change vs experience

As Pres-elect Obama is gathering his team, there are cries out there that he is betraying his "change" mantra by considering and appointing seasoned Washington operators for key cabinet and staff positions. What those voices are forgetting or choose to forget if the the President is in charge of the vision and direction and tom a large extent the implementation of those.

What he needs is a team of folks who can get things done, not folks who would be "yes" men and women. So, in the nutshell it is perfectly reasonable to bring into the executive branch those who know how to execute plans. In my view, Hillary Clinton would be a welcome addition to the cabinet. Details can be worked out.

believe it or not

A friend asked me the other day:

"Perhaps you could explain the following:

"From newspapers and radio:

"More and more people have mortgages that are worth less than the worth of their house, so that these people have negative cash flow. As if that were a bad thing, and I do not even understand. If your job has not changed, and you could afford your mortgage, then nothing has changed. The value of your home decreasing would decrease your taxes (theoretically), and if you had to sell, so what? This is a great opportunity to purchase a home as well. Now, if you have lost your job, then it is another matter, but it has nothing to do with the decreasing value of your home. People should not be borrowing against their home as a matter of principle. It is probably those people who are in dire straits, and they should be!"

And, so I said:

It is mostly those who risked and took out mortgages at the adjustable rate, lured by low monthly payments to start with which then went up beyond what they could afford, thinking perhaps that they could re-finance, scoop up some resulting cash (if the prices kept going up), and thus keep on riding the wave. Well, the wave receded and they fell flat on their backs.

Additionally, even if mortgage payments did not go up, prices of other items did, thus reducing the available cash for other purposes (repairs, medical costs, entertainment, transportation, etc. etc.).

In my view, unless I can be reasonably certain to be able to afford future higher payments or be able to sell the home at a higher price, I would be really stupid to get into the variable rate mortgage deals I can not afford. In my view, those who did should lose their homes.

The reality is that all this hubbub about rescuing homeowners is another lie and deception. It has nothing to do with being humane but has everything to do with keeping the top echelons afloat and opening huge holes for future speculation and huge rip-offs of our money. How can you explain huge daily ups and downs in the stock market? Some, possibly those who actually have an influence on the direction market goes, are pocketing huge, unheard of super-profits.

These times are fantastic for speculators who also dare to manipulate the market as our attention is being kept elsewhere, they are reaping gigantic profits (4-6%, or even 1-2% daily is huge). If I had the desire to gain in this way I would be a very happy guy these days. You don't hear Buffets and the like complain, do you? I've got nothing against him and his ilk, more power to them!

This is like some whales fish. First they circle and circle tighter and tighter around and below a school of herrings, frighten them into a "corner," and then just scoop them up with open mouths without them even knowing what befell them. Like sheep running behind a blind ram and peacefully falling off the cliff. Except this ram is not blind but pretends he is and has a golden parachute attached to his back.

I could go on and on about this. I am not angry about it. I just continue to be disappointed in human race, disappointed in those who are willing to follow false prophets, follow something without knowing what it is they are really following. But, you know that's how I am. I want to understand before I accept. I am not much of a believer, which sometimes drives you mad.

And then he said:

"True. However I do agree with your analysis. I believe very little of what I hear. I ask questions as well. However, tango* is different from economy. And related to economy, one can be frozen and do nothing. I like you, have no sympathy for those who made poor decisions or were conned into doing so."

I thought this was sufficiently interesting, so -- here it is.

* my friend and I share passion for tango.

So-called "free market"

NPR's Morning Edition Sunday, Nov 11, 2008 reports:

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D-CA) says she's disturbed by reports that some inauguration tickets are being sold online for as much as $40,000. She says she's writing to eBay and other sites to make sure they're not involved in ticket scalping. The 240,000 available tickets are supposed to be free to the public, and given out through congressional offices. Feinstein is also working on a bill that would make it a federal crime to sell tickets to the inauguration."

