8/28/10
The Dow jumped 165 points yesterday, closing over 10,000, on reassurance from Obsequious Ben Bernanke that “policy options are available to provide additional stimulus.” Dr. Bernanke outlined the following “policy options,” none of which seem all that promising, but some seem downright frightening, to this observer:
--Resumption of purchases of long term treasuries and mortgage backed backed securities.
Does anyone think the problem with this economy is that treasury or mortgage rates are too high? See my 8/3/10 post, GIMME THAT NEW AGE RELIGION.
Perhaps the Fed is thinking of taking the turbocharger off its printing presses and replacing the entire mechanism with a good old large block V-8 to give the presses some real grunt. Then the Fed could just buy everything in sight; why limit its sights to treasuries and mortgage backeds? Why not corporate bonds, houses, common stock…what the heck? It’s a “crisis,” after all, so such trite philosophical concerns as free markets and private property sometimes have to be sacrificed in the interest of the common good.
--Lower the interest rates the Fed pays banks on reserves those banks hold at the Fed.
This one is promising; when banks are getting paid 25 basis points to hold money at the Fed with no risk, the banks have less incentive to do other things with their money. Reducing, or eliminating, the interest rate the Fed pays thus might induce banks to lend more. However, we only have 25 basis points to zero. And if there are no borrowers, or at least borrowers who can repay (a quaint qualification that seems to have been abandoned in the nuttiness that characterized the early years of this decade but is now making a strong comeback, apparently much to the dismay of policymakers and investment types whose idea of distant history is 2008, but I digress), even 0 basis points might look acceptable to understandably, and newly, cautious banks.
--Continuing to keep short term rates low for a longer period of time, and/or promising to do so in a manner which would seem credible.
Here we are dealing with one of the classic definitions of insanity; to wit, repeating the same action and expecting different results. This policy has not worked and, even though a classic political reaction to something not working is assuming that more of it will, it has not worked because this policy has a fundamental flaw, as does effectively doing the same thing in the longer reaches of the curve: it punishes savers and rewards spenders. This is not a salubrious prescription for an economy that ran aground due to excessive debt and non-existent savings.
--Increasing the inflation target to more than 2% from its current 1.5% to 2.0%.
My first reaction to this piece of sheer brilliantness from our central bankers is that such a move is completely unnecessary; the inflation rate is headed up, and way beyond 2%, as a result of the Fed’s actions to date. The market will give as much consideration to the Fed’s targets as Mexican drug cartels give to law enforcement in our troubled neighbor to the south.
My second reaction is that, taken to extremes, this policy might actually “work.” One “solution” to a problem of too much debt, and unpayable debt, is to abrogate the debt. Inflating it away is one way to abrogate debt. This worked wonders in Weimar Germany.
Perhaps the truth is that, despite Obsequious Ben Bernanke’s anodyne assurances, the Fed is out of measures it can realistically take to solve our economic problems. Or maybe the truth is even worse: the only “solutions” the Fed can provide involve either buying everything in sight and/or effectively abrogating debts by inflating them away…and it is seriously considering such measures.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Monday, August 23, 2010
“TOO MUCH MONKEY BUSINESS…”
8/23/10
This particular post is almost completely out of character for the Pontificator, given that it is somewhat personal in nature and has nothing to do with the burning issues of the day. But I’m thinking (but not hoping) that it is something to which many of my readers can relate.
I’ve had one of those days today in which everything seems to have gone wrong. Nothing major, just minor stuff the outcome of which, positive or negative, would, and will, have no discernible impact on the course of my life, or even of my week, for that matter. First problems with a password on a website, then a kitchen mishap, then an appointment the other side of which forgot and double scheduled, then trouble with another website, that kind of thing. Just little things, but little pinpricks. It seemed like even the simplest task was an insurmountable challenge. Everything, and everyone (especially me, I am sure) seemed like an almost unbearable burden. Irritability came easily, laughter and mirth only begrudgingly. I took a few minutes to call an old buddy to whom I owed a call anyway; speaking with him (and not about the crummy day I was having, just about things in general; friends don’t need to hear one’s minor irritations), or with most of my friends, usually puts things in perspective. We lost the connection (or at least I hope so!) midway through the call. It was one of those kinds of days, a day on which the best strategy seems to be going back to bed to make tomorrow come that much more quickly.
Maybe this day happened because it’s Monday. Maybe it resulted from a bad night’s sleep last night. Perhaps it is the end of the summer, with the kids going back to school in a few days and my classes starting over the next few weeks. I have no idea. Back when I used to work downtown and go to St. Peter’s on a regular basis, I used to make a habit of going to confession to a very old and very revered and loved priest whose name, like many names, I no longer remember. He was a great and saintly man, with the wisdom of his years and the serenity of his true vocation. He told me once, after I related a day like this to him, that there are simply days on which we are not fit to be lived with. There wasn’t much we could do about it but do our best to make it through the day and to avoid, to the extent we could, situations in which our foul moods could affect other people. Above all, he told me something I knew then and know now; these times pass and are not a reflection of our true character. Thank God.
Such problems come under the category of high class problems. They are not on the scale of which car to buy, where to go on vacation, or where to invest one’s savings. But they are still far better problems than where to find the rent money, where am I going to work now, what am I going to do about this illness, etc. And I didn’t write this to whine or to vent; the former is one of the least attractive activities in which a human can engage and the latter is counterproductive. I just wrote it to convey a mood, or a set of circumstances, that will surely pass but to which many of you can perhaps relate.
More fun stuff later…I promise.
This particular post is almost completely out of character for the Pontificator, given that it is somewhat personal in nature and has nothing to do with the burning issues of the day. But I’m thinking (but not hoping) that it is something to which many of my readers can relate.
I’ve had one of those days today in which everything seems to have gone wrong. Nothing major, just minor stuff the outcome of which, positive or negative, would, and will, have no discernible impact on the course of my life, or even of my week, for that matter. First problems with a password on a website, then a kitchen mishap, then an appointment the other side of which forgot and double scheduled, then trouble with another website, that kind of thing. Just little things, but little pinpricks. It seemed like even the simplest task was an insurmountable challenge. Everything, and everyone (especially me, I am sure) seemed like an almost unbearable burden. Irritability came easily, laughter and mirth only begrudgingly. I took a few minutes to call an old buddy to whom I owed a call anyway; speaking with him (and not about the crummy day I was having, just about things in general; friends don’t need to hear one’s minor irritations), or with most of my friends, usually puts things in perspective. We lost the connection (or at least I hope so!) midway through the call. It was one of those kinds of days, a day on which the best strategy seems to be going back to bed to make tomorrow come that much more quickly.
Maybe this day happened because it’s Monday. Maybe it resulted from a bad night’s sleep last night. Perhaps it is the end of the summer, with the kids going back to school in a few days and my classes starting over the next few weeks. I have no idea. Back when I used to work downtown and go to St. Peter’s on a regular basis, I used to make a habit of going to confession to a very old and very revered and loved priest whose name, like many names, I no longer remember. He was a great and saintly man, with the wisdom of his years and the serenity of his true vocation. He told me once, after I related a day like this to him, that there are simply days on which we are not fit to be lived with. There wasn’t much we could do about it but do our best to make it through the day and to avoid, to the extent we could, situations in which our foul moods could affect other people. Above all, he told me something I knew then and know now; these times pass and are not a reflection of our true character. Thank God.
