation, which included some solutions which I don't think even went far enough and won't happen anyway. But, I thought I would pass it on.
You know, this is such a wonderful country. I love this country dearly. So much so that I think it would be an enormous tragedy to see it fall over something so stupid as the mismanagement of the economy. We wouldn't be the first to fall in such a way. The Roman Empire had a more dignified death.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Thursday News In Review
Chess News:
Garry Kasparov and Anatoli Karpov are having a rematch. You all know of their famous face off from 25 years ago and their few rematches in the time since. They are playing 12 blitz games of about an hour a piece to avoid a 5 months long game. As of my writing this, Kasparov is owning Karpov without mercy.
Also in chess news, I am now on Chess. com with the username Fafner. I welcome all challengers.
More Crashing Things Into Other Things News:
The probes have confirmed it. Water has been discovered on the moon. Or, more specifically, a thin layer of hydroxl molecules (no, it's not what the cookies are made from) on the surface, but water none the less. It's not going to be a viable solution to the ground water problem on Earth as one football field worth of surface on the moon would yield less than a quart of water. The more interesting part is that it isn't supposed to be there. Scientists are as of yet uncertain why there is water on the moon.
Unemployed People Rule! News:
An unemployed man in England was walking around with a metal detector in a field in Staffordshire and found what he rightly called "what metal detectorists dream of." He stumbled upon the largest haul of Anglo-Saxon treasure ever found (nearly 1,400 items.) It's believed to have been stashed around the 7th Century. Of course, the hoard has been claimed by The Crown. But how cool is it for an unemployed guy with a metal detector going out one morning and changing history, becoming an important figure himself in archaeological history. It should give each of us hope for each new day. We have no idea how important today might be.
Vaccine News:
Another piece of very good and potentially history making news is the promising HIV vaccine news released today, greatly upstaging the UN speeches (and thank God for that pleasant side effect as well!) A group of scientists in Thailand have tested an HIV vaccine which appears to reduce the spread of the virus by 1/3rd. Which may not sound all the great at first, but do bear in mind that this is the first vaccine of any efficacy against the virus ever.
UN Weirdness News:
World leaders are gathering for a UN conference in New York and, as usual, many of the world leaders are barking mad. Obama opened with a re-commitment of the US to the UN (after, you know, 8 years of the US flipping the UN the proverbial bird) and a call for nuclear disarmament already. Then there were speeches by other world leaders, many of them madder than an old hooty owl.
Gambian president Yahya Jammeh, who rose to power through a coup in 1994, said that he will have interfering human rights workers killed. "I will kill anyone who wants to destabilize this country," he said. "If you think that you can collaborate with so-called human rights defenders, and get away with it, you must be living in a dream world. I will kill you, and nothing will come out of it."
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, straight from a recent monstrous anti-Semitic Holocaust-denying rant, gave a speech denouncing the "Age of Empires" which was a fairly thinly veiled saber rattle over larger nations' actions to prevent Iranian nuclear proliferation. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu devoted most of his speech to rebutting Ahmadinejad's speech and, indeed, his very presence. He called Ahmandinejad's speech a mockery of the United Nations, and said people who listened to the Iranian leader gave " "legitimacy to a man who denies the murder of 6 million Jews, while promising to wipe out the state of Israel, the state of the Jews."
All of which could be viewed as a really depressing mess, dashing hope for unity and world peace. Which leads me to end on:
Fashion Week News:
Fashion Week happened this past week. I've been following it closely on the news, Youtube and Twitter. Fashion Week gives the major houses of fashion the opportunity to show new collections and trends with lavish runway shows. New York, London, Milan, and Paris (in chronological order of their shows) are all the hubs of some of the major fashion weeks although they take place worldwide (Chico doesn't have one yet though.) So, you're probably asking yourself why I, a man who just went outdoors in a Grateful Dead t-shirt and basketball shorts, am so interested in Fashion Week. I suppose there is an element of being fascinated by something I am so removed from, although at one time in my life I was very fashion forward to the point of extreme eccentricity.
