Thursday, June 12, 2008
What Obama Should Say...
“Today I want to make a comment on the US Supreme Courts decision that detainees at Gitmo have a right to have their detentions challenged in US Civil Court. Since 9/11 we have heard President Bush talk about what it takes to win the War on Terror and we’ve seen his results of his failed policies and actions – the diminishment of what it means to be a good country in the eyes of the world and ourselves. President Bush has taken us down the road of wars based on lies, torture, and the blatant disregard of our beloved Constitutional rights as citizens of this great county. He, and his neo-conservative supporters that have falsely brand themselves as republicans, have even dragged us down the road once traveled by another misdirected senator, Joseph McCarthy; a road laden with false and inflated propaganda while at the same time trying brand citizens with different opinions as unpatriotic and even dangerous. And John McCain has been very supportive of many of President Bush’s – from the illegitimate and ill conceived war in Iraq that has cost over 4000 servicemen their lives, over 20000 servicemen their physical health, and over 150,000 servicemen their mental health; to the unlawful wiretapping of millions of citizens with no ties to terrorism. John McCain’s view of foreign policy, which is fraught with confusion and misstatements, relies on the same fear-mongering and sable-rattling on which President Bush’s presidency will likely be remembered. And it relies on being afraid, yes, afraid, of less than deserving, third-world leaders such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran. But we have seen over the last few years that there is a renewed rejection of the un-American policies of the Bush administration and its supporters. Many in this country, from the left and the right, conservative and liberal, republican and democrat, have seen that their path, the path of fear, is the wrong path. This is not just a fear of terrorism, but the fear of being American. The fear of doing what is right. But this is what makes America great - we know in are hearts the difference between right and wrong, between good and evil. Our faiths teach us to seek out good and reject evil, to seek out the truth and reject lies. There is no greater repudiation of the policies of the Bush administration and it supports, which includes Sen. McCain, than today’s decision by the US Supreme Court that the detainees in Gitmo have the Constitutional right to have their detentions vetted in a civil court. What will President Bush and his supporters to say now? Will they try to demonize the Supreme Court and say that it is weak on terrorism and is making America less safe - a court whose majority is now of a more conservative persuasion because of nominees appointed by President Bush himself? Regardless what their response is, the decision of the highest court in the land sends a loud and clear message: We are Americans and our belief in doing what is morally right is still alive – not just in the good times, but in the difficult times as well. And that we are still a country of laws created by the people, and for the people. And while John McCain has supported the closing of Gitmo and spoken our strongly against torture by US forces of detainees, his outrage is narrowly focused. John McCain has not condemned the rendition policies of this administration that have allowed detainees to be transferred, in secret, to third-world countries for interrogation – countries that routinely use torture. John McCain is also not against the military tribunals of detainees that effectively guarantee guilty verdicts. So what shall we think of John McCain and his continued support of most of this President’s policies – policies that do not make America more secure, policies that do not make America a true world leader, policies that are un-American in their fabric? I think we can and will do better – not only for our sake but for the sake of the entire world.”
Thursday, December 13, 2007
To Torture or not to Torture, that is the Question.
Torture has now become one of the divisionary topics of our day, taking a prominent place besides abortion, amnesty, and gay marriage. What is intriguing about the torture issue is that it is one of the few issues that crosses political boundaries; at least to a degree. Most Democrats oppose torture and manageable number of Republican's do as well, most notable John McCain and Ron Paul. The most stark difference between pro-torture and anti-torture supporters is that when one looks at the position of current and previous military personnel it appears that most of them fall into the later category. Why would this be? Certainly if torture was a productive tool the military would be for it, wouldn't they? Well apparently, and with good reason, they are not.
The rational behind the military's anti-torture stance makes sense.
First, most experts will attest to the fact that torture provides unreliable information; especially as compared to more sophisticated, "modern" techniques.