Such problems come under the category of high class problems. They are not on the scale of which car to buy, where to go on vacation, or where to invest one’s savings. But they are still far better problems than where to find the rent money, where am I going to work now, what am I going to do about this illness, etc. And I didn’t write this to whine or to vent; the former is one of the least attractive activities in which a human can engage and the latter is counterproductive. I just wrote it to convey a mood, or a set of circumstances, that will surely pass but to which many of you can perhaps relate.
More fun stuff later…I promise.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
“SOME PEOPLE CALL ME THE SPACE COWBOY…”
8/22/10
Adler Planetarium is one of the museums across the nation bidding for one of three space jalopies (er, sorry, shuttles) being made available for public display. The shuttles are “free,” but the “winning” museums must pay $28.8 million to transport them to their sites. The price is fixed so a bidding museum cannot increase its chances by sweetening the pot; instead, it must convince NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, Jr. that it is somehow a more appropriate or worthy place to display these testimonies to government’s ability to almost literally burn taxpayer money.
Adler should easily win such a competition. Since the administration in this city has shown a pullulating propensity to pee away money at a prodigious pace, what better symbol for the city than the shuttle? What better home for such a visible symbol of government profligacy?
Adler Planetarium is one of the museums across the nation bidding for one of three space jalopies (er, sorry, shuttles) being made available for public display. The shuttles are “free,” but the “winning” museums must pay $28.8 million to transport them to their sites. The price is fixed so a bidding museum cannot increase its chances by sweetening the pot; instead, it must convince NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, Jr. that it is somehow a more appropriate or worthy place to display these testimonies to government’s ability to almost literally burn taxpayer money.
Adler should easily win such a competition. Since the administration in this city has shown a pullulating propensity to pee away money at a prodigious pace, what better symbol for the city than the shuttle? What better home for such a visible symbol of government profligacy?
“BORN TO LOSE, AND NOW I’M LOSIN’ YOU…”
8/22/10
Today’s (i.e., Sunday, 8/22’s, page 23) Chicago Tribune, in its report on the withdrawal of the last U.S. combat troops from Iraq, informed its readers
“Instead, a mood of deep apprehension and bitterness is taking hold as Iraqis digest the reality that the Americans whom they once feared would stay forever are in fact going home…”
The paper quotes a Baghdad carpet seller:
“I’m not happy at all. I’m worried. They’re leaving really early….The situation is getting worse every day. The politicians are inflaming the situation, there is a battle between them, and I am 100 percent certain it will be reflected in the streets.”
So we have once again involved ourselves in a war we cannot win, in more ways than one. Should we be surprised? Such pointless foreign entanglements in which victory is neither definable nor achievable have been the hallmark of U.S. foreign policy for at least the last fifty years.
Today’s (i.e., Sunday, 8/22’s, page 23) Chicago Tribune, in its report on the withdrawal of the last U.S. combat troops from Iraq, informed its readers
“Instead, a mood of deep apprehension and bitterness is taking hold as Iraqis digest the reality that the Americans whom they once feared would stay forever are in fact going home…”
The paper quotes a Baghdad carpet seller:
“I’m not happy at all. I’m worried. They’re leaving really early….The situation is getting worse every day. The politicians are inflaming the situation, there is a battle between them, and I am 100 percent certain it will be reflected in the streets.”
So we have once again involved ourselves in a war we cannot win, in more ways than one. Should we be surprised? Such pointless foreign entanglements in which victory is neither definable nor achievable have been the hallmark of U.S. foreign policy for at least the last fifty years.
Friday, August 20, 2010
HOME(NEIGHBORHOOD) BOY DOES GOOD
8/20/10
Pat Thomas’s interview with me on The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics, is in the 8/18/10 edition of the Beverly Review. If you are anywhere near the publication area of the Review, or if you know someone who is, try to get a copy of the article; Pat did a great job.
The interview is not on the Review’s online edition (http://www.beverlyreview.net/)
and may not be. If it does appear there, I will let you know.
My appearance yesterday (Thursday, 8/19/10) on Brian Brophy’s “Live and Local” program on WIMS (1420 AM, Michigan City IN, http://www.wimsradio.com/) went very well. WIMS archives some of its programs, so you might be able to download it in the next few days.
Thanks.
Pat Thomas’s interview with me on The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics, is in the 8/18/10 edition of the Beverly Review. If you are anywhere near the publication area of the Review, or if you know someone who is, try to get a copy of the article; Pat did a great job.
The interview is not on the Review’s online edition (http://www.beverlyreview.net/)
and may not be. If it does appear there, I will let you know.
My appearance yesterday (Thursday, 8/19/10) on Brian Brophy’s “Live and Local” program on WIMS (1420 AM, Michigan City IN, http://www.wimsradio.com/) went very well. WIMS archives some of its programs, so you might be able to download it in the next few days.
Thanks.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
“OUT, (#$twING) SPOT! OUT I SAY!”
8/19/10
The Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune this morning reported that some of the jurors in the Blagojevich trial think that Rob Blagojevich, the RodMan’s brother, ought not to be retried. One can easily see the logic behind this belief. The deliberations on the four counts against Rob resulted in much more evenly split decisions than those involving the twenty four counts against his brother, several of which were 11-1 for conviction. Further, Rob Blagojevich had to spend all that time in court, and pay his lawyers for all that time both in and out of court, when only a small portion of the trial concerned him. On many days, Rob’s name never came up, both during the trial and during deliberations. The guy went through a lot for what looks, to the more than casual observer, like some incidents of poor judgment in an otherwise not ignoble attempt to help out his moronic little brother.
This prompted me to resurrect a theory I have long held about this case but have not yet mentioned in this blog, though I have brought it up in private conversations. Perhaps the government indicted Rob Blagojevich in the hopes that Rod would make some sort of deal out of a desire not to put his brother through the rigors of a trial and expose his brother to the very real possibility of jail time. It worked, after all, for Scott Fawell who reached a deal only after the feds came after his girlfriend.
If my theory (again, just a theory) is right, the feds badly misjudged the compassionate or fraternal instincts of Mr. Rod Blagojevich. But, once it became apparent that Rod didn’t hold sufficiently tender feelings for his brother to render Rod amenable to a deal, it would have been difficult, or at least (deservedly) embarrassing, for the government to end its pursuit of Rob.
But…
If my theory (again, just a theory) is true, might not the feds come after Patti Blagojevich in a retrial? Surely, the first phase of the trial produced a lot of smoke about Patti’s career as what looks like a conduit for payoffs to her husband. Might not the feds want to stoke the smoke in an effort to get a jury to find the fire that might be there? No matter what thinks of Rod Blagojevich’s character (quite an oxymoron there, don’t you think?), he cannot be so despicable as to not want to reach some kind of deal to spare his wife and the mother of his children, can he? Would he face some enormous pressure and/or irresistible inducement to reach a deal from quarters other than the federal government? Remember that before Patti was Patti Blagojevich, she was Patti Mell.