So now in this country which wants open markets around the world, free trade, which champions individual initiative, entrepreneurship, etc., etc., etc., a US Senator is disturbed that that same entrepreneurship might net some not-so-creative people some super profits. She wants to make it a federal crime. Wow, I am impressed by this hypocrisy.

Since when are we not supposed to take advantage of the supposedly free market and provide goods where there is a demand? Isn't that essential for free market capitalism.

Now what?

I must admit that it was fantastic to see the results of the presidential election on Tuesday. There is a score of reasons to celebrate. Lots of symbolism and victories on multiple fronts. I hope that, for one, they are not swallowed into the labyrinth of Democratic Party, which is a very autocratic, hierarchical political machine demanding party discipline in carrying out party's platform and not tolerating disobeying the authority of the "leaders.".

One of those victories is a new direction the country is promised to take under the leadership of President(-elect) Barack Obama. Assuming that that new direction will be undertaken, the success of its realization highly depends on how those in the base are able, willing, and allowed to shape that general, national direction into their specific local one and how well they implement it in their day-to-day actions.

A burning question related to that is how well those massive numbers of volunteers working on electing Candidate Obama president will now be engaged in the work ahead.

Candidate Obama spoke frequently of how change and development comes from the bottom up and not the other way around. I am waiting to see it realized. Will the base be allowed to take charge or not. Will all those volunteers, first, stick around and then, second, be allowed to actively shape the agenda appropriate for their particular socio-political environment.

If the answer to both question is "yes," we just might see a watershed moment for the world. The opportunity is there. Are we ready to take it?

Greenspan's mistake

Alan Greenspan: "I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms."

What his mistake really is is to believe that organizations behave like people do. There is no such thing as "self-interest of organizations." It might have existed at some point in the past, but in the era of high mobility of information, financial resources, and those individuals in decision making roles (various types of CEOs and such), perceived individual interests of decision makers do not coincide with those of the rest of the organizations even of their owners and so decision makers make decisions in their own perceived self-interest and move on to a different client/victim.

In addition to the ever increasing mobility of resources, another factor contributes to this new way of running business. It is the fact that the ownership of most organizations today is diluted, it is spread among huge multitude of small owners who (1) are too busy with their principal life supporting activity and/or are not educated and/or informed enough to study the issues and thus make quality decisions and consequently (2) delegate their decision making power of stockholders to the select few (either very large individual stockholders who are mostly doing just fine these days, or various funds where decisions are again made by the technocrats).

So, old Greenspan's mistake is not to take into account the effect of technological advances which changed the landscape of capitalism profoundly and continue to change it.

Political signs

I wonder if there is a city/county (Tallahassee/Leon) ordinance covering display of political signs. Do you know anything about it?

I had a presidential campaign sign displayed in front of my home for a few days only to wake up this morning and see it missing. I hope someone took it in order to display it in his or her yard :-) I see these signs displayed in my neighborhood and I do not think I violated any ordinance covering the display any differently than my neighbors have done whose signs are still up. Of course, one obvious possibility is that someone just did not like seeing my sign and decided to take it down. But, I am looking for other explanations. It was not the wind or any other act of nature, I am fairly sure of that.

What do you think?

Change

It is just amusing to me, this change thing. Both major nominees proclaim they will change politics in Washington. And many of their colleague supporters sitting in the audiences at the convention or other occasions dutifully nod in support.

And I am thinking to myself, who is is that determines how things are done in Washington? I am sure the nominees do not mean they would want to change the way garbage is being picked up or mass transportation managed. They certainly mean that they want to change the way government (of the people) works.

Well them, who is it that needs to make those changes? It seems to me that it is all those representatives and senators sitting and nodding their heads in approval of what the nominees are promising to do.

So, why are they waiting to indeed make them changes, whatever them changes may be, if they so happily agree that the changes are needed and coming (only if their candidate wins, of course)? Why not start now? Why wait for January?

