Cassandra posting
Nov. 7th, 2010 01:43 amPosted over on the New York Times, waiting for approval.
( Oh my god, politics, don't read this )
( Oh my god, politics, don't read this )
There's another article on the same topic which absolutely horrified me recently: "Infinite Debt" by Thomas Geoghegan in Harper's. It lays out in stark detail how the abolition of usury laws in the US (under the tender ministrations of credit-industry lobbyists and our corrupt Congress) allowed the financial sector to produce profits for their investors of 300% or more. With that sort of profit to be had, is it any wonder that investors ran away from the manufacturing industries - industries which would normally produce 3-5% profit?
There's a great deal more in the article, which is well worth reading. Unfortunately, it's only available to subscribers (and by coincidence, I got my subscription to Harper's for renewing my Salon subscription). It's well worth looking up. If you can't afford Harper's, try to see if you can find it in your local library; it's the April 2009 issue.
But I ran into an odd juxtaposition last night: a story on NBC's Dateline about the "Debt Trap". I thought it might shed an interesting sidelight on the insights raised in "Infinite Debt". And it did - but not in the way that I hoped or expected.
Rather than report on the wholesale usury of the financial sector and the complicity of Congress in abolishing age-old protection for the public from financial wolves, Dateline instead focused on some sleazy debt collectors who used "questionable" practices. They - gasp - lied to the people they were calling! Watching these lower-class employees chatting and smoking on secret camera in their parking lot, I couldn't help but be reminded of the "bad apples" like Lyndie England who carried the Bush Administration's torture policies and ended up taking the fall for them.
Dateline thoughtfully announced that everyone filmed by the secret camera had later been fired.
But it was the management of that debt collection company that really must have run up the Dateline dry-cleaning bill. The producers must have ejaculated into their pants about twenty times over when they found that the owners of the company were all black "gangsta"-types. Thugs and criminals, to be sure. But very minor criminals indeed compared to the real criminals: the respected members of Congress, the titans of industry, and the media who all cheered as organized labor was broken and the game was rigged in favor of a financial sector whose sole purpose was to shear the sheep - the public - to the bone.
The maximum interest rate allowed used to be 9% plus a small additional percentage. And now...there IS NO maximum. We have been turned into nothing more than beasts to be slaughtered in the financial stockyard. And the "winners" of society, obscenely wealthy and virtually all-powerful, continue to hold the reins of power firmly in their hands - and by all signs, they always will.
It's a bitter pill to swallow.
There's another article on the same topic which absolutely horrified me recently: "Infinite Debt" by Thomas Geoghegan in Harper's. It lays out in stark detail how the abolition of usury laws in the US (under the tender ministrations of credit-industry lobbyists and our corrupt Congress) allowed the financial sector to produce profits for their investors of 300% or more. With that sort of profit to be had, is it any wonder that investors ran away from the manufacturing industries - industries which would normally produce 3-5% profit?
There's a great deal more in the article, which is well worth reading. Unfortunately, it's only available to subscribers (and by coincidence, I got my subscription to Harper's for renewing my Salon subscription). It's well worth looking up. If you can't afford Harper's, try to see if you can find it in your local library; it's the April 2009 issue.
But I ran into an odd juxtaposition last night: a story on NBC's Dateline about the "Debt Trap". I thought it might shed an interesting sidelight on the insights raised in "Infinite Debt". And it did - but not in the way that I hoped or expected.
Rather than report on the wholesale usury of the financial sector and the complicity of Congress in abolishing age-old protection for the public from financial wolves, Dateline instead focused on some sleazy debt collectors who used "questionable" practices. They - gasp - lied to the people they were calling! Watching these lower-class employees chatting and smoking on secret camera in their parking lot, I couldn't help but be reminded of the "bad apples" like Lyndie England who carried the Bush Administration's torture policies and ended up taking the fall for them.
Dateline thoughtfully announced that everyone filmed by the secret camera had later been fired.
But it was the management of that debt collection company that really must have run up the Dateline dry-cleaning bill. The producers must have ejaculated into their pants about twenty times over when they found that the owners of the company were all black "gangsta"-types. Thugs and criminals, to be sure. But very minor criminals indeed compared to the real criminals: the respected members of Congress, the titans of industry, and the media who all cheered as organized labor was broken and the game was rigged in favor of a financial sector whose sole purpose was to shear the sheep - the public - to the bone.
The maximum interest rate allowed used to be 9% plus a small additional percentage. And now...there IS NO maximum. We have been turned into nothing more than beasts to be slaughtered in the financial stockyard. And the "winners" of society, obscenely wealthy and virtually all-powerful, continue to hold the reins of power firmly in their hands - and by all signs, they always will.
It's a bitter pill to swallow.
Scenario: Confusion
So here's what's puzzling me.
