Wow. After working with the database at work for the past nine months to clean it up for a report for the entire department... and having this last class and being so out of the swing of getting my assignments done that I basically did them all in the last week, I am done with the last classwork of my degree.
Now I just have to complete my project...(if I passed the class! knock on wood)
Just a few more months...kyrie eleison, christe eleison, domine miserere....
Monday, March 30, 2009
The Atlantic chimes in
God, you'd think all I did at work was read articles (I promise it's not!) but I couldn't pass up the chance to link to yet another article framing the banking collapse as a class issue.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice
I haven't read the entire article yet, but it calls the banks plus government an oligarchy and suggest the real solution is to break up the relationship between the two. My first thought is "Why would that make a difference?" Power is a vacuum. As the old saying goes...
I'll switch gears soon, I promise. It's just that it fascinates me that we're acting like this is news. Who didn't know that corporations were in control of our government? Seriously, how can anyone in the Senate say they work for the people with a straight face? Our judicial system is much maligned for being "rogue" but to me, it's one of the saving graces of the United States government - people with experience and lifetime tenure deciding issues that matter. No, I don't always agree with them - I'm afraid of the consequences for women with a true Republican court - but it's better than the alternative. I wrote in my law school entrance essay that the law was the true record of society because it's the one that no one remembers to cover up with spin and rhetoric. Laws can be repealed, but they stay there, indelible, as a testament to the will of the times. They are slow-moving, resistant...the very frustrating things about law are also the same reasons it makes for a great history of society. At any rate, our laws reflect that we are not a government "by the people, for the people" at this current point in time. Bailouts, tax shelters, liability limits...cui bono?
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice
I haven't read the entire article yet, but it calls the banks plus government an oligarchy and suggest the real solution is to break up the relationship between the two. My first thought is "Why would that make a difference?" Power is a vacuum. As the old saying goes...
I'll switch gears soon, I promise. It's just that it fascinates me that we're acting like this is news. Who didn't know that corporations were in control of our government? Seriously, how can anyone in the Senate say they work for the people with a straight face? Our judicial system is much maligned for being "rogue" but to me, it's one of the saving graces of the United States government - people with experience and lifetime tenure deciding issues that matter. No, I don't always agree with them - I'm afraid of the consequences for women with a true Republican court - but it's better than the alternative. I wrote in my law school entrance essay that the law was the true record of society because it's the one that no one remembers to cover up with spin and rhetoric. Laws can be repealed, but they stay there, indelible, as a testament to the will of the times. They are slow-moving, resistant...the very frustrating things about law are also the same reasons it makes for a great history of society. At any rate, our laws reflect that we are not a government "by the people, for the people" at this current point in time. Bailouts, tax shelters, liability limits...cui bono?
Jubak has his say
Another hit in the news, this time aiming for Congress:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/fluke-credit-crisis-was-a-heist.aspx?page=1
Unfortunately, I don't have time to comment on this article, but it is sort of strange for me to see the things I've been concerned about in the news because let's face it....most of the time the news is more worried about Angelina Jolie's next child than directing any attention at the government. Granted, Jubak is a financial columnist, so it's in his purview, but it's on msn.com so it will get some exposure. Now just to find some more hoity-toity sociologists that think the class warfare is on...
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/fluke-credit-crisis-was-a-heist.aspx?page=1
Unfortunately, I don't have time to comment on this article, but it is sort of strange for me to see the things I've been concerned about in the news because let's face it....most of the time the news is more worried about Angelina Jolie's next child than directing any attention at the government. Granted, Jubak is a financial columnist, so it's in his purview, but it's on msn.com so it will get some exposure. Now just to find some more hoity-toity sociologists that think the class warfare is on...
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Let them eat cake
A quote from a vitriolic Rolling Stones article on AIG:
"In essence, Paulson and his cronies turned the federal government into one gigantic, half-opaque holding company, one whose balance sheet includes the world's most appallingly large and risky hedge fund, a controlling stake in a dying insurance giant, huge investments in a group of teetering megabanks, and shares here and there in various auto-finance companies, student loans, and other failing businesses. Like AIG, this new federal holding company is a firm that has no mechanism for auditing itself and is run by leaders who have very little grasp of the daily operations of its disparate subsidiary operations." (Source: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover/print)
The point here isn't to debate bailing out the banks, which I fear I am not as far up the learning curve as I would need to be able to truly grasp all the details, but to look at the attitude that is being portrayed in the piece. By far this is one of the tamer quotes; another section calls Hank Paulson a "bald-headed Frankensteinian goon" and another talks about a "guy who acted like making huge bets with other people's money would make his dick bigger." Obviously very yellow journalism, but also very in tune with what the audience is feeling. If this had been my first article to read about the bank bailout, I could see myself falling into the trap the author lays, carefully layering facts and details with crass judgment. It's not necessarily misleading - there are very valid points about the lack of oversight and deregulation that should be taken seriously. The problem is that the article is not about AIG's deregulation - it's about class warfare.