Second, in all conflicts since WWII (including the initial stages of the current Iraq War), enemy soldiers were inclined to surrender to American (Allied/Coalition) forces because they knew that they would be treated humanely. Remember the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers that surrendered without a shot in the first Gulf War?
Third, military personnel understand that if the U.S. (and thereby the World) starts to condone torture as a routine procedure, that soldiers are more likely to be subject to it themselves if captured during combat.
Fourth, the U.S. military is based on honorable service to protect our country and the Constitution. The Constitution dictates that any treaties enacted are also to be considered the law of the land and this most certainly includes the Geneva Conventions which prohibits torture.
Now, there are those that provide rational for torturing, such as the following.
First, it can work to provide valuable and accurate information.
Second, in the event of a major emergency one might need to torture a suspect to get information that could save millions of lives.
Third, much of what is branded as torture is not really torture (such as waterboarding).
Fourth, the enemy (Islamic radicals) will torture regardless of what we do.
Let me address the anti-torture rational first. As far as my research indicates every single anti-torture point appears to be accurate and backed up by numerous sources. Most notability the first point that torture does not appear to produced nearly as high quality information as modern interrogation techniques. This is very clear from recently revealed FBI documents that detail how after to harsh interrogation methods were implemented at GITMO, the amount of quality intelligence was significantly diminished. The remaining points are not really all that debatable.
With regards to the pro-torture rational, most position appear less defensible. First, there is a problem with the general proposition that torture "works." There is no openly documented case that shows this to be true, although there are numerous cases that show that torture can be used to extract false confessions. Even if torture does "work", does it work better than more sophisticated techniques such as those used by the FBI? The evidence would say no.
I believe that the second pro-torture point may be the only one that is plausibly defensible; but only under strict and open conditions that clearly are documented and approved by the president (publicly). In cases of national emergency where time is of the essence and where information exists that a suspect has specific information that could lead to the aborting an imminent terror attack, I believe that torture may be necessary. While this may be repugnant, so is war in general. The Allies would never has relied on carpet bombing German cities if the war had been going well; that is because we have at least a minimal set of morals. Because torture is considered by most moral people as repugnant, if it were ever to be implemented it would need to be done so only in the most open and justifiable fashion. To the contrary, performing torture in secrecy undermines our moral standing at every level.
Third, what is torture? This certainly is beyond my expertise to comment on. However, it appears obvious that when it comes to waterboarding the current and historical postion has been, and should continue to be, that it is torture.
Fourth, people that hold the position that "our enemies do it therefore we should afford them the same treatment" position appear to forget that there is a fundamental difference between "good" and "evil". Should we start to employ attacking innocent civilian populations because they do it? Should we kill woman because they way the dress because they do it? Isn't this what makes them our enemies and evil? So why how can this be any possible justification for using torture. It is simply a straw-man argument put forth by immoral people in order to sway the shallow thinking public to create an opinion based on a wholly emotional (and perhaps testosterone-based) response.
Torture is not what America is about, and if used, should be done so only in the most extreme of situations when there literally is no other alternative. This apparently has not been what has happened with regards to the Bush Administration's policy with torture. Despite its stance that the "U.S. does not torture", it is clear that waterboarding, which is torture from all historical and current definitions, has been used as a routine interrogation technique. This is unlawful and immoral and un-American.
The rational behind the military's anti-torture stance makes sense.
First, most experts will attest to the fact that torture provides unreliable information; especially as compared to more sophisticated, "modern" techniques.
Second, in all conflicts since WWII (including the initial stages of the current Iraq War), enemy soldiers were inclined to surrender to American (Allied/Coalition) forces because they knew that they would be treated humanely. Remember the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers that surrendered without a shot in the first Gulf War?
Third, military personnel understand that if the U.S. (and thereby the World) starts to condone torture as a routine procedure, that soldiers are more likely to be subject to it themselves if captured during combat.