But really, it's because, make no mistake, the fashion industry is one of the most innovative and exciting art forms of our time. From the top there are innovators like Betsey Johnson, Jean-Paul Gaultier, Vivienne Tam, Jean Charles dr Castelbajac who bring freshness, whimsy and joy to their work. Karl Lagerfeld has become sort of an unlikely hero around our house with his stark, stunning style and his tendency to bring technological advances to his work. Actually, it may have more to do with his sense of humor, charm and high quotability, but whatever. The quiet elegance of Vera Wang. There are fresher faces like Alexander Wang, Prabal Gurung, and probably a few hundred others I've never heard of. And these are the heavy hitters. These are the top designers. These are the old guard of haute couture at this point. I've seen things in sketchbooks by college students who haven't broken that glass ceiling yet that would turn your hair whiter than Lagerfeld's (I would also point out that that is how Gaultier got his start, with no formal training, just an awesome sketchbook passing before the right eyes.) It is one of the most exciting art worlds I know of, and one of the industries that happily marries champagne and fun with hard business.
Having said that, times being what they are, sometimes things like Fashion Week look a bit Masque of the Red Death to some. The fine arts are the first to suffer in times of economic free fall. If I were to report "lots of biker shorts, peach and purple lipstick (also some clean, no makeup looks), and goddess hair to come this spring" while struggling to keep my house and daily looking and failing to find work for the past 5 months, you might see the cognitive dissonance. And by "you" I guess I mean me in my darker moments. In those moments I need to remember to lighten up. The sun still rises, I still have life and a family that loves me. Even if I lose everything, what does it matter if I maintain my soul. So often I have argued that art is probably even more essential for the poor. Otherwise the world is entirely ugly. That's the thing about fashion week. It is entirely a luxury and therefore necessary. As Camus wrote "Beauty is unbearable, drives us to despair, offering us for a minute the glimpse of an eternity that we should like to stretch out over the whole of time. " Or, as Karl says below, "beyond practical."
Garry Kasparov and Anatoli Karpov are having a rematch. You all know of their famous face off from 25 years ago and their few rematches in the time since. They are playing 12 blitz games of about an hour a piece to avoid a 5 months long game. As of my writing this, Kasparov is owning Karpov without mercy.
Also in chess news, I am now on Chess. com with the username Fafner. I welcome all challengers.
More Crashing Things Into Other Things News:
The probes have confirmed it. Water has been discovered on the moon. Or, more specifically, a thin layer of hydroxl molecules (no, it's not what the cookies are made from) on the surface, but water none the less. It's not going to be a viable solution to the ground water problem on Earth as one football field worth of surface on the moon would yield less than a quart of water. The more interesting part is that it isn't supposed to be there. Scientists are as of yet uncertain why there is water on the moon.
Unemployed People Rule! News:
An unemployed man in England was walking around with a metal detector in a field in Staffordshire and found what he rightly called "what metal detectorists dream of." He stumbled upon the largest haul of Anglo-Saxon treasure ever found (nearly 1,400 items.) It's believed to have been stashed around the 7th Century. Of course, the hoard has been claimed by The Crown. But how cool is it for an unemployed guy with a metal detector going out one morning and changing history, becoming an important figure himself in archaeological history. It should give each of us hope for each new day. We have no idea how important today might be.
Vaccine News:
Another piece of very good and potentially history making news is the promising HIV vaccine news released today, greatly upstaging the UN speeches (and thank God for that pleasant side effect as well!) A group of scientists in Thailand have tested an HIV vaccine which appears to reduce the spread of the virus by 1/3rd. Which may not sound all the great at first, but do bear in mind that this is the first vaccine of any efficacy against the virus ever.
UN Weirdness News:
World leaders are gathering for a UN conference in New York and, as usual, many of the world leaders are barking mad. Obama opened with a re-commitment of the US to the UN (after, you know, 8 years of the US flipping the UN the proverbial bird) and a call for nuclear disarmament already. Then there were speeches by other world leaders, many of them madder than an old hooty owl.