Please refer to my post of a few days ago (THE SHOW MUST GO ON!, 8/17/10) when I speak of, inter alia, the scariness of an ambitious prosecutor with the unlimited resources of the federal government behind him. Would going after Patti be considered beyond the pale? One wonders. Going after Patti would necessitate calling Tony Rezko as a witness, but the government appears to be prepared to do that in any case. The only thing that stands in the government’s way, if it wants to use Patti to get to Rod, is its willingness to do so.
The Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune this morning reported that some of the jurors in the Blagojevich trial think that Rob Blagojevich, the RodMan’s brother, ought not to be retried. One can easily see the logic behind this belief. The deliberations on the four counts against Rob resulted in much more evenly split decisions than those involving the twenty four counts against his brother, several of which were 11-1 for conviction. Further, Rob Blagojevich had to spend all that time in court, and pay his lawyers for all that time both in and out of court, when only a small portion of the trial concerned him. On many days, Rob’s name never came up, both during the trial and during deliberations. The guy went through a lot for what looks, to the more than casual observer, like some incidents of poor judgment in an otherwise not ignoble attempt to help out his moronic little brother.
This prompted me to resurrect a theory I have long held about this case but have not yet mentioned in this blog, though I have brought it up in private conversations. Perhaps the government indicted Rob Blagojevich in the hopes that Rod would make some sort of deal out of a desire not to put his brother through the rigors of a trial and expose his brother to the very real possibility of jail time. It worked, after all, for Scott Fawell who reached a deal only after the feds came after his girlfriend.
If my theory (again, just a theory) is right, the feds badly misjudged the compassionate or fraternal instincts of Mr. Rod Blagojevich. But, once it became apparent that Rod didn’t hold sufficiently tender feelings for his brother to render Rod amenable to a deal, it would have been difficult, or at least (deservedly) embarrassing, for the government to end its pursuit of Rob.
But…
If my theory (again, just a theory) is true, might not the feds come after Patti Blagojevich in a retrial? Surely, the first phase of the trial produced a lot of smoke about Patti’s career as what looks like a conduit for payoffs to her husband. Might not the feds want to stoke the smoke in an effort to get a jury to find the fire that might be there? No matter what thinks of Rod Blagojevich’s character (quite an oxymoron there, don’t you think?), he cannot be so despicable as to not want to reach some kind of deal to spare his wife and the mother of his children, can he? Would he face some enormous pressure and/or irresistible inducement to reach a deal from quarters other than the federal government? Remember that before Patti was Patti Blagojevich, she was Patti Mell.
Please refer to my post of a few days ago (THE SHOW MUST GO ON!, 8/17/10) when I speak of, inter alia, the scariness of an ambitious prosecutor with the unlimited resources of the federal government behind him. Would going after Patti be considered beyond the pale? One wonders. Going after Patti would necessitate calling Tony Rezko as a witness, but the government appears to be prepared to do that in any case. The only thing that stands in the government’s way, if it wants to use Patti to get to Rod, is its willingness to do so.
“LET’S SPEND IT, LEND IT, SEND IT ROLLING ALONG!” PART II
8/19/10
On today’s edition of the Noon Business Hour on WBBM Newsradio 78 in Chicago, economist Irwin Kellner proposed that the government distribute $3,000 gift cards to every household in the country in order to stimulate spending. This money could not be saved or used to pay down a mortgage or credit card debt; it would have to be spent. Dr. Kellner is not alone in making this suggestion. Many normally clear thinking people consider this a good idea. The first name that comes to mind for me is Bruce Williams, one of the great, and original, radio talk show hosts who time, unfortunately, seems to have passed by, probably because he talks sense about topics that matter and eschews the current trend toward throwing read meat to the yahoos and calling the resulting cacophony “intelligent talk.” But I digress. Mr. Williams suggested a Kellneresque scheme (or perhaps Dr. Kellner proposed a Williamsesque scheme) over a year ago.
Such a proposal is both philosophical and economic nonsense for a number of reasons. First, anyone who has even a modicum of respect for limiting the role of government should find the idea of the government handing out money willy-nilly, making dependents, to one extent or another, of all of us beyond repugnant. Some might argue that we have to dispense with philosophical niceties when the defecatory product is hitting the wind propulsion device. This argument amounts to something like “Forget philosophy, forget history, do something expedient!” Such a sentiment is not unfamiliar to the students of history, and the results of giving in to such an impulse have not been stellar. Vietnam, taking us off the gold standard, and crossing the Yalu River come immediately to mind, but one does not have to look very hard for the disastrous consequences of indulging expediency.
Second, even though in the short run a resurgence of spending might give our economy a shot in the arm, that shot will be the economic equivalent of a shot of heroin for an addict going through withdrawal. As I have said countless time on this blog and elsewhere, our problem as a nation is not that we spend too little but that we save too little and spend too much. Promoting the notion that using a government handout to pay down debt or start an investment portfolio is somehow nefarious and deleterious and to be avoided at all costs is to deny this obvious economic reality, or to acknowledge it and say, once again, that we will deal with it in the future. We have to learn to save; to have the government come in and tell us that what we need to do is reacquaint ourselves with some very dyspeptic habits that, at best, lie dormant for a time, and get out there and start excreting money we don’t have is beyond folly. If it takes a prolongation of this recession to teach us the lessons of thrift, we’ll be better off in the long run; if we don’t learn to save again our nation is finished as an economic going concern.
Third, Dr. Kellner says that people might use the free money to, among other things, go to the doctor or make a down payment on a car. Yeah, they might. But they are at least as likely to go out and make a big ticket electronic purchase or buy some other things made overseas, probably in China but maybe somewhere in Southeast Asia. While this would have some ancillary benefits for the U.S. economy, primarily through stimulating activity among retailers, most of the benefit will be felt overseas. Further, since we won’t raise taxes or otherwise cut spending to finance this downpour of dollars, we will have to borrow the money, mostly, if current patterns hold, from overseas.
So what will have been accomplished? The government will borrow money from, say, China and give it to us. We will use it to buy Chinese products. So the Chinese lend us money, we send it back to them, and we thus owe the Chinese (or somebody) even more money than when this reshuffle started. This sounds like a wonderful solution to a problem that has its origins in too much debt and (probably, but not as directly) too little manufacturing and other meaningful economic activity in this country.
Remember when the first half of the Bush/Obama administration tried this when the recession was just starting, only they did it with tax rebates rather than debit cards. The program failed miserably at everything but adding to the deficit. One does not have to wonder why.
On today’s edition of the Noon Business Hour on WBBM Newsradio 78 in Chicago, economist Irwin Kellner proposed that the government distribute $3,000 gift cards to every household in the country in order to stimulate spending. This money could not be saved or used to pay down a mortgage or credit card debt; it would have to be spent. Dr. Kellner is not alone in making this suggestion. Many normally clear thinking people consider this a good idea. The first name that comes to mind for me is Bruce Williams, one of the great, and original, radio talk show hosts who time, unfortunately, seems to have passed by, probably because he talks sense about topics that matter and eschews the current trend toward throwing read meat to the yahoos and calling the resulting cacophony “intelligent talk.” But I digress. Mr. Williams suggested a Kellneresque scheme (or perhaps Dr. Kellner proposed a Williamsesque scheme) over a year ago.