Fourth, the U.S. military is based on honorable service to protect our country and the Constitution. The Constitution dictates that any treaties enacted are also to be considered the law of the land and this most certainly includes the Geneva Conventions which prohibits torture.
Now, there are those that provide rational for torturing, such as the following.
First, it can work to provide valuable and accurate information.
Second, in the event of a major emergency one might need to torture a suspect to get information that could save millions of lives.
Third, much of what is branded as torture is not really torture (such as waterboarding).
Fourth, the enemy (Islamic radicals) will torture regardless of what we do.
Let me address the anti-torture rational first. As far as my research indicates every single anti-torture point appears to be accurate and backed up by numerous sources. Most notability the first point that torture does not appear to produced nearly as high quality information as modern interrogation techniques. This is very clear from recently revealed FBI documents that detail how after to harsh interrogation methods were implemented at GITMO, the amount of quality intelligence was significantly diminished. The remaining points are not really all that debatable.
With regards to the pro-torture rational, most position appear less defensible. First, there is a problem with the general proposition that torture "works." There is no openly documented case that shows this to be true, although there are numerous cases that show that torture can be used to extract false confessions. Even if torture does "work", does it work better than more sophisticated techniques such as those used by the FBI? The evidence would say no.
I believe that the second pro-torture point may be the only one that is plausibly defensible; but only under strict and open conditions that clearly are documented and approved by the president (publicly). In cases of national emergency where time is of the essence and where information exists that a suspect has specific information that could lead to the aborting an imminent terror attack, I believe that torture may be necessary. While this may be repugnant, so is war in general. The Allies would never has relied on carpet bombing German cities if the war had been going well; that is because we have at least a minimal set of morals. Because torture is considered by most moral people as repugnant, if it were ever to be implemented it would need to be done so only in the most open and justifiable fashion. To the contrary, performing torture in secrecy undermines our moral standing at every level.
Third, what is torture? This certainly is beyond my expertise to comment on. However, it appears obvious that when it comes to waterboarding the current and historical postion has been, and should continue to be, that it is torture.
Fourth, people that hold the position that "our enemies do it therefore we should afford them the same treatment" position appear to forget that there is a fundamental difference between "good" and "evil". Should we start to employ attacking innocent civilian populations because they do it? Should we kill woman because they way the dress because they do it? Isn't this what makes them our enemies and evil? So why how can this be any possible justification for using torture. It is simply a straw-man argument put forth by immoral people in order to sway the shallow thinking public to create an opinion based on a wholly emotional (and perhaps testosterone-based) response.
Torture is not what America is about, and if used, should be done so only in the most extreme of situations when there literally is no other alternative. This apparently has not been what has happened with regards to the Bush Administration's policy with torture. Despite its stance that the "U.S. does not torture", it is clear that waterboarding, which is torture from all historical and current definitions, has been used as a routine interrogation technique. This is unlawful and immoral and un-American.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
The"One Party" vs. Ron Paul
The 2006 election allowed the Democratic Party to once again enjoy a majority in both the House and the Senate. Their mandate, as any rational human being would conclude, was to put an end to the Iraq War and to reign in the overreaching Bush/Cheney Executive Branch - thus restoring some semblance of checks and balances in our central government. But apparently once in power that mandate was soon forgotten by the new Democratic power-brokers. Instead of ending the war, which is 100% within their power to do within a short period of time, they focused on their irrelevant and inane 100 hour agenda.
It’s now one year later now - 2007, and the war still rages on (though the news media has taken a hiatus from covering it) and the Bush/Cheney machine still rolls on unimpeded.
In fact, the Bush/Cheney machine is more powerful now than before the 2006 Elections. They now have revamped the Continuity of Government plan to allow complete dictatorial power to be invoked by the president at his discretion (Musharraf must be jealous), the Office of the Vice President is now apparently defined as a new government entity that is not subject to any laws or oversight, the Congress has rubberstamped warrantless wiretapping, the war has been funded and refunded with numerous multi-billion dollar defense authorization bills with ZERO benchmarks, and last but not least, Bush, Cheney and the rest of their entourage have been given free tickets to commit just about any crime or treasonous act without any likelihood of reprisal from the Democratic Party for “fear” of losing the next election. This “fear” is as blatantly faux as well.