Gambian president Yahya Jammeh, who rose to power through a coup in 1994, said that he will have interfering human rights workers killed. "I will kill anyone who wants to destabilize this country," he said. "If you think that you can collaborate with so-called human rights defenders, and get away with it, you must be living in a dream world. I will kill you, and nothing will come out of it."
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, straight from a recent monstrous anti-Semitic Holocaust-denying rant, gave a speech denouncing the "Age of Empires" which was a fairly thinly veiled saber rattle over larger nations' actions to prevent Iranian nuclear proliferation. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu devoted most of his speech to rebutting Ahmadinejad's speech and, indeed, his very presence. He called Ahmandinejad's speech a mockery of the United Nations, and said people who listened to the Iranian leader gave " "legitimacy to a man who denies the murder of 6 million Jews, while promising to wipe out the state of Israel, the state of the Jews."
"Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come and to those who left in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity, and you brought honor to your countries.
"But to those who gave this Holocaust denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere, have you no shame? Have you no decency?"
And then there was Libya's leader Colonel Muammar Qaddafi (or Gaddafi. I don't know.) whose rambling 90 minute speech included: tearing up the UN charter, claiming that swine 'flu is man-made, losing his place on his tiny sheets of handwritten note cards surprisingly often, talking about his jet lag and speculating on the killer of JFK. UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown noticeably avoided Qaddafi. As you well remember, Scotland's release of the Lockerbie bomber... didn't go so well. Brown, however, got up after Qaddafi and changed his speech off the cuff to reaffirm and defend the UN charter. Points to Gordon Brown, for a change.All of which could be viewed as a really depressing mess, dashing hope for unity and world peace. Which leads me to end on:
Fashion Week News:
Fashion Week happened this past week. I've been following it closely on the news, Youtube and Twitter. Fashion Week gives the major houses of fashion the opportunity to show new collections and trends with lavish runway shows. New York, London, Milan, and Paris (in chronological order of their shows) are all the hubs of some of the major fashion weeks although they take place worldwide (Chico doesn't have one yet though.) So, you're probably asking yourself why I, a man who just went outdoors in a Grateful Dead t-shirt and basketball shorts, am so interested in Fashion Week. I suppose there is an element of being fascinated by something I am so removed from, although at one time in my life I was very fashion forward to the point of extreme eccentricity.
But really, it's because, make no mistake, the fashion industry is one of the most innovative and exciting art forms of our time. From the top there are innovators like Betsey Johnson, Jean-Paul Gaultier, Vivienne Tam, Jean Charles dr Castelbajac who bring freshness, whimsy and joy to their work. Karl Lagerfeld has become sort of an unlikely hero around our house with his stark, stunning style and his tendency to bring technological advances to his work. Actually, it may have more to do with his sense of humor, charm and high quotability, but whatever. The quiet elegance of Vera Wang. There are fresher faces like Alexander Wang, Prabal Gurung, and probably a few hundred others I've never heard of. And these are the heavy hitters. These are the top designers. These are the old guard of haute couture at this point. I've seen things in sketchbooks by college students who haven't broken that glass ceiling yet that would turn your hair whiter than Lagerfeld's (I would also point out that that is how Gaultier got his start, with no formal training, just an awesome sketchbook passing before the right eyes.) It is one of the most exciting art worlds I know of, and one of the industries that happily marries champagne and fun with hard business.
Having said that, times being what they are, sometimes things like Fashion Week look a bit Masque of the Red Death to some. The fine arts are the first to suffer in times of economic free fall. If I were to report "lots of biker shorts, peach and purple lipstick (also some clean, no makeup looks), and goddess hair to come this spring" while struggling to keep my house and daily looking and failing to find work for the past 5 months, you might see the cognitive dissonance. And by "you" I guess I mean me in my darker moments. In those moments I need to remember to lighten up. The sun still rises, I still have life and a family that loves me. Even if I lose everything, what does it matter if I maintain my soul. So often I have argued that art is probably even more essential for the poor. Otherwise the world is entirely ugly. That's the thing about fashion week. It is entirely a luxury and therefore necessary. As Camus wrote "Beauty is unbearable, drives us to despair, offering us for a minute the glimpse of an eternity that we should like to stretch out over the whole of time. " Or, as Karl says below, "beyond practical."