No solutions are ever presented to the problem. The entire article is one big rant about how taxpayer money is being spent bailing out guys who are in an exclusive club, who caused the problem in the first place, and who expect to be catered to due to their lifestyle. In fact, the article takes the position that what the bankers are doing (working long hours, ulcers) and deliberately derides them for it - who cares since you guys caused the problem and have lots of money? Here's the quote so you don't feel I'm exaggerating:
Here we find ourselves throwing anger not at the architects of the failure, but specifically at "Wall Street types", not at the government or even Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner's policy of bailing out AIG in specific, but workers which to most Americans are indistinguishable to anyone else who works in a suit and a tie. There is no clear idea of what a Wall Street type does - I'm assuming there are multiple jobs and tiers and involvement, yet we are to direct our anger at the mere image of wealth when we have none.
The reason I bring any of this up is because this is dangerous. It's the pendulum swing of anger and intolerance that continues to return in new incarnations every generation or so. Getting angry at Wall Street doesn't erase the degrees and hard work and moving up from the bottom level of the company that many of those (mostly) men have endured. Nor does it make them responsible for the situation we find ourselves in - again, the idea of the corporation, the segmented knowledge that one has working for such a place. Just because you have a desk there doesn't make you responsible for every move the corporation makes. Hell, the article pretty much admits that the CEO and Director had no damn clue what was going on yet directs its anger towards not the named, not those in charge, but the unnamed as well.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, it's unfair to everyone who's losing jobs and homes. Period. There is no qualifier that makes it right for the people caught up in this depression, no amount of blame cast about unqualified loans and union job bashing that will make up for the sheer scope of people whose lives were destroyed by this (and still will be - it's not over.) However, to frame this in an "us vs. those who get bonuses" argument is derailing the entire discussion from where it needs to be - how the fuck do we keep this from happening again? It's casting blame to a straw man while leaving the issue out of the discussion. Being angry about employees receiving bonuses doesn't regulate the business or propose solutions; in fact, it drives a wedge even further that began in the time Bush was elected - anti-intellectualism. Just because Joe Banker wears a suit and a tie and toddles off to Wall Street at dawn to put in a 14 hour day so he can pay off his Harvard grad school loans doesn't make him evil. We don't need to lose any more intellectuals; we just need to give them incentives not to screw us over.
What strikes me as interesting is that all this kicked off during the Clinton administration, and Clinton is not a dumb man. Granted, it was during the time he had a Republican congress who liked to naysay his policies, but all the same I would be interested to hear his opinion. Taco?
"In essence, Paulson and his cronies turned the federal government into one gigantic, half-opaque holding company, one whose balance sheet includes the world's most appallingly large and risky hedge fund, a controlling stake in a dying insurance giant, huge investments in a group of teetering megabanks, and shares here and there in various auto-finance companies, student loans, and other failing businesses. Like AIG, this new federal holding company is a firm that has no mechanism for auditing itself and is run by leaders who have very little grasp of the daily operations of its disparate subsidiary operations." (Source: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover/print)
The point here isn't to debate bailing out the banks, which I fear I am not as far up the learning curve as I would need to be able to truly grasp all the details, but to look at the attitude that is being portrayed in the piece. By far this is one of the tamer quotes; another section calls Hank Paulson a "bald-headed Frankensteinian goon" and another talks about a "guy who acted like making huge bets with other people's money would make his dick bigger." Obviously very yellow journalism, but also very in tune with what the audience is feeling. If this had been my first article to read about the bank bailout, I could see myself falling into the trap the author lays, carefully layering facts and details with crass judgment. It's not necessarily misleading - there are very valid points about the lack of oversight and deregulation that should be taken seriously. The problem is that the article is not about AIG's deregulation - it's about class warfare.
No solutions are ever presented to the problem. The entire article is one big rant about how taxpayer money is being spent bailing out guys who are in an exclusive club, who caused the problem in the first place, and who expect to be catered to due to their lifestyle. In fact, the article takes the position that what the bankers are doing (working long hours, ulcers) and deliberately derides them for it - who cares since you guys caused the problem and have lots of money? Here's the quote so you don't feel I'm exaggerating:
The most galling thing about this financial crisis is that so many Wall Street types think they actually deserve not only their huge bonuses and lavish lifestyles but the awesome political power their own mistakes have left them in possession of. When challenged, they talk about how hard they work, the 90-hour weeks, the stress, the failed marriages, the hemorrhoids and gallstones they all get before they hit 40.
"But wait a minute," you say to them. "No one ever asked you to stay up all night eight days a week trying to get filthy rich shorting what's left of the American auto industry or selling $600 billion in toxic, irredeemable mortgages to ex-strippers on work release and Taco Bell clerks. Actually, come to think of it, why are we even giving taxpayer money to you people? Why are we not throwing your ass in jail instead?"