The reason that nothing has really changed since 2006 is that there wasn’t really any change in 2006. The “One Party” has arrived in full force.
The tide has been growing for many years and its arrival explains many recent events; such as why did Kerry not contest the 2004 election result in Ohio which was clearly fraudulent. It may even go as far as to explain why Gore gave up as well, although it’s easier to blame to Supreme Court for that one.
The fact remains obvious to any rational observer that in fact the differences between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are minor when compared to the enormous problems facing the country today. On Iraq, both want to continue the war in their own ways for the same reasons: power and oil. On government spending, both want it in a big way. On bogus trade deals (such as NAFTA), both support them and do little to protect American workers. The list goes on and on and on. And each election cycle the second tier faux differences are flaunted as if America’s very existence hangs in the balance – gay marriage, flag burning, school prayer, etc.
The truth is that America in 2100 will look very much the same regardless of which one of the faux parties runs the country. The outlook is bleak unless the American People wake up and realize that they are being hoodwinked into believing they are being given choices. Even if perfect election laws are instituted they will still only be used to elect someone from the “One Party”, which in 2008 will in all likelihood be Hillary.
Of course there IS a real alternative candidate: Ron Paul. Give one hour of your time to listen to this true American Patriot. Listen to your heart. Think of what America would be like in 2100 if someone of Ron Paul’s integrity, vision and truthiness (sorry Cobert) were to set this country on a new “old” path.
It’s now one year later now - 2007, and the war still rages on (though the news media has taken a hiatus from covering it) and the Bush/Cheney machine still rolls on unimpeded.
In fact, the Bush/Cheney machine is more powerful now than before the 2006 Elections. They now have revamped the Continuity of Government plan to allow complete dictatorial power to be invoked by the president at his discretion (Musharraf must be jealous), the Office of the Vice President is now apparently defined as a new government entity that is not subject to any laws or oversight, the Congress has rubberstamped warrantless wiretapping, the war has been funded and refunded with numerous multi-billion dollar defense authorization bills with ZERO benchmarks, and last but not least, Bush, Cheney and the rest of their entourage have been given free tickets to commit just about any crime or treasonous act without any likelihood of reprisal from the Democratic Party for “fear” of losing the next election. This “fear” is as blatantly faux as well.
The reason that nothing has really changed since 2006 is that there wasn’t really any change in 2006. The “One Party” has arrived in full force.
The tide has been growing for many years and its arrival explains many recent events; such as why did Kerry not contest the 2004 election result in Ohio which was clearly fraudulent. It may even go as far as to explain why Gore gave up as well, although it’s easier to blame to Supreme Court for that one.
The fact remains obvious to any rational observer that in fact the differences between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are minor when compared to the enormous problems facing the country today. On Iraq, both want to continue the war in their own ways for the same reasons: power and oil. On government spending, both want it in a big way. On bogus trade deals (such as NAFTA), both support them and do little to protect American workers. The list goes on and on and on. And each election cycle the second tier faux differences are flaunted as if America’s very existence hangs in the balance – gay marriage, flag burning, school prayer, etc.
The truth is that America in 2100 will look very much the same regardless of which one of the faux parties runs the country. The outlook is bleak unless the American People wake up and realize that they are being hoodwinked into believing they are being given choices. Even if perfect election laws are instituted they will still only be used to elect someone from the “One Party”, which in 2008 will in all likelihood be Hillary.
Of course there IS a real alternative candidate: Ron Paul. Give one hour of your time to listen to this true American Patriot. Listen to your heart. Think of what America would be like in 2100 if someone of Ron Paul’s integrity, vision and truthiness (sorry Cobert) were to set this country on a new “old” path.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
…or so were told when we were kids. But as adults we are told something quite different. The truth is we are being told by our corrupt government and corporate complex is that what’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander.