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Everything I Need To Know About Economics I Learned From Ira Glass
For your general amusement, I am posting the "explanation of bank crisis" I wrote to help Tony with his econ homework. I don't know if I quite got all of it right. Mainly I learned what I know from listening to This American Life and the Planet Money podcasts. I am no economist. So, please bear that in mind.
Before the Clinton Administration, this is how someone would get a mortgage. They would go to the mortgage company with proof of their income, savings, all of the money that had at their disposal. They would have to have a large sum for the down payment on the house and the mortgage, ideally, would cover the rest of the price of the house. The bank/mortgage company would determine how big of a mortgage they could afford to pay back monthly. This would determine the size/price of the house they could buy. If they didn't make enough money to pay enough back each month, they wouldn't get enough money to buy the house.
The Clinton Administration deregulated the mortgate industry which allowed more risky loans. This seemed like a good idea at the time because more money would flow, it would be freer enterprise and so on.
There was a huge boom in the housing market. People were buying houses left and right and the price of houses kept going through the roof. So mortgage companies, in hopes of making more money, kept giving out riskier and riskier loans. More loans means more money in the pockets of the mortgages companies. They started giving out loans to people without making the people prove how much money they have and make. In short, people who did not have the money to pay for their loans could get loans. If they paid their mortgage, Yatzhee. If they couldn't pay their mortgages, we get the mess we're all in.
Let's say I am going to start a bank. I have $10 of my own. Laurie has $100 to deposit in a savings account. This is the capital. Now Gina comes along and wants to buy a house for $100 (a very small house.) I loan her the $100, she will pay me back with interest and anything over and above what is Laurie's money I get to keep. That is how banks make money (in essence. It's a little more complicated than this, but this is the basic idea.) Now, time comes for Gina to pay me back and she says "Oh, sorry, I don't have the money." You see the trouble that puts me in. So I take the house from her and try to sell it to make up Laurie's money.
Problem being, if people all over the place did this, the price of houses would drop dramatically and I would not be able to sell the house for enough to give Laurie her money.
Here's where the government comes in. So, these banks are failing in this manner and the government proposes a bailout. They just had a bailout of some of the largest money lenders in the country and it did not go well. They took the bailout money and did whatever the hell they wanted with it. There was public outrage. It was a debacle. So, this time the government is going to take the tax payer's money, the money that we all pay in taxes, and they are going to buy into the banks. An analogy would be that the first time it was like they gave someone the money to pay their rent and the person spent it on booze or something. The second time, the bank bailout, is more like they are paying someone's rent and, in return, they not only get to move in, but they can kick out the tenant if they want to. The government owns part of the banks now. This keeps the banks afloat but there are ramifications for the future that some people don't like. For example, the banks are not free, independant businesses, they are accountable to the government and the bank owners don't like it because the government can kick them out.
So, anyway, along with this, the banks are not giving out any loans. It has become far too risky. This is a problem because a good portion of American businesses run off of loans. It is how they rent commercial spaces, how they often get their supplies, and so on. Businesses fail. Then other businesses start to fail that held them up. For example, say there are a dozen restaurants in town who need to take out some kind of loan to get something that will keep them in business. Suddenly the banks aren't giving them loans. Add to that the fact that everyone in America is terrified. They've watched their investments lose a huge amount of money. They've watched their retirement funds almost disappear. People don't feel like going out to eat anymore. The restaurants fail. Suddenly produce distributors aren't getting the kind of business they used to get. They aren't making enough money to pay all of their employees so they lay some of them off to try to stay in business. This is why I am here writing this right now and not on a forklift in Durham.