If neither Hillary nor Obama wins sufficient delegates in the primaries and caucuses to win the nomination outright, and the whole thing goes to the Democratic convention, what then? What are the scenarios?
If the superdelegates decide it, but give it to the candidate who came in second in terms of primary/caucus votes OR elected delegates (recognizing that there can be a difference), how will the rank & file take that? And how will ordinary voters take to having the Party hierarchy make the decision for them? I realize that that was how it was done for a long time, but these days the people are used to being the ones to select the nominees. Having the party leadership decide seems ironically anti-democratic.
And given the absolutely miserable record of performance for the vast majority of the Democratic Party leadership, the thought of leaving the choice up to them is one that makes this Democrat uncomfortable.
( Read more... )
The thread seems to have died at at point - no one has responded since.
Tomorrow I'll try to post some stuff from Askville - it's much more varied.
Scenario: Confusion
So here's what's puzzling me.
If neither Hillary nor Obama wins sufficient delegates in the primaries and caucuses to win the nomination outright, and the whole thing goes to the Democratic convention, what then? What are the scenarios?
If the superdelegates decide it, but give it to the candidate who came in second in terms of primary/caucus votes OR elected delegates (recognizing that there can be a difference), how will the rank & file take that? And how will ordinary voters take to having the Party hierarchy make the decision for them? I realize that that was how it was done for a long time, but these days the people are used to being the ones to select the nominees. Having the party leadership decide seems ironically anti-democratic.
And given the absolutely miserable record of performance for the vast majority of the Democratic Party leadership, the thought of leaving the choice up to them is one that makes this Democrat uncomfortable.
( Read more... )
The thread seems to have died at at point - no one has responded since.
Tomorrow I'll try to post some stuff from Askville - it's much more varied.
Dump the cheating bastard!
How DARE he obey eons of genetic selection for males who are constantly on the watch for potential mates? Doesn't he know that he's not even supposed to notice any other girl in the world, now that he's with his current girlfriend?
Even if he was surrounded by gorgeous naked starlets, it would be his basic moral duty to claw his own eyes out rather than look at him.
Nasty, dirty, filthy man. Doesn't he know that the only reason he has the instinct to appreciate female beauty was to allow him to meet his one destined soulmate? And that now that that function has been fulfilled, he must never find any other woman to be attractive?
He may whine that it's out of his control. NONSENSE! Everyone knows that the male sexual urge is totally volitional in every way.
Oh my god - I just had a horrible thought. What if he sometimes actually fantasizes about having sex with other women? That's the moral equivalent of ADULTERY! His girlfriend must sue him for divorce immediately - right after they get married, that is.
Then she can continue her search for the perfect non-girl-watching boyfriend. I'm sure he's out there somewhere!
In the meantime, I just had another horrible thought. What if her boyfriend ever decides to have a wet dream? Or even multiple wet dreams? Serial adultery - and she could catch an STD from one of those dream-sluts, to boot! She'd better get herself checked by a doctor right away. While she's at it, she could talk to her doctor about some form of medication or surgical procedure for her boyfriend which will eliminate all of those nasty, unacceptable sexual urges.
That may leave her a bit frustrated, of course, so she might also want to invest in a good vibrator. Which she will use only while fantasizing about her now-safe boyfriend, of course.
Problem solved!
Dump the cheating bastard!
How DARE he obey eons of genetic selection for males who are constantly on the watch for potential mates? Doesn't he know that he's not even supposed to notice any other girl in the world, now that he's with his current girlfriend?
Even if he was surrounded by gorgeous naked starlets, it would be his basic moral duty to claw his own eyes out rather than look at him.
Nasty, dirty, filthy man. Doesn't he know that the only reason he has the instinct to appreciate female beauty was to allow him to meet his one destined soulmate? And that now that that function has been fulfilled, he must never find any other woman to be attractive?
He may whine that it's out of his control. NONSENSE! Everyone knows that the male sexual urge is totally volitional in every way.
Oh my god - I just had a horrible thought. What if he sometimes actually fantasizes about having sex with other women? That's the moral equivalent of ADULTERY! His girlfriend must sue him for divorce immediately - right after they get married, that is.
Then she can continue her search for the perfect non-girl-watching boyfriend. I'm sure he's out there somewhere!
In the meantime, I just had another horrible thought. What if her boyfriend ever decides to have a wet dream? Or even multiple wet dreams? Serial adultery - and she could catch an STD from one of those dream-sluts, to boot! She'd better get herself checked by a doctor right away. While she's at it, she could talk to her doctor about some form of medication or surgical procedure for her boyfriend which will eliminate all of those nasty, unacceptable sexual urges.
That may leave her a bit frustrated, of course, so she might also want to invest in a good vibrator. Which she will use only while fantasizing about her now-safe boyfriend, of course.
Problem solved!