Close your dreary eyes and imaging a time when gas was $1.00 per gallon (or less if you’re courageous enough). Then imagine you see on the news that good old Uncle Sam is thinking about imposing a $2.00 a gallon tax on gas. Once you get over your initial shock and tune back in and hear the plethora of talking head pundits explain to you in simple terms how the whole economy will driven into an unrecoverable depression, how babies will likely go without milk, and how old woman and men will be left out in the cold on bitter winter nights. Your heart pounds as your blood pressure rises and you call your closest friend to rant for minutes about the sure insanity. You might even call your representative in Congress to threaten him will eternal damnation if he supports the gas tax. If you did make such a call you might find out that all the money raised would find out that all the money raised (approximately $283 billion / year) would go to providing an education and healthcare to every eligible person in the USA. But your just too enraged, your taxed enough as it is and that is the end of it.
Now open your eyes because there is no chance that a $2.00 gas tax would have ever been imposed, much less even suggested back in the days of $1.00 gasoline. But if it had happened would it have caused an economic calamity? Well obviously not because today we are paying $3.00 plus for gasoline and life moves on. The only difference is that the $283 billion per year isn’t going to fund education, healthcare or anything else of consequence, but rather is evaporated into the profit mist of the mega oil corporations. And we know that very little of this profit is re-invested into the US economy.
This is why I support at $15.00 Minimum Living Wage for an independent adult worker, to be obtained within no more than 5 years. The fact is that economy will adjust; the money will be re-distributed from the corporations back to the people that slave hard to earn it. People will be able to afford a better life and they will return all $15.00 per hour (hopefully minus 10% in savings) back into the economy (because they can’t afford not to eat). For those that say this is impossible, I say you need to stop taking advantage of people. I run a business and $15.00 per hour is the least I pay people. Could I pay them less? Yes. Do I? No. That’s what being an American is all about.
Close your dreary eyes and imaging a time when gas was $1.00 per gallon (or less if you’re courageous enough). Then imagine you see on the news that good old Uncle Sam is thinking about imposing a $2.00 a gallon tax on gas. Once you get over your initial shock and tune back in and hear the plethora of talking head pundits explain to you in simple terms how the whole economy will driven into an unrecoverable depression, how babies will likely go without milk, and how old woman and men will be left out in the cold on bitter winter nights. Your heart pounds as your blood pressure rises and you call your closest friend to rant for minutes about the sure insanity. You might even call your representative in Congress to threaten him will eternal damnation if he supports the gas tax. If you did make such a call you might find out that all the money raised would find out that all the money raised (approximately $283 billion / year) would go to providing an education and healthcare to every eligible person in the USA. But your just too enraged, your taxed enough as it is and that is the end of it.
Now open your eyes because there is no chance that a $2.00 gas tax would have ever been imposed, much less even suggested back in the days of $1.00 gasoline. But if it had happened would it have caused an economic calamity? Well obviously not because today we are paying $3.00 plus for gasoline and life moves on. The only difference is that the $283 billion per year isn’t going to fund education, healthcare or anything else of consequence, but rather is evaporated into the profit mist of the mega oil corporations. And we know that very little of this profit is re-invested into the US economy.
This is why I support at $15.00 Minimum Living Wage for an independent adult worker, to be obtained within no more than 5 years. The fact is that economy will adjust; the money will be re-distributed from the corporations back to the people that slave hard to earn it. People will be able to afford a better life and they will return all $15.00 per hour (hopefully minus 10% in savings) back into the economy (because they can’t afford not to eat). For those that say this is impossible, I say you need to stop taking advantage of people. I run a business and $15.00 per hour is the least I pay people. Could I pay them less? Yes. Do I? No. That’s what being an American is all about.