So, there is a group, a branch of the government called the FDIC. That stands for Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Suppose a bank is failing, it no longer has the money that people have put into the bank. The FDIC insures the people that they will take care of it should the bank fail. Usually what this means is the FDIC will come into a bank that is failing, very secretly because you don't want the public to know that the bank is failing (if they find out they might all run on the bank, trying to get their money out, and you'll have a huge economic disaster. This is one of the things that happened during the Great Depression.) They will take over the bank, say on a Friday, call another bank to get them to take over this bank, and that is why downtown the old Washington Mutual now has a sign that says Chase. The FDIC is there to insure that banks do not fail and that there is not a run on the banks. It insures people's deposits up to $250,000. This was started in the Great Depression and backs our savings (those of us who still have any savings left after this mess) with the full security of the US Government.
Before the Clinton Administration, this is how someone would get a mortgage. They would go to the mortgage company with proof of their income, savings, all of the money that had at their disposal. They would have to have a large sum for the down payment on the house and the mortgage, ideally, would cover the rest of the price of the house. The bank/mortgage company would determine how big of a mortgage they could afford to pay back monthly. This would determine the size/price of the house they could buy. If they didn't make enough money to pay enough back each month, they wouldn't get enough money to buy the house.
The Clinton Administration deregulated the mortgate industry which allowed more risky loans. This seemed like a good idea at the time because more money would flow, it would be freer enterprise and so on.
There was a huge boom in the housing market. People were buying houses left and right and the price of houses kept going through the roof. So mortgage companies, in hopes of making more money, kept giving out riskier and riskier loans. More loans means more money in the pockets of the mortgages companies. They started giving out loans to people without making the people prove how much money they have and make. In short, people who did not have the money to pay for their loans could get loans. If they paid their mortgage, Yatzhee. If they couldn't pay their mortgages, we get the mess we're all in.
Let's say I am going to start a bank. I have $10 of my own. Laurie has $100 to deposit in a savings account. This is the capital. Now Gina comes along and wants to buy a house for $100 (a very small house.) I loan her the $100, she will pay me back with interest and anything over and above what is Laurie's money I get to keep. That is how banks make money (in essence. It's a little more complicated than this, but this is the basic idea.) Now, time comes for Gina to pay me back and she says "Oh, sorry, I don't have the money." You see the trouble that puts me in. So I take the house from her and try to sell it to make up Laurie's money.
Problem being, if people all over the place did this, the price of houses would drop dramatically and I would not be able to sell the house for enough to give Laurie her money.
Here's where the government comes in. So, these banks are failing in this manner and the government proposes a bailout. They just had a bailout of some of the largest money lenders in the country and it did not go well. They took the bailout money and did whatever the hell they wanted with it. There was public outrage. It was a debacle. So, this time the government is going to take the tax payer's money, the money that we all pay in taxes, and they are going to buy into the banks. An analogy would be that the first time it was like they gave someone the money to pay their rent and the person spent it on booze or something. The second time, the bank bailout, is more like they are paying someone's rent and, in return, they not only get to move in, but they can kick out the tenant if they want to. The government owns part of the banks now. This keeps the banks afloat but there are ramifications for the future that some people don't like. For example, the banks are not free, independant businesses, they are accountable to the government and the bank owners don't like it because the government can kick them out.
So, anyway, along with this, the banks are not giving out any loans. It has become far too risky. This is a problem because a good portion of American businesses run off of loans. It is how they rent commercial spaces, how they often get their supplies, and so on. Businesses fail. Then other businesses start to fail that held them up. For example, say there are a dozen restaurants in town who need to take out some kind of loan to get something that will keep them in business. Suddenly the banks aren't giving them loans. Add to that the fact that everyone in America is terrified. They've watched their investments lose a huge amount of money. They've watched their retirement funds almost disappear. People don't feel like going out to eat anymore. The restaurants fail. Suddenly produce distributors aren't getting the kind of business they used to get. They aren't making enough money to pay all of their employees so they lay some of them off to try to stay in business. This is why I am here writing this right now and not on a forklift in Durham.