Something just does not compute in all that for me. What do you think? More of the same political baloney? Yeap. I'd say so. Baloney ... and whoever buys it is getting close to nothing for a very high price.

Stupidity

"Georgia is an ancient country, at the crossroads of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and one of the world’s first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion."

That is attributed to John McCain as he was talking about current developments in Georgia (the country) and as it was reported in " McCain warns Russians of "severe, long-term negative consequences" ." So, does that imply that John McCain actually favors Christianity being adopted as an official (state) religion? I hope not, but it certainly sounds like that to me.

Legitimate questions

It makes me sick how quick everyone, lead by the media hungry for sensations, seems to be to bury the questioner for asking legitimate questions.

Look at this latest episode with Gen Clark. Without quoting, it seems to me that at least one of the things he is saying, or at least is implying, is that we should all be more informed on what exactly that "military experience" of Sen McCain is or was. What is wrong with wanting to know the details in order to make educated, intelligent decisions? Especially since that experience is often used as one of the important arguments for his fitness to be the president. Should we just follow what some authority out there says? I do not think so.

But no! Gen Clark is now atacked from all sides for asking clarifying questions about Sen McCain's military experience or his service to the country, you name it.

I think Gen Clark's questions were legitimate and many of us, including myself, might want to know the answers to them. Plus, from what I know, he did not volunteer that subject, he was apparently asked by an interviewer to offer his judgment on the value of Sen McCain's military experience.

When making such crucial decisions like electing a president, it would be very irresponsible not to ask those sorts of questions -- not as challenges disputing the significance of the claim, but rather as requests for more information.

Unless, of course, we are supposed to remain ignorant and elect the president based on how much we (dis)like the nominee in general or on how many signs we see in our neighborhoods supporting a nominee. In either case, people get presidents they deserve.

Mrs. Michelle Obama

Mrs. Obama is fabulously sexy - I'd just love to have a hug with her (and dance a tango). Her demeanor reveals a thoughtful, self-confident, kind person. She is both deep and child-like in the same time. And then she is also beautiful. Her walk is, well, quite inspiring. What an attractive combination! How about Michelle Obama to represent the US, a new US in the world! Yes!

Too bad that the Pres and the VP can not, by law, be from the same state. (take a look)

To Sen McCain

According to CNN:

"I think people in the media and observers will make a decision as to whether these people, individuals, should be part of Sen. Obama's campaign," McCain said in Boston, Massachusetts, on Thursday [June 12, 2008].

Thank you Sen McCain for being deligent about finding things out about other people, finding the truth, but, your conclusion above is preposterous. "Media and observers" should be the last in line of decision makers regarding the matter.

The sad part is that those in the media and those observers do seem to feel called upon to indeed make the decisions mentioned.

I still can't figure him out

Sen Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for the Pres of the USA, gave a speech to the campaign staff in Chicago, Feb 6, 2008. It was nice to see him talk to those who work behind the scene to keep that train moving.



But, I am still not sure I know who he really is under his skin. I hope we get to know him better in the months to come.

Obama and political progress

What does Obama's nomination and potential presidency mean for the evolutionary progress in the political life of the US and the world? If you listen to him carefully, you will quickly realize that he is no progressive beyond his rhetoric and even there he slips. Take his speech to the AIPAC Conference June 4, for example, where he said, among other things:

"Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper – but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided. " (read).

First off, why does he feel called upon to have an opinion on the state of State of Israel and that of Jerusalem? It seems to me that a progressive thinking would direct one to favour those affected, those who live in the affected region, to have a safe way of deciding for themselves what it is exactly they want and how they want to organize their lives. The best a world power can and perhaps should do is support a process which would yield a just solution whose architects would be those affected by it -- a process called self-determination.

Second, even his statement itself carries a contradiction. Unless Obama favours undivided Jerusalem to be a capital of both a Jewish and a Palestinian state (not an impossibility), how can he argue for a "contiguous and cohesive" Palestinian state which excludes Jerusalem?