GOP – Masters of Hypocrisy
Hypocrisy 1: Giving Aid and Comfort to the Enemy
The GOP is famous for their stance that any criticism of the War on Terror “gives aid and comfort to the enemy” (i.e., Al-Qaeda). So when someone brazenly suggests that our troops should come home, or that the war is not making us safer, or we would do better to go after Osama (gee, and I didn’t even mix it up with Obama), they are branded anti-American and simply don’t get the Post-9/11 world.
Every time I hear this I just can’t help but think about what else the GOPers tell us. How many times has Bush, Cheney or one of his GOP supporters in Congress or conservative think-tank espoused a comment similar to the following: “It’s only a matter of time before Al-Qaeda hits us again and this time it will be worse than 9/11, perhaps involving a nuclear weapon.”
Now I’m not naïve enough to think that this is not a possibility and given our government’s ability to thwart Al-Qaeda it may even be likely. But my point is the following. What is more likely to “give aid and comfort to the enemy”: A) the idea that we should end an ill-advised war that is making us less safe so that we can re-direct our efforts into wiping out Al-Qaeda and restoring the US’s moral and leadership role in the world, or B) telling the enemy that they WILL succeed is killing thousands, perhaps millions of Americans and that it is just a matter of time before they succeed. Can you imagine if FDR said after Pearl Harbor: “My fellow Americans, It’s just a matter of time before Japan attacks again destroys New York. It’s not a question of if, it’s only a question of when.”
So tell me again who exactly is “giving aid and comfort to the enemy”?
Hypocrisy 2: Ban on Gay Marriage.
I’ll tell you what. I’ll give the GOP a ban on gay marriage, if they support ban on divorce. From my count I have Jesus talking about homosexuality exactly ZERO times, but he does expressly state “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." That is not to say that Jesus would condone homosexuality in any way, but rather that GOP gay bashers are simply political hacks and hypocrites.
Hypocrisy 3: You need a tax break because only you know how to spend your money.
Generally, I agree that the American citizen is taxed too much – mainly because the vast majority of what is collected is wasted and provides no measurable benefits. What I call into question is the sincerity of the GOP when it tells the public that it believes that only they can save themselves and that they should have their money. We have heard that line at least a zillion times. So why do I question that they truly believe this? Because in the same breath the GOPer will utter out of the side of their mouths – “We need to give big business tax breaks because only they can make the jobs that will save the people.” You know – Trickle Down Economics. This dispite the fact that 80% of American jobs come from small businesses. To me that is double speak and, again, hypocritical.
The GOP is famous for their stance that any criticism of the War on Terror “gives aid and comfort to the enemy” (i.e., Al-Qaeda). So when someone brazenly suggests that our troops should come home, or that the war is not making us safer, or we would do better to go after Osama (gee, and I didn’t even mix it up with Obama), they are branded anti-American and simply don’t get the Post-9/11 world.
Every time I hear this I just can’t help but think about what else the GOPers tell us. How many times has Bush, Cheney or one of his GOP supporters in Congress or conservative think-tank espoused a comment similar to the following: “It’s only a matter of time before Al-Qaeda hits us again and this time it will be worse than 9/11, perhaps involving a nuclear weapon.”
Now I’m not naïve enough to think that this is not a possibility and given our government’s ability to thwart Al-Qaeda it may even be likely. But my point is the following. What is more likely to “give aid and comfort to the enemy”: A) the idea that we should end an ill-advised war that is making us less safe so that we can re-direct our efforts into wiping out Al-Qaeda and restoring the US’s moral and leadership role in the world, or B) telling the enemy that they WILL succeed is killing thousands, perhaps millions of Americans and that it is just a matter of time before they succeed. Can you imagine if FDR said after Pearl Harbor: “My fellow Americans, It’s just a matter of time before Japan attacks again destroys New York. It’s not a question of if, it’s only a question of when.”