So, there is a group, a branch of the government called the FDIC. That stands for Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Suppose a bank is failing, it no longer has the money that people have put into the bank. The FDIC insures the people that they will take care of it should the bank fail. Usually what this means is the FDIC will come into a bank that is failing, very secretly because you don't want the public to know that the bank is failing (if they find out they might all run on the bank, trying to get their money out, and you'll have a huge economic disaster. This is one of the things that happened during the Great Depression.) They will take over the bank, say on a Friday, call another bank to get them to take over this bank, and that is why downtown the old Washington Mutual now has a sign that says Chase. The FDIC is there to insure that banks do not fail and that there is not a run on the banks. It insures people's deposits up to $250,000. This was started in the Great Depression and backs our savings (those of us who still have any savings left after this mess) with the full security of the US Government.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
At least my breakfast held no disappointments
The world's leaders are meeting in London to try to solve the world economic crisis. The lives and well being of literally billions lay in the balance. The World Economic Conference in 1933, the biggest comparable summit of the kind in history, failed while seeking solutions very similar to the solutions they seem to be suggesting now. Of course, the world is quite different now. However we all have an enormous razor sharp, sword of Damocles, Question Mark hanging over our heads.
ALL major news sources are entirely concerned over whether or not a few bricks will go through a few windows and (save for Laurie and my sainted NPR) not a lick toward informing the world as to what all of this actually means (to be fair, NPR also has the brick throwing stories, they just have informative stories as well.) This should make us all furious. This should make us all demand that every major newscaster now has to report weekly to Jon Stewart for a public dressing down. I'm just throwing thoughts against the wall here, but maybe this Western culture of irresponsibility and the consequences of same has something to do with why those people are that angry in the first place. It is far easier to parrot whatever slides down the AP wire than to take the responsibility reigns and, as Newton Minnow might say, rise to the great potential for an informed and enlightened world that we have with our global media. I guess the biggest surprise is that I actually find this odd enough to remark on it.
ALL major news sources are entirely concerned over whether or not a few bricks will go through a few windows and (save for Laurie and my sainted NPR) not a lick toward informing the world as to what all of this actually means (to be fair, NPR also has the brick throwing stories, they just have informative stories as well.) This should make us all furious. This should make us all demand that every major newscaster now has to report weekly to Jon Stewart for a public dressing down. I'm just throwing thoughts against the wall here, but maybe this Western culture of irresponsibility and the consequences of same has something to do with why those people are that angry in the first place. It is far easier to parrot whatever slides down the AP wire than to take the responsibility reigns and, as Newton Minnow might say, rise to the great potential for an informed and enlightened world that we have with our global media. I guess the biggest surprise is that I actually find this odd enough to remark on it.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Blues for AIG
I've been thinking a lot about the AIG "scandal" lately. Partly because Laurie and I are rabid NPR listeners and, like most other news outlets, they are squeezing every drop from that turnip. Or, rather, they were. They seemed to have calmed down a bit since the president went on a popular entertainment show and announced that we are going to begin practicing taxation without representation as millions cheered him on.
Yes. It's going to be that kind of a blog by the way.
But also because I've been teaching a class on the history of the Puritans. I felt that American culture and my own stack of misgivings behooved me to tackle the subject of the Salem Witch Trials fairly early on in the class. In studying for that class, the personal conclusion that I came to was that the trials had little to do with the religious group in particular or rather that the doctrines of Puritanism were kind of arbitrary as this is something that happens in small, isolated groups with 1) rigid, immovable dogma and 2) threats to something they find important. The witch hunts didn't happen because of Puritanism, it happened because of people getting worked into a very unhealthy mindset. I am not the first to make this observation. Arthur Miller's career took off from making this observation. And then he had an affair which lead to a marriage with Marilyn Monroe. With a later wife he had a Downs Syndrome child who he institutionalized and refused to have any contact with. All of which has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Or does it?
I have an internet friend who works for AIG as a web designer. He is not getting a huge bonus. He is working for the most hated company in the world right now. I keep hearing about employees getting threats, fearing for their lives while simultaneously sharing everyone's privilege of fearing for their jobs. I hear about employees receiving anonymous notes saying that the author of the note is going to garrot them and their children. And blogs which show the AIG building in the skyline with some rather sinister invitations to less stable individuals which recall a September morn in New York 8 years gone.