Such a proposal is both philosophical and economic nonsense for a number of reasons. First, anyone who has even a modicum of respect for limiting the role of government should find the idea of the government handing out money willy-nilly, making dependents, to one extent or another, of all of us beyond repugnant. Some might argue that we have to dispense with philosophical niceties when the defecatory product is hitting the wind propulsion device. This argument amounts to something like “Forget philosophy, forget history, do something expedient!” Such a sentiment is not unfamiliar to the students of history, and the results of giving in to such an impulse have not been stellar. Vietnam, taking us off the gold standard, and crossing the Yalu River come immediately to mind, but one does not have to look very hard for the disastrous consequences of indulging expediency.
Second, even though in the short run a resurgence of spending might give our economy a shot in the arm, that shot will be the economic equivalent of a shot of heroin for an addict going through withdrawal. As I have said countless time on this blog and elsewhere, our problem as a nation is not that we spend too little but that we save too little and spend too much. Promoting the notion that using a government handout to pay down debt or start an investment portfolio is somehow nefarious and deleterious and to be avoided at all costs is to deny this obvious economic reality, or to acknowledge it and say, once again, that we will deal with it in the future. We have to learn to save; to have the government come in and tell us that what we need to do is reacquaint ourselves with some very dyspeptic habits that, at best, lie dormant for a time, and get out there and start excreting money we don’t have is beyond folly. If it takes a prolongation of this recession to teach us the lessons of thrift, we’ll be better off in the long run; if we don’t learn to save again our nation is finished as an economic going concern.
Third, Dr. Kellner says that people might use the free money to, among other things, go to the doctor or make a down payment on a car. Yeah, they might. But they are at least as likely to go out and make a big ticket electronic purchase or buy some other things made overseas, probably in China but maybe somewhere in Southeast Asia. While this would have some ancillary benefits for the U.S. economy, primarily through stimulating activity among retailers, most of the benefit will be felt overseas. Further, since we won’t raise taxes or otherwise cut spending to finance this downpour of dollars, we will have to borrow the money, mostly, if current patterns hold, from overseas.
So what will have been accomplished? The government will borrow money from, say, China and give it to us. We will use it to buy Chinese products. So the Chinese lend us money, we send it back to them, and we thus owe the Chinese (or somebody) even more money than when this reshuffle started. This sounds like a wonderful solution to a problem that has its origins in too much debt and (probably, but not as directly) too little manufacturing and other meaningful economic activity in this country.
Remember when the first half of the Bush/Obama administration tried this when the recession was just starting, only they did it with tax rebates rather than debit cards. The program failed miserably at everything but adding to the deficit. One does not have to wonder why.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
APPEARANCE ON WIMS, 1420 AM, MICHIGAN CITY, IN
8/18/10
Tomorrow (Thursday, 8/19/10), I’ll be appearing on my friend and fellow former South Sider Brian Brophy’s program on WIMS Radio, AM 1420, Michigan City, IN, to discuss the Blagojevich verdict and local politics in general. The show runs from 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM central time and I should be on around 3:30.
WIMS streams live on the internet for those of you (most of you) who live outside WIMS’s broadcast area.
http://www.wimsradio.com/
Thanks.
Tomorrow (Thursday, 8/19/10), I’ll be appearing on my friend and fellow former South Sider Brian Brophy’s program on WIMS Radio, AM 1420, Michigan City, IN, to discuss the Blagojevich verdict and local politics in general. The show runs from 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM central time and I should be on around 3:30.
WIMS streams live on the internet for those of you (most of you) who live outside WIMS’s broadcast area.
http://www.wimsradio.com/
Thanks.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
THE SHOW MUST GO ON!
8/17/10
Some thoughts in the immediate aftermath of the Blagojevich verdict:
• Paul Green, political science professor at Roosevelt University and one of the foremost experts on the subject of Chicago politics, made a good point on one of the local news shows when he was interviewed on the verdict. Green pointed out that many politicians who had breathed a heavy sigh of relief when it became clear that they wouldn’t be called as witnesses in this trial are once again nervous at the prospect of having to be involved in the second stage of this circus (my characterization, not Green’s, on the nature of the Blagojevich trial). Nobody thinks the President is going to be called, or at least that he will be successfully called. But Rahm Emanuel is a logical witness for either the prosecution or the defense. And, while Tony Rezko and Stuart Levine are not politicians, it is highly likely they will be called by the prosecution in a retrial, and that notion doubtless makes a lot of pols around this town nervous.
• The government announced almost instantaneously that it would retry the counts on which the jury deadlocked. No matter what one thinks of Rod Blagojevich as a person or of the strength of the case against him, it’s awfully scary that the government, with its inexhaustible resources, can keep coming back at anybody until the government gets him or her. It’s even more frightening when the motivation of the government might not be entirely pure; e.g., in this case, perhaps the government’s enthusiasm for a retrial arises from the consequences for U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s reputation, and career, if this ruling stands.
• Having said what was said in the last bullet point, a lot of people seem to be forgetting that Rod Blagojevich is now a convicted felon. And if he doesn’t get that conviction on a single count overturned on appeal, he could very easily go to jail. He might not, though, if Judge Zagel concludes, with some justification, that the one count on which Blago was convicted was something of a (Sorry, folks, there’s not better word here so I have to use a Blagoism.) bull*&$@ count and fines him or gives him some sort of other nearly exculpatory sentence.
• On tonight’s (i.e., Tuesday, 8/17, the night of the verdict) edition of Chicago Tonight, Sam Adam, Jr. equivocated when asked whether he will be representing Rod Blagojevich in the retrial. He mentioned his family, his other clients, and a number of other reasons why he might not be back. The way I see it, Adam has little to gain and a lot to lose by representing the RodMan again. At this stage, Adam looks to most people, and most potential clients, rightly or wrongly, like the victor. Note that the government rarely loses the second time around. (See my second bullet point again.) Why should Sam, Jr. take the huge risk of losing the second round and having that memory be the one that sticks when he can remain the “guy who won” and blame a second round loss on either an out of control prosecutor or a defense attorney who lacked Adam’s skill? And, while Adam wasn’t paid his usual fees for the first trial, he will be paid even less if he defends Blago again. I don’t like to make predictions, but I don’t expect to see Sam Adam, Jr. working for Rod Blagojevich in the retrial.
Sam Adam, Sr., might be another story. Seventy five years old, and genuinely infuriated at the government and at Patrick Fitzgerald in particular, he might take this case on principle.
Some thoughts in the immediate aftermath of the Blagojevich verdict:
• Paul Green, political science professor at Roosevelt University and one of the foremost experts on the subject of Chicago politics, made a good point on one of the local news shows when he was interviewed on the verdict. Green pointed out that many politicians who had breathed a heavy sigh of relief when it became clear that they wouldn’t be called as witnesses in this trial are once again nervous at the prospect of having to be involved in the second stage of this circus (my characterization, not Green’s, on the nature of the Blagojevich trial). Nobody thinks the President is going to be called, or at least that he will be successfully called. But Rahm Emanuel is a logical witness for either the prosecution or the defense. And, while Tony Rezko and Stuart Levine are not politicians, it is highly likely they will be called by the prosecution in a retrial, and that notion doubtless makes a lot of pols around this town nervous.