So tell me again who exactly is “giving aid and comfort to the enemy”?
Hypocrisy 2: Ban on Gay Marriage.
I’ll tell you what. I’ll give the GOP a ban on gay marriage, if they support ban on divorce. From my count I have Jesus talking about homosexuality exactly ZERO times, but he does expressly state “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." That is not to say that Jesus would condone homosexuality in any way, but rather that GOP gay bashers are simply political hacks and hypocrites.
Hypocrisy 3: You need a tax break because only you know how to spend your money.
Generally, I agree that the American citizen is taxed too much – mainly because the vast majority of what is collected is wasted and provides no measurable benefits. What I call into question is the sincerity of the GOP when it tells the public that it believes that only they can save themselves and that they should have their money. We have heard that line at least a zillion times. So why do I question that they truly believe this? Because in the same breath the GOPer will utter out of the side of their mouths – “We need to give big business tax breaks because only they can make the jobs that will save the people.” You know – Trickle Down Economics. This dispite the fact that 80% of American jobs come from small businesses. To me that is double speak and, again, hypocritical.
Buying Scared
Last night's GOP debate was another epitaph on the true American experience that was founded on strong, resilient and forward thinking hearts and minds. As I watched this debate the fear card was played again, this time by John McCain's ill thought out reference to Hitler when questioning Ron Paul's foreign policy stance on non-interventionism. The exchange obviously struck a cord in my psyche, as it resonated in my mind as I slept - my cat, Skipper, purring in my ear, perhaps secretly delivering more GOP taking points. In physics, Entanglement is the concept that fundamental particles can interact regardless of perceived time or distance. Politics and economics are also entangled, not just in the obvious sense when one is expressly used to directly influence the other, but through more subtle and gradual influences that have created a Buying Scared psychosis in the average American consumer.
Buying Scared (Definition) - A subconscious, reactionary response to ignore the long term consequences of economic decisions based on a perpetual fear of lingering and unavoidable danger.
A few decades ago when Japan was in its economic hay-day economists touted the Japanese consumers’ ability to save. Back then American’s saved too, but those days of economic sanctity have long vanished. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the savings rate in January 2007 was a negative 0.7% -- this means that the average American household spent 0.7% more than it made. Between 1959 and 1993 the average savings rate was hovered between 8% and 10%, after which a precipitous drop off ensued.
One must wonder of the roots of such a massive turn around in consumer habits and philosophy. While some may try to explain this monumental shift in the consumer saving trend to tangible items such as interest rates, and rightly so to a limited extent, this in-and-of-itself is not likely to be a “tipping point” event given that most Americans really don’t even know that they are paying in interest on any given purchase. Variations in interest rates, whether tried to FED rates or fancy promotional gimmicks by lenders or stores, are short-lived as far as their impact on a consumer whose memory for such events is likely the length of a 30-second commercial.
So what then? What happened Circa-1993 to start to tear asunder the fabric of American savings habits? Perhaps, and I believe rightly so, the introduction of terrorism on U.S. soil with the first World Trade Center bombing. Ever since this watershed event Americans have, and continue to be, exposed to fears that they can no longer protect themselves against - not the least of which were the horrific events of 9/11. And when one is afraid, one worries less about the future and strives to ensure their safety and happiness in the present.
And we have been trained now by our ungodly leaders to do what good-little-Americans should do when they are afraid - indulge themselves in conspicuous consumption. It was no accident that President Bush’s advice over his tumultuous reign has been for unsettled American consumers to spend to be happy in the face of gloom.
And so we are Buying Scared, with no natural realization as a meandering populous that we are “polluting” our future and handing over our wealth to individuals, corporations and governments that care little for us and have a vested interest in keeping us in a frightful, short-sighted state.