And as for the AIG bailouts... I don't even know where to start with how messed up this has been handled by the media, the American public and the government. You think the banks and other divers and sundry lenders have mismanaged things? Well, wait until we get our hands on reacting to it. Taxation, contracts, way inflating the numbers to fuel public outrage, seeking any scapegoat and misdirection for a terrified and often recently unemployed or foreclosed upon public. On and on it goes.
Witch hunts happen. They are evil and sick and hateful, sure. But they happen.
Which brings me to my main point and that is that the concept of sin disappearing even from common Christian circles strikes me as one of the more disturbing trends I see today. I remember the point of my conversion when I was in my early 20s. The pastor of the Quaker church I was attending started talking about how everyone is a sinner and all fall short of the glory of God. And I remember sitting there thinking "This is true. I see this all around me and in myself constantly. This is the first theological point that has ever made sense to me."
There's another dangerous trend in Christian circles, actually possibly a more dangerous trend and without a doubt one that has been around far longer than the abolition of the doctrine of Original Sin or Total Depravity, that I notice. It is the trend in Christians to say/believe/react to the world with "Hate the sin, not the sinner."
This is entirely unscriptural.
The problem with "hate the sin, not the sinner" is that it comes across to the sinner as hating the sinner. As Laurie put it it's like saying "I sure do love sin fountains. I hate the stuff that's pouring out of them all the time though." Sin is what a sinner does. We are all sinners. Scripturally it goes "Love the sinner. I am a sinner too no better than anyone else. I was saved by grace alone, by no work I did. I am no better than anyone else and I love you." No matter how good you become, no matter how sanctified you get, you are no better of a person than the most rank sinner. You need to love them. You are commanded to. And none of this "but hate the sin" crap. Don't make excuses to hate and don't use God as an excuse to have no contact with people you don't like or disagree with.
People are people just like you and I no matter what they do, how they live, or who they are. Get over yourself.
And I have to say this partly to myself. I like to think that I love my fellow man. But the street around my house has been discovered by the "homeless with a vehicle" population as some kind of safeplace. Our house is surrounded by jalopies. They sit outside of them in lawn chairs on the curb behind the motel across the street. They wolf whistle and shout profanities at everyone (including my wife and step-daughter when they are in the yard.) I turn instantly into Archie Bunker when they are around right down to referring to them as "dem bums" or "does bums over dere." This is a fault on my part (although my pride makes me hasten to add that these are not "hard workers thrown cruelly out of a job." These are people selling meth out of the vehicles. These are people who long before any of this started chose "public intoxication and public urination" as occupations.) I am no better than the worst of them (which is the guy with the mustache and the long hair.)
In short, there are a few things that we can be sure of. One, I'm fairly certain, we can be certain that the financial crises in our country is going to get worse. I don't know if it's going to get "rioting for food" worse or just "we used to have a million dollar home, now we are in a low-rent apartment and only have basic cable" worse.
And, another thing we can be sure of is the truth of the passage I am still working on memorizing:
"Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity. What does man gain by all the toil at which he toils under the sun? A generation goes, and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever. The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. The wind blows to the south and goes around to the north;around and around goes the wind, and on its circuits the wind returns. All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full;to the place where the streams flow, there they flow again. All things are full of weariness; a man cannot utter it; the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of which it is said, "See, this is new"?It has been already in the ages before us. There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance of later things yet to be among those who come after."
Yes. It's going to be that kind of a blog by the way.
But also because I've been teaching a class on the history of the Puritans. I felt that American culture and my own stack of misgivings behooved me to tackle the subject of the Salem Witch Trials fairly early on in the class. In studying for that class, the personal conclusion that I came to was that the trials had little to do with the religious group in particular or rather that the doctrines of Puritanism were kind of arbitrary as this is something that happens in small, isolated groups with 1) rigid, immovable dogma and 2) threats to something they find important. The witch hunts didn't happen because of Puritanism, it happened because of people getting worked into a very unhealthy mindset. I am not the first to make this observation. Arthur Miller's career took off from making this observation. And then he had an affair which lead to a marriage with Marilyn Monroe. With a later wife he had a Downs Syndrome child who he institutionalized and refused to have any contact with. All of which has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Or does it?