• The government announced almost instantaneously that it would retry the counts on which the jury deadlocked. No matter what one thinks of Rod Blagojevich as a person or of the strength of the case against him, it’s awfully scary that the government, with its inexhaustible resources, can keep coming back at anybody until the government gets him or her. It’s even more frightening when the motivation of the government might not be entirely pure; e.g., in this case, perhaps the government’s enthusiasm for a retrial arises from the consequences for U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s reputation, and career, if this ruling stands.
• Having said what was said in the last bullet point, a lot of people seem to be forgetting that Rod Blagojevich is now a convicted felon. And if he doesn’t get that conviction on a single count overturned on appeal, he could very easily go to jail. He might not, though, if Judge Zagel concludes, with some justification, that the one count on which Blago was convicted was something of a (Sorry, folks, there’s not better word here so I have to use a Blagoism.) bull*&$@ count and fines him or gives him some sort of other nearly exculpatory sentence.
• On tonight’s (i.e., Tuesday, 8/17, the night of the verdict) edition of Chicago Tonight, Sam Adam, Jr. equivocated when asked whether he will be representing Rod Blagojevich in the retrial. He mentioned his family, his other clients, and a number of other reasons why he might not be back. The way I see it, Adam has little to gain and a lot to lose by representing the RodMan again. At this stage, Adam looks to most people, and most potential clients, rightly or wrongly, like the victor. Note that the government rarely loses the second time around. (See my second bullet point again.) Why should Sam, Jr. take the huge risk of losing the second round and having that memory be the one that sticks when he can remain the “guy who won” and blame a second round loss on either an out of control prosecutor or a defense attorney who lacked Adam’s skill? And, while Adam wasn’t paid his usual fees for the first trial, he will be paid even less if he defends Blago again. I don’t like to make predictions, but I don’t expect to see Sam Adam, Jr. working for Rod Blagojevich in the retrial.
Sam Adam, Sr., might be another story. Seventy five years old, and genuinely infuriated at the government and at Patrick Fitzgerald in particular, he might take this case on principle.
Friday, August 13, 2010
“WE PACKED A LITTLE BACON AND WE PACKED A LITTLE BEANS,” BUT WE DIDN’T PACK ANY BUG SPRAY
8/13/10
Yesterday’s (i.e., Thursday, 8/12’s) Chicago Sun-Times contained the tale of young Will Lytle of Elgin, IL who successfully kayaked all 2,340 miles of the Mississippi this summer. He started at the Minnesota headwaters on June 13 and reached the Gulf of Mexico on August 5, his mother’s birthday.
This is a great story, and it attracted me because it sounds like something I would like to do. I don’t mean by this that I want to kayak or canoe the Mississippi because my talents at any kind of boating are sub-minimal and to say that I am not much of a camper ludicrously understates the case, but I like to explore different places, perhaps off the beaten path kinds of places, meet new people, and explore and experience things most people would find boring (“What? No shaking rooms with 3-D films? No explosions? No lines? No restaurants with unpronounceable names that feature prices that bear a strong inverse relationship with the size of the portions? What kind of fun can that be?”) but that a student of history and geography would find intriguing. And Mr. Lytle is to be congratulated first for conceiving of such an adventure and second for completing it. My hat is off to him.
But I do have a question. The Sun-Times reports
“And he did it with six days to spare and no maps or bug spray to stave off mosquitoes that attacked him and his brother, Joe, 26, as they slept. His brother drove a support van and camped out with him.”
The lack of a map does not seem like much of a problem; one would think that paddling down a river would not require a map. Perhaps his brother would require a map if he were trying to stay on roads closest to the river, but it would not seem like Will would need a map to stay on the river; it’s big, it’s wide, and it was right in front of him, beneath him, behind him, and next to him throughout the journey.
It would seem though, that lack of bug spray might be a big problem, but a problem easily solvable. The Mighty Mississip’ is not exactly out in the middle of nowhere; it passes through populated, in some cases heavily populated, areas. If the Lytle Brothers discovered after shoving off from Minneapolis that they didn’t have any bug spray, why didn’t they go into town (whatever town) and buy a can? One imagines that in many Mississippi river towns there is a town center, or at least a neighborhood, walking distance from the water. And the Lytle brothers had a van if visiting the nearest Walgreen's required a drive. Why couldn’t they just buy from bug spray? And, if they felt the need, pick up a map while they were at it?
Perhaps there is a macho element to kayaking the Father of Waters without bug spray, just like Father Marquette and Louis Joliet (if those two intrepid travelers ever made it to the Mississippi; my French colonial history is wanting). Perhaps there are separate Guinness Book of World Records (Would that the Almighty have mercy on us and strike any remembrance of that abomination from the face of the earth, but that is another issue.) records for kayaking the Mississippi with and without bug spray.
In any case, I am mystified by the Lytle’s failure to purchase, or pack, bug spray. Their, and especially Will’s, accomplishment would have been in no way minimized by this easy precaution. And I suspect Will, his brother Joe, and their mother, would be much happier, and more comfortable, right now had they packed, or purchased, the deet.
Yesterday’s (i.e., Thursday, 8/12’s) Chicago Sun-Times contained the tale of young Will Lytle of Elgin, IL who successfully kayaked all 2,340 miles of the Mississippi this summer. He started at the Minnesota headwaters on June 13 and reached the Gulf of Mexico on August 5, his mother’s birthday.
This is a great story, and it attracted me because it sounds like something I would like to do. I don’t mean by this that I want to kayak or canoe the Mississippi because my talents at any kind of boating are sub-minimal and to say that I am not much of a camper ludicrously understates the case, but I like to explore different places, perhaps off the beaten path kinds of places, meet new people, and explore and experience things most people would find boring (“What? No shaking rooms with 3-D films? No explosions? No lines? No restaurants with unpronounceable names that feature prices that bear a strong inverse relationship with the size of the portions? What kind of fun can that be?”) but that a student of history and geography would find intriguing. And Mr. Lytle is to be congratulated first for conceiving of such an adventure and second for completing it. My hat is off to him.
But I do have a question. The Sun-Times reports
“And he did it with six days to spare and no maps or bug spray to stave off mosquitoes that attacked him and his brother, Joe, 26, as they slept. His brother drove a support van and camped out with him.”
The lack of a map does not seem like much of a problem; one would think that paddling down a river would not require a map. Perhaps his brother would require a map if he were trying to stay on roads closest to the river, but it would not seem like Will would need a map to stay on the river; it’s big, it’s wide, and it was right in front of him, beneath him, behind him, and next to him throughout the journey.
It would seem though, that lack of bug spray might be a big problem, but a problem easily solvable. The Mighty Mississip’ is not exactly out in the middle of nowhere; it passes through populated, in some cases heavily populated, areas. If the Lytle Brothers discovered after shoving off from Minneapolis that they didn’t have any bug spray, why didn’t they go into town (whatever town) and buy a can? One imagines that in many Mississippi river towns there is a town center, or at least a neighborhood, walking distance from the water. And the Lytle brothers had a van if visiting the nearest Walgreen's required a drive. Why couldn’t they just buy from bug spray? And, if they felt the need, pick up a map while they were at it?