When my father brought me and my siblings up, he taught us about God, Country and personal responsibility. He taught us about the good things in life and what it meant to build a future for ourselves. We were content to know that there was a future, a tomorrow, and a dream worth living (and saving) for. But now my father is bitter and scared for his children’s future. He talks about 2012 like he was a historian of ancient Mayan culture; of Revelations and Nostradamus; of Al-Qaeda (gee, MS Word even spelled corrected Al-Qaeda!); and of our unsavory government - this from a man who earned three purple hearts in Korea as a Marine-by-Choice. I wonder how anyone can look forward in hope if this man has given up so much of his. And so, we are Buying Scared. And those that profit from it are not about to give us relief. While they may not have purposefully instigated this fear-based economy they certainly have recognized it as a way to suction the wealth, and thereby independence and freedom, from the average American. Indebted for life to an uncaring economic system and an equally uncaring governing and corporate elite the disorientated American has little else to do but buy that new 100” LCD TV with Surround Sound so that they can watch the next bizarre reality show; or they could vote for Ron Paul and restore our republic and our hope for the future.
Buying Scared (Definition) - A subconscious, reactionary response to ignore the long term consequences of economic decisions based on a perpetual fear of lingering and unavoidable danger.
A few decades ago when Japan was in its economic hay-day economists touted the Japanese consumers’ ability to save. Back then American’s saved too, but those days of economic sanctity have long vanished. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the savings rate in January 2007 was a negative 0.7% -- this means that the average American household spent 0.7% more than it made. Between 1959 and 1993 the average savings rate was hovered between 8% and 10%, after which a precipitous drop off ensued.
One must wonder of the roots of such a massive turn around in consumer habits and philosophy. While some may try to explain this monumental shift in the consumer saving trend to tangible items such as interest rates, and rightly so to a limited extent, this in-and-of-itself is not likely to be a “tipping point” event given that most Americans really don’t even know that they are paying in interest on any given purchase. Variations in interest rates, whether tried to FED rates or fancy promotional gimmicks by lenders or stores, are short-lived as far as their impact on a consumer whose memory for such events is likely the length of a 30-second commercial.
So what then? What happened Circa-1993 to start to tear asunder the fabric of American savings habits? Perhaps, and I believe rightly so, the introduction of terrorism on U.S. soil with the first World Trade Center bombing. Ever since this watershed event Americans have, and continue to be, exposed to fears that they can no longer protect themselves against - not the least of which were the horrific events of 9/11. And when one is afraid, one worries less about the future and strives to ensure their safety and happiness in the present.
And we have been trained now by our ungodly leaders to do what good-little-Americans should do when they are afraid - indulge themselves in conspicuous consumption. It was no accident that President Bush’s advice over his tumultuous reign has been for unsettled American consumers to spend to be happy in the face of gloom.
And so we are Buying Scared, with no natural realization as a meandering populous that we are “polluting” our future and handing over our wealth to individuals, corporations and governments that care little for us and have a vested interest in keeping us in a frightful, short-sighted state.
When my father brought me and my siblings up, he taught us about God, Country and personal responsibility. He taught us about the good things in life and what it meant to build a future for ourselves. We were content to know that there was a future, a tomorrow, and a dream worth living (and saving) for. But now my father is bitter and scared for his children’s future. He talks about 2012 like he was a historian of ancient Mayan culture; of Revelations and Nostradamus; of Al-Qaeda (gee, MS Word even spelled corrected Al-Qaeda!); and of our unsavory government - this from a man who earned three purple hearts in Korea as a Marine-by-Choice. I wonder how anyone can look forward in hope if this man has given up so much of his. And so, we are Buying Scared. And those that profit from it are not about to give us relief. While they may not have purposefully instigated this fear-based economy they certainly have recognized it as a way to suction the wealth, and thereby independence and freedom, from the average American. Indebted for life to an uncaring economic system and an equally uncaring governing and corporate elite the disorientated American has little else to do but buy that new 100” LCD TV with Surround Sound so that they can watch the next bizarre reality show; or they could vote for Ron Paul and restore our republic and our hope for the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)