I have an internet friend who works for AIG as a web designer. He is not getting a huge bonus. He is working for the most hated company in the world right now. I keep hearing about employees getting threats, fearing for their lives while simultaneously sharing everyone's privilege of fearing for their jobs. I hear about employees receiving anonymous notes saying that the author of the note is going to garrot them and their children. And blogs which show the AIG building in the skyline with some rather sinister invitations to less stable individuals which recall a September morn in New York 8 years gone.
And as for the AIG bailouts... I don't even know where to start with how messed up this has been handled by the media, the American public and the government. You think the banks and other divers and sundry lenders have mismanaged things? Well, wait until we get our hands on reacting to it. Taxation, contracts, way inflating the numbers to fuel public outrage, seeking any scapegoat and misdirection for a terrified and often recently unemployed or foreclosed upon public. On and on it goes.
Witch hunts happen. They are evil and sick and hateful, sure. But they happen.
Which brings me to my main point and that is that the concept of sin disappearing even from common Christian circles strikes me as one of the more disturbing trends I see today. I remember the point of my conversion when I was in my early 20s. The pastor of the Quaker church I was attending started talking about how everyone is a sinner and all fall short of the glory of God. And I remember sitting there thinking "This is true. I see this all around me and in myself constantly. This is the first theological point that has ever made sense to me."
There's another dangerous trend in Christian circles, actually possibly a more dangerous trend and without a doubt one that has been around far longer than the abolition of the doctrine of Original Sin or Total Depravity, that I notice. It is the trend in Christians to say/believe/react to the world with "Hate the sin, not the sinner."
This is entirely unscriptural.
The problem with "hate the sin, not the sinner" is that it comes across to the sinner as hating the sinner. As Laurie put it it's like saying "I sure do love sin fountains. I hate the stuff that's pouring out of them all the time though." Sin is what a sinner does. We are all sinners. Scripturally it goes "Love the sinner. I am a sinner too no better than anyone else. I was saved by grace alone, by no work I did. I am no better than anyone else and I love you." No matter how good you become, no matter how sanctified you get, you are no better of a person than the most rank sinner. You need to love them. You are commanded to. And none of this "but hate the sin" crap. Don't make excuses to hate and don't use God as an excuse to have no contact with people you don't like or disagree with.
People are people just like you and I no matter what they do, how they live, or who they are. Get over yourself.
And I have to say this partly to myself. I like to think that I love my fellow man. But the street around my house has been discovered by the "homeless with a vehicle" population as some kind of safeplace. Our house is surrounded by jalopies. They sit outside of them in lawn chairs on the curb behind the motel across the street. They wolf whistle and shout profanities at everyone (including my wife and step-daughter when they are in the yard.) I turn instantly into Archie Bunker when they are around right down to referring to them as "dem bums" or "does bums over dere." This is a fault on my part (although my pride makes me hasten to add that these are not "hard workers thrown cruelly out of a job." These are people selling meth out of the vehicles. These are people who long before any of this started chose "public intoxication and public urination" as occupations.) I am no better than the worst of them (which is the guy with the mustache and the long hair.)
In short, there are a few things that we can be sure of. One, I'm fairly certain, we can be certain that the financial crises in our country is going to get worse. I don't know if it's going to get "rioting for food" worse or just "we used to have a million dollar home, now we are in a low-rent apartment and only have basic cable" worse.
And, another thing we can be sure of is the truth of the passage I am still working on memorizing:
"Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity. What does man gain by all the toil at which he toils under the sun? A generation goes, and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever. The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. The wind blows to the south and goes around to the north;around and around goes the wind, and on its circuits the wind returns. All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full;to the place where the streams flow, there they flow again. All things are full of weariness; a man cannot utter it; the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of which it is said, "See, this is new"?It has been already in the ages before us. There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance of later things yet to be among those who come after."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)