Perhaps there is a macho element to kayaking the Father of Waters without bug spray, just like Father Marquette and Louis Joliet (if those two intrepid travelers ever made it to the Mississippi; my French colonial history is wanting). Perhaps there are separate Guinness Book of World Records (Would that the Almighty have mercy on us and strike any remembrance of that abomination from the face of the earth, but that is another issue.) records for kayaking the Mississippi with and without bug spray.
In any case, I am mystified by the Lytle’s failure to purchase, or pack, bug spray. Their, and especially Will’s, accomplishment would have been in no way minimized by this easy precaution. And I suspect Will, his brother Joe, and their mother, would be much happier, and more comfortable, right now had they packed, or purchased, the deet.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
WHO NEEDS FRESH THINKING WHEN YOU CAN HAVE A CLICHÉ MACHINE?
8/11/10
Today’s Chicago Sun-Times reports that Desiree Rogers, former White House social secretary, wife of investment impresario John Rogers, and serial corporate bigwig, has landed the job of CEO of Johnson Publishing in Chicago, nice work if one can get it. Ms. Roger’s complete lack of experience in the publishing business is no problem; as Ms. Rogers explains:
“I’ve been a generalist all of my career, focused on taking brands to the next level and integrating all of a company’s functional expertise under one roof to move forward.”
In my many years of reading and listening to such corporate logorrhea (Remember I once worked for a major Chicago bank the management of which consisted almost entirely of McKinsey alums.), I have never heard anyone pack so many meaningless clichés into one sentence.
I used to think that Ms. Rogers, whose talents in any functional area are decidedly limited, got every big time post she has gotten solely because of her connections. But I am apparently wrong; not only does Ms. Rogers know everybody, she is the undisputed master of corporate gobbledygook. What more does one need in today’s corporate world?
Today’s Chicago Sun-Times reports that Desiree Rogers, former White House social secretary, wife of investment impresario John Rogers, and serial corporate bigwig, has landed the job of CEO of Johnson Publishing in Chicago, nice work if one can get it. Ms. Roger’s complete lack of experience in the publishing business is no problem; as Ms. Rogers explains:
“I’ve been a generalist all of my career, focused on taking brands to the next level and integrating all of a company’s functional expertise under one roof to move forward.”
In my many years of reading and listening to such corporate logorrhea (Remember I once worked for a major Chicago bank the management of which consisted almost entirely of McKinsey alums.), I have never heard anyone pack so many meaningless clichés into one sentence.
I used to think that Ms. Rogers, whose talents in any functional area are decidedly limited, got every big time post she has gotten solely because of her connections. But I am apparently wrong; not only does Ms. Rogers know everybody, she is the undisputed master of corporate gobbledygook. What more does one need in today’s corporate world?
“I FOUND IT ALL…ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CHICAGO…”
8/11/10
Yesterday, I talked with Patrick Thomas, editor of The Beverly Review, about my novel, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics, its upcoming sequel, The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, and Chicago politics in general. The interview was conducted in preparation for an upcoming article Pat will write in the Review.
Appearing in The Beverly Review is especially gratifying for me because the Review is the paper of the neighborhood in which I grew up and a paper I delivered in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s. Clearly, it is one of the best neighborhood papers in Chicago, or in the country, and serves a community packed with politically powerful and attuned people, a group that would have especially intense interest in my books. The article should run in the next few weeks. Some of my readers get the Review, but, for those of you who don’t, here is its link:
http://www.beverlyreview.net/
Speaking of the sequel, it should be out late this month or early next. The only misgiving I have about this (if I can say so myself) terrific novel is its price, which is the minimum set by Stafford, the publisher. The paperback will sell for $19.99 and the hardcover (Yes, we have a hardcover this time, primarily in response to those readers who weren’t happy with the quality of the cover of The Chairman; that is another reason I changed publishers for the sequel.) for $29.99, which I think is expensive and for which I apologize in advance. The minimum price was completely out of my hands. On the bright side, the book is definitely worth every penny, especially for those of you who liked The Chairman and wonder what happens next in the life of its dauntless protagonist, Eamon DeValera Collins. But even those who haven’t read The Chairman or found it perhaps a bit too weighty will like the tighter, faster moving plot of The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics. The vocabulary has been toned down a notch or seven and the sequel has a character glossary, which applies to both novels. Further, those of you who have Kindles or other electronic reading devices can buy the sequel at $9.99, only a dollar or so more than the electronic version of The Chairman.
Thanks; I’ll put up post as soon as the sequel is released, but you will hear from me before then.
Yesterday, I talked with Patrick Thomas, editor of The Beverly Review, about my novel, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics, its upcoming sequel, The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, and Chicago politics in general. The interview was conducted in preparation for an upcoming article Pat will write in the Review.
Appearing in The Beverly Review is especially gratifying for me because the Review is the paper of the neighborhood in which I grew up and a paper I delivered in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s. Clearly, it is one of the best neighborhood papers in Chicago, or in the country, and serves a community packed with politically powerful and attuned people, a group that would have especially intense interest in my books. The article should run in the next few weeks. Some of my readers get the Review, but, for those of you who don’t, here is its link:
http://www.beverlyreview.net/
Speaking of the sequel, it should be out late this month or early next. The only misgiving I have about this (if I can say so myself) terrific novel is its price, which is the minimum set by Stafford, the publisher. The paperback will sell for $19.99 and the hardcover (Yes, we have a hardcover this time, primarily in response to those readers who weren’t happy with the quality of the cover of The Chairman; that is another reason I changed publishers for the sequel.) for $29.99, which I think is expensive and for which I apologize in advance. The minimum price was completely out of my hands. On the bright side, the book is definitely worth every penny, especially for those of you who liked The Chairman and wonder what happens next in the life of its dauntless protagonist, Eamon DeValera Collins. But even those who haven’t read The Chairman or found it perhaps a bit too weighty will like the tighter, faster moving plot of The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics. The vocabulary has been toned down a notch or seven and the sequel has a character glossary, which applies to both novels. Further, those of you who have Kindles or other electronic reading devices can buy the sequel at $9.99, only a dollar or so more than the electronic version of The Chairman.
Thanks; I’ll put up post as soon as the sequel is released, but you will hear from me before then.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
“THERE ARE MORE THINGS IN HEAVEN AND EARTH, HORATIO, THAN ARE DREAMT OF IN YOUR PHILOSOPHY.”
8/10/10
I can take little credit, beyond the stylistic, for this particular blog post. I am merely reporting on an idea conveyed to me last week. The curious thing about this idea is that it was expressed on two consecutive days by two old friends of mine who don’t know and, as far as I know, have never met each other. One is a practicing Catholic. The other is what we used to call, no longer call, but, the way the Church is going, soon will be required to once again call, a “fallen Catholic.”