Another example. On many occasions, he felt a need to declare that he was not a Muslim (I wish that his pronunciation of the word "Muslim" was more in agreement with that that I heard many Muslims prefer). I was hoping that at least once he would take an opportunity to point out that nothing would be wrong with him being a Muslim, anyway. Or, is that not the case?

Those examples point out that even his much-trumpeted speeches leave out much to be desired. So, where are the opportunities for true progress?

Just like Jesse Jackson's presidential campaign did in 1988, Obama's campaign attracted many new voices and included them into the political process. And herein lies an opportunity. This mass of grassroots volunteers can be transformed into a formidable movement which could provide a progressive alternative to a status quo. But, the initiative can not be expected to come from Barack Obama for a number of reasons. If it were to materialize at all, this new, progressive, alternative movement must remain genuine, it must grow from the bottom -- it must self-organize.

Why Obama?

What makes it marginally of interest for me to support Sen. Obama's presidential campaign has nothing to do with his proposed and/or supported policies (he often manages to make me think twice about supporting his campaign with his extremist pronouncements like "I will keep embargo on Cuba"), but rather the perceived effect the campaign has had on the grassroots organizing.

The organizing momentum of the campaign may result in a genuine and sustained grassroots movement for a positive change, regardless of how unprogressive Sen. or Pres. Obama may end up being, which may really live on as a bottom-up sort of phenomenon, the only one that can work for the masses.

Keep up the pressure.

McClellan

Watching all the hoopla surrounding the "revelations" contained in McClellan's What Happened book from the sidelines, one has to wonder about the Washington DC-center US media. Many are exhibiting an astonishment about those revelations, some go as far as asking "should people look at everything coming out of the White House with a gain of salt?" (Anderson Cooper interviewing Scott McClellan).

Dah! That is your job, the media person! You must question everything anybody says to ensure that you are presenting the whole picture or risk being taken as an extension of the office providing you with the talking points. Is it not obvious that the essence of politics is to try to convince others in the correctness of your point of view and get them to support you in the efforts to implement your ides? I mean, that is politics 101. Every spokesperson is not only disseminating the facts but is definitely coloring them so that the public sees those facts through the politician's eyes.

Why now such an outcry at someone actually admitting what should have been known all along? Perhaps it is because Scott McClellan is stirring up trouble for the news media persons around DC (and elsewhere, I suppose) and causing some of them a discomfort for now having to work harder to get the whole picture, because we, the public, are now told that many things we are offered as news are really the spin.

Interesting times unless the messenger is killed because those affected did not like the message.

"Penalizing" Florida

I just heard someone on C-SPAN stating that since the Republican-controlled legislature in Florida moved the primary date, voters in Florida, and especially those who voted in democratic primary, should not be "penalized" by not being seated at the convention.

Well, that is perhaps the price they had to pay for helping to elect Republican majority in state legislature in the first place. This is how things work in a democracy.

Public discourse

It never ceases to amaze me how the so-called "public" discourse is conducted through the media these days. The news snippets and the clearly and perhaps maliciously skewed interpretations of those snippets all lead to a distraction from what really matters.

Take the statements by Senator Clinton about the 1992 primary and the 1968 one (reference to Bill Clinton and the RFK). Those who wanted to be sensational and controversial, I speculate, interpreted Sen Clinton implying that something terrible might happen to Sen Obama and thus she should stick around. I think that that misinterpretation is so ugly that those who are driven by it and continue to harp it over and over should suffer a good dosage of tar-and-feathering.

Those in the news business do this fear mongering probably for the purpose of increasing viewership through sensationalism and I can not blame them for that, however. This is capitalism, after all, and the only measure of success is the bottom line for the owners of the business enterprise, which is what the media are -- they are business enterprises. If the general public were more savvy they would shut those fear mongers off and thus cause them to get it right for once, perhaps.