Here we find ourselves throwing anger not at the architects of the failure, but specifically at "Wall Street types", not at the government or even Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner's policy of bailing out AIG in specific, but workers which to most Americans are indistinguishable to anyone else who works in a suit and a tie. There is no clear idea of what a Wall Street type does - I'm assuming there are multiple jobs and tiers and involvement, yet we are to direct our anger at the mere image of wealth when we have none.
The reason I bring any of this up is because this is dangerous. It's the pendulum swing of anger and intolerance that continues to return in new incarnations every generation or so. Getting angry at Wall Street doesn't erase the degrees and hard work and moving up from the bottom level of the company that many of those (mostly) men have endured. Nor does it make them responsible for the situation we find ourselves in - again, the idea of the corporation, the segmented knowledge that one has working for such a place. Just because you have a desk there doesn't make you responsible for every move the corporation makes. Hell, the article pretty much admits that the CEO and Director had no damn clue what was going on yet directs its anger towards not the named, not those in charge, but the unnamed as well.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, it's unfair to everyone who's losing jobs and homes. Period. There is no qualifier that makes it right for the people caught up in this depression, no amount of blame cast about unqualified loans and union job bashing that will make up for the sheer scope of people whose lives were destroyed by this (and still will be - it's not over.) However, to frame this in an "us vs. those who get bonuses" argument is derailing the entire discussion from where it needs to be - how the fuck do we keep this from happening again? It's casting blame to a straw man while leaving the issue out of the discussion. Being angry about employees receiving bonuses doesn't regulate the business or propose solutions; in fact, it drives a wedge even further that began in the time Bush was elected - anti-intellectualism. Just because Joe Banker wears a suit and a tie and toddles off to Wall Street at dawn to put in a 14 hour day so he can pay off his Harvard grad school loans doesn't make him evil. We don't need to lose any more intellectuals; we just need to give them incentives not to screw us over.
What strikes me as interesting is that all this kicked off during the Clinton administration, and Clinton is not a dumb man. Granted, it was during the time he had a Republican congress who liked to naysay his policies, but all the same I would be interested to hear his opinion. Taco?
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
It's the future!
I am writing this from a phone as I sit here amazed at the continuous innovation in mylifetime. Seriously, who needs a jetpack when you've got all this? Tiny keyboard aside, this is really a neat experience.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Ada Lovelace Day post
Sybilla Masters, considered the first recorded American woman inventor, lived in colonial America circa early 18th century. Masters invented a type of mill that used hammers instead of grinding wheels to grind corn for use. Since British law at the time did not recognize the right of women to own patents, it was issued to her husband after Masters appealed to King George I himself. It might also be the first patent issued to a colonist. Sybilla went on to patent another invention through her husband a year later - a special weaving technique for straw hats using palmetto fronds. Her husband was elected mayor of Philadelphia, but did not take credit for his wife's invention, which is the only reason why we know the name of Sybilla Masters today.
Although perhaps not explicitly a woman of technology as we think of it today, without innovations like this, we would have not have been able to build to supercomputers and semiconductors. It's a good exercise for everyone to see when people aren't given rights, it doesn't reduce their value; creativity will always out itself. For all those patriarchal societies, you are keeping yourselves down when you keep your women uneducated and subordinate.
Sources:
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blmasters.htm
http://www.cbsd.org/pennsylvaniapeople/sources/sybilla_masters_sources.htm
http://womenhistory.blogspot.com/2008/08/sybilla-masters.html
Ada Lovelace Day - Join in!
http://www.pledgebank.com/AdaLovelaceDay
Although perhaps not explicitly a woman of technology as we think of it today, without innovations like this, we would have not have been able to build to supercomputers and semiconductors. It's a good exercise for everyone to see when people aren't given rights, it doesn't reduce their value; creativity will always out itself. For all those patriarchal societies, you are keeping yourselves down when you keep your women uneducated and subordinate.
Sources:
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blmasters.htm
http://www.cbsd.org/pennsylvaniapeople/sources/sybilla_masters_sources.htm
http://womenhistory.blogspot.com/2008/08/sybilla-masters.html
Ada Lovelace Day - Join in!
http://www.pledgebank.com/AdaLovelaceDay
Friday, March 20, 2009
Leadership and the Pack Hierarchy
There will always be a ruling class. Democracy is just a way to try to control that, to make them respond to who they are subjugating without armed revolution. What it has turned into is just a farce - on the face of it, we still have elections, congressmen to write, and activism. In the reality, just as always, money funds it. Who has the money? Not you as an individual, even though (if you're American) your collective taxes fund the government with the largest budget in the world. Nope. Corporations have you beat in influence - after all, can you afford to hire lobbyists? The government is not a faceless mass; it is made up of individuals who like to be recognized and treated specially, who have families that they want to provide for all the things they didn't have. In short, they are people, and people have had the same shortcomings for as long as people have been around. To pretend that a collective noun (government, corporation, people) can be treated as an individual and counted on to act in the best interests of others is just delusional.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)