On both occasions, we were discussing (Surprise!) politics and various candidates, some of whom we like and some of whom we don’t, who hold fundamentalist Christian views, most saliently, in this case, creationism and/or its supposedly less controversial and more reasonable variant, intelligent design. It’s easy to ridicule the notion that the world was created 6,000 years ago according to the precise formula outlined in the first two chapters of Genesis. But, both my friends pointed out, as Catholics, we believe that, in the Eucharist, simple bread and wine are transformed into the real flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Anyone looking at this contention from a purely rational perspective would say that the entire notion is absurd, certainly at least as absurd as the idea that the world was created 6,000 years ago and nothing became everything in seven days. Once outside the bounds of faith, transubstantiation, and its mainline Protestant variant, consubstantiation, for that matter, is a beyond a tough sell. It simply does not stand up to the test of reason; it requires faith. The same can just as easily, if not more easily, be said for creationism.
There are plenty of people (most people, really), who do not believe in creationism, transubstantiation, or consubstantiation, and they are certainly entitled to their beliefs; after all, their beliefs on this subject are more rational than ours. But Catholics who believe in transubstantiation, and even mainline Protestants who believe in consubstantiation, should have a very difficult time ridiculing the fundamentalist doctrine of creationism while not looking awfully hypocritical.
This is not to say that I believe in creationism; I don’t. I believe in evolution and, like my Church, see no contradiction between the theory of evolution and a firm belief in a loving and caring Creator. Further, I don’t expect fundamentalist Protestants to believe in transubstantiation or pure rationalists to believe in either. But the notion expressed by my two buddies, completely independently of each other, is worth contemplating before dismissing ideas that, on the surface, make little sense to those who don’t hold them.
I can take little credit, beyond the stylistic, for this particular blog post. I am merely reporting on an idea conveyed to me last week. The curious thing about this idea is that it was expressed on two consecutive days by two old friends of mine who don’t know and, as far as I know, have never met each other. One is a practicing Catholic. The other is what we used to call, no longer call, but, the way the Church is going, soon will be required to once again call, a “fallen Catholic.”
On both occasions, we were discussing (Surprise!) politics and various candidates, some of whom we like and some of whom we don’t, who hold fundamentalist Christian views, most saliently, in this case, creationism and/or its supposedly less controversial and more reasonable variant, intelligent design. It’s easy to ridicule the notion that the world was created 6,000 years ago according to the precise formula outlined in the first two chapters of Genesis. But, both my friends pointed out, as Catholics, we believe that, in the Eucharist, simple bread and wine are transformed into the real flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Anyone looking at this contention from a purely rational perspective would say that the entire notion is absurd, certainly at least as absurd as the idea that the world was created 6,000 years ago and nothing became everything in seven days. Once outside the bounds of faith, transubstantiation, and its mainline Protestant variant, consubstantiation, for that matter, is a beyond a tough sell. It simply does not stand up to the test of reason; it requires faith. The same can just as easily, if not more easily, be said for creationism.
There are plenty of people (most people, really), who do not believe in creationism, transubstantiation, or consubstantiation, and they are certainly entitled to their beliefs; after all, their beliefs on this subject are more rational than ours. But Catholics who believe in transubstantiation, and even mainline Protestants who believe in consubstantiation, should have a very difficult time ridiculing the fundamentalist doctrine of creationism while not looking awfully hypocritical.
This is not to say that I believe in creationism; I don’t. I believe in evolution and, like my Church, see no contradiction between the theory of evolution and a firm belief in a loving and caring Creator. Further, I don’t expect fundamentalist Protestants to believe in transubstantiation or pure rationalists to believe in either. But the notion expressed by my two buddies, completely independently of each other, is worth contemplating before dismissing ideas that, on the surface, make little sense to those who don’t hold them.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
MR. GRUMPY BACK AT THE KEYBOARD
8/8/10
A friend of mine sent an e-mail soliciting some thoughts in response to an e-mail I sent him. I haven’t posted anything in awhile, and thought a version of my return e-mail might make a good post:
As de Tocqueville said, and Wynn quoted, democracy in America will work until the politicians figure out that they can bribe the people with their own money. We reached that point a long time ago.
It's hard to be optimistic.
On specifics, Daley will run unless his wife's illness prevents it. If that situation remains status quo, he's a go. And he'll win if he runs.
Quinn's, well, not a buffoon (He’s an intelligent man.), just a showboater and a preening poltroon. Brady's a good man, a businessman who knows how to run something with his heart in the right place. The problem is that people don't look at what he's saying and think about it. Why do that when you can just react and luxuriate in the syrupy flattery other politicians, and especially Pat Quinn, are so eager to dish out. "Nothing is your fault; you've been exploited all your life. All your problems are caused by someone else. Vote for me and we'll get those bad guys, like Brady, who wants to deny women health care coverage and lower the minimum wage because he just hates ordinary people, like you." I still think Brady can win, but only because Quinn is such a failure, not because of Brady's rationality. Rationality doesn’t sell with the American electorate; shameless, treacly flattery does.
On the bright, or somewhat less dark, side, I have come around to the idea that this will be a big Republican year, more than the usual 20-25 House seats the incumbent party loses in the off year election of a president's first term. They may not take the House, but they likely will come close. On the Senate side, it will be tougher—10 or 11 seats is a lot of seats. And if they do, the Republicans will be in charge, so how good can that be? A pox on both their houses, I’ve always said. But at least we'll have divided government, which served this country so well from 1994 until 2000.
A friend of mine sent an e-mail soliciting some thoughts in response to an e-mail I sent him. I haven’t posted anything in awhile, and thought a version of my return e-mail might make a good post:
As de Tocqueville said, and Wynn quoted, democracy in America will work until the politicians figure out that they can bribe the people with their own money. We reached that point a long time ago.
It's hard to be optimistic.
On specifics, Daley will run unless his wife's illness prevents it. If that situation remains status quo, he's a go. And he'll win if he runs.
Quinn's, well, not a buffoon (He’s an intelligent man.), just a showboater and a preening poltroon. Brady's a good man, a businessman who knows how to run something with his heart in the right place. The problem is that people don't look at what he's saying and think about it. Why do that when you can just react and luxuriate in the syrupy flattery other politicians, and especially Pat Quinn, are so eager to dish out. "Nothing is your fault; you've been exploited all your life. All your problems are caused by someone else. Vote for me and we'll get those bad guys, like Brady, who wants to deny women health care coverage and lower the minimum wage because he just hates ordinary people, like you." I still think Brady can win, but only because Quinn is such a failure, not because of Brady's rationality. Rationality doesn’t sell with the American electorate; shameless, treacly flattery does.
On the bright, or somewhat less dark, side, I have come around to the idea that this will be a big Republican year, more than the usual 20-25 House seats the incumbent party loses in the off year election of a president's first term. They may not take the House, but they likely will come close. On the Senate side, it will be tougher—10 or 11 seats is a lot of seats. And if they do, the Republicans will be in charge, so how good can that be? A pox on both their houses, I’ve always said. But at least we'll have divided government, which served this country so well from 1994 until 2000.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
“AW, C’MON…YOU DESERVE IT!”
8/4/10
This morning’s Chicago Sun-Times reports that a record 786,162 Illinois households are now participating in the food stamp program, now euphemistically referred to as the SNAP program. Marielle Sainvilus, a spokesperson for the Illinois Department of Human Services, gushes
“A lot of the stigma is starting to go away with one out of every six Americans on SNAP benefits. More and more are applying, from seniors to students to middle class families.”
How wonderful is that? No one should feel the least bit bad about taking a handout from their fellow taxpayers, many of whom are facing their own struggles, and we are legally responsible for all those newly non-stigmatized at the federal trough.
I realize that people need help, maybe just once, maybe from time to time. But shouldn’t there be at least a little bit of stigma attached to not being able to support one’s self and family and thus relying on the forced “generosity” of the taxpayers, many, maybe most, of whom would rather die than bear the ignominy of having to take a handout? Shouldn’t there be at least sufficient stigma that, even when one has no alternative and must turn to food stamps, one will do everything in one’s power to get back on one’s feet and thus no longer need, or even want, to be on such a program? Or are we being told that one should be proud to be perpetually dependent on others for the necessities of life?
I also realize that we are indeed responsible for the welfare of our fellow citizens, our brothers and sisters and children of God. That is why charities exist and that is why we should all be overly generous to charities that help people with the necessities of life and that at least try to put people on a path toward being able to no longer be dependent on the charity of others, many of whom are having a hard time putting food on their own tables. Charities can make demands on the recipients of their, and our, largesse. Those demands, in any well run charity, involve helping people to help themselves. Such efforts deserve our support.
The government, though, apparently can’t make such demands but, instead, tells people that there is no shame in being dependent. A limited food stamp, and more general, welfare, program is necessary and commendable in a civilized and compassionate society. But a welfare system that its “beneficiaries” see as a way of life is contemptible in such a society.
Okay, so I’m old-fashioned, curmudgeonly, and perhaps a bit misanthropic, but not as misanthropic as I have been, and will be, called when I express opinions such as the above. But our country, and our world, is in big trouble, and not just fiscal trouble, when people are being taught that there is no shame, indeed, a measure of pride, in extracting the fruits of the labor of others.
This morning’s Chicago Sun-Times reports that a record 786,162 Illinois households are now participating in the food stamp program, now euphemistically referred to as the SNAP program. Marielle Sainvilus, a spokesperson for the Illinois Department of Human Services, gushes
“A lot of the stigma is starting to go away with one out of every six Americans on SNAP benefits. More and more are applying, from seniors to students to middle class families.”
How wonderful is that? No one should feel the least bit bad about taking a handout from their fellow taxpayers, many of whom are facing their own struggles, and we are legally responsible for all those newly non-stigmatized at the federal trough.
I realize that people need help, maybe just once, maybe from time to time. But shouldn’t there be at least a little bit of stigma attached to not being able to support one’s self and family and thus relying on the forced “generosity” of the taxpayers, many, maybe most, of whom would rather die than bear the ignominy of having to take a handout? Shouldn’t there be at least sufficient stigma that, even when one has no alternative and must turn to food stamps, one will do everything in one’s power to get back on one’s feet and thus no longer need, or even want, to be on such a program? Or are we being told that one should be proud to be perpetually dependent on others for the necessities of life?
I also realize that we are indeed responsible for the welfare of our fellow citizens, our brothers and sisters and children of God. That is why charities exist and that is why we should all be overly generous to charities that help people with the necessities of life and that at least try to put people on a path toward being able to no longer be dependent on the charity of others, many of whom are having a hard time putting food on their own tables. Charities can make demands on the recipients of their, and our, largesse. Those demands, in any well run charity, involve helping people to help themselves. Such efforts deserve our support.
The government, though, apparently can’t make such demands but, instead, tells people that there is no shame in being dependent. A limited food stamp, and more general, welfare, program is necessary and commendable in a civilized and compassionate society. But a welfare system that its “beneficiaries” see as a way of life is contemptible in such a society.
Okay, so I’m old-fashioned, curmudgeonly, and perhaps a bit misanthropic, but not as misanthropic as I have been, and will be, called when I express opinions such as the above. But our country, and our world, is in big trouble, and not just fiscal trouble, when people are being taught that there is no shame, indeed, a measure of pride, in extracting the fruits of the labor of others.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
GIMME THAT NEW AGE RELIGION
8/3/10
This morning’s (i.e., Tuesday, 8/3/10’s, page A1) Wall Street Journal reports that the Fed is considering purchasing more treasuries and mortgage bonds, or at least maintaining its inventory of said bonds by reinvesting the proceeds from matured bonds in the treasury and mortgage markets. The Fed is thus, out of a concern that the economy still is not strong enough to sustain even a gradual withdrawal of monetary stimulus, reconsidering its prior decision to let its inventory of mortgages and treasuries, acquired in the “emergency” of a few years ago, run down.
I’m not the first person to say this, but does the Fed really think that continuing its presence in the bond market is the wisest course of action in the midst of what some are calling a bond bubble that has brought the two year to 53 basis points and the ten year to 2.90%, resulted in the lowest mortgage rates in history, and allowed, for example, Charles Schwab a few weeks ago to sell ten year paper at 150 over treasuries? Does the Fed think that it is the level of interest rates that is stifling economic growth? If so, just how much lower does the Fed think rates will have to go before things turn around? How does the Fed justify continuing to punish savers and reward spenders in an economy that, despite a savings rate that has returned to its historic levels of about 6%, still lags most of the world in savings and that was nearly driven over the figurative cliff not two years ago as a result of its ingrained profligate spending habits? Has the fed chugged and guzzled the deflationary kool-aid at a clip that would impress a 22 year old out for a big Saturday night at a Western Avenue gin mill?
Or does the Fed’s “considering” (read “deciding on”) maintaining its inventory of treasuries and mortgage bonds really an admission that it has no idea what to do with an economy that just won’t seem to budge?
This morning’s (i.e., Tuesday, 8/3/10’s, page A1) Wall Street Journal reports that the Fed is considering purchasing more treasuries and mortgage bonds, or at least maintaining its inventory of said bonds by reinvesting the proceeds from matured bonds in the treasury and mortgage markets. The Fed is thus, out of a concern that the economy still is not strong enough to sustain even a gradual withdrawal of monetary stimulus, reconsidering its prior decision to let its inventory of mortgages and treasuries, acquired in the “emergency” of a few years ago, run down.
I’m not the first person to say this, but does the Fed really think that continuing its presence in the bond market is the wisest course of action in the midst of what some are calling a bond bubble that has brought the two year to 53 basis points and the ten year to 2.90%, resulted in the lowest mortgage rates in history, and allowed, for example, Charles Schwab a few weeks ago to sell ten year paper at 150 over treasuries? Does the Fed think that it is the level of interest rates that is stifling economic growth? If so, just how much lower does the Fed think rates will have to go before things turn around? How does the Fed justify continuing to punish savers and reward spenders in an economy that, despite a savings rate that has returned to its historic levels of about 6%, still lags most of the world in savings and that was nearly driven over the figurative cliff not two years ago as a result of its ingrained profligate spending habits? Has the fed chugged and guzzled the deflationary kool-aid at a clip that would impress a 22 year old out for a big Saturday night at a Western Avenue gin mill?
Or does the Fed’s “considering” (read “deciding on”) maintaining its inventory of treasuries and mortgage bonds really an admission that it has no idea what to do with an economy that just won’t seem to budge?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
