Proselytizing for an unprovable proof is best left to fools, but I concede that  atheists and believers alike do it.  And if Charlotte has found some atheist proselytizers to pick on,  she should also recognize that far larger numbers (as in 98.4% of the population) are more invested in crusading, converting, and convincing others via personal and institutional means than the handful of atheists who do the same. Most atheists are quiet about it.   So it’s ironic that she casts atheists as active crusaders and proselytizers of a lost cause.  That’s because for most atheists, there is no cause.

Atheists like me come to their godless conclusions quietly and live our lives among believers despite our differing views, but Charlotte raises several straw man arguments implying that most atheists want to foist their boring views on others.  For example, she cites atheist who trot out Darwin and his theory of natural selection.  But for me, natural selection does not necessarily “disprove” god’s creation (though it does mess up the time frame, and raises questions about Noah’s actual cargo).  As a folklorist I’m trained to look for truth as a basis for a story (as when Schliemann dug up the ancient city of Troy based on a story told by Homer), but not to believe in every word (word-for-word) of the story.

But many in the Bible belt do argue against natural selection because they perceive exactly that threat to the word-for-word biblical version of creation, and because of that they do their best to shout down one of the most widely accepted (by science) and predictive theories humans hold to be true.  They needn’t be so strident.

And as for those few atheists Charlotte claims decry discrimination against them by the state,  I would agree such atheist complaints are overblown.  It has rarely been the case that modern atheists are discriminated against upon in any material way (discounting the Inquisition or the Crusades).  Please, discrimination these days is more about having a view that most others in the community eschew and find your views threatening to their world view.  In their eyes you are a “non-believer;”  or, to use an Arab epithet,  you are in “infidel.”    Notwithstanding that these phrases are pregnant (to the believer) with negative connotation, and that in parts of the Arab world, at least, reason enough to be stoned (or poisoned for listening to the wrong gods in Classical Greece)  as with Socrates.  But in the end, they are,  after all, just words.  Big deal.

And while some atheists, as Charlotte points out,  may indeed deny the historicity of the person named Joshua (now pronounced “Jesus” or the “anointed one,”i.e. “Christ”) many of us concur that there is a high likelihood that this remarkable man existed in time, even though no-one bothered to write about him until 50 years after his death, so like any “historian,” the accuracy of all parts of the story may legitimately be questioned, even when there is a strong argument for his existence.  As for the historian/folklorist writing this instant epistle,  the evidence for an historical Joshua/Хπιστός is  ample enough for me.  However,  there is a difference between accepting an historical Christos, and accepting that person as part of a holy trinity.

Charlotte’s attempt to make atheists look like one block of people who think the same way is a red herring.  Atheists tend to be free thinkers, and don’t make their arguments in lock step. In fact, many prefer to eschew argument and just be quiet about it.  Rather,  like Job, they ask,  at a personal level,  based on all we individually experience in real life and real death, and with every ounce of our free will,   what is there other than 2,000 years of aggressive proselytizing, indoctrinating,  institutional repetition of the Passion of Christ for the singular purpose of  having 98.4% of the multitudes “believe” in something none of them have never seen or heard.

The effort is relentless.  We see and hear the underlying belief every day from neighbors, newspapers, and magazines.  It lurks in implicit assumptions that inform much of how we see the world.  In a phrase:  it’s Biblical, not Homerful, and not LA Timesful.  We see it on coins, and in the national pledge of allegiance.  It’s the very basis of our most common curses as in:    OMG, JEES..F’ing, C, GDMIT, or G T Hell.  I mean other than FU,  or MF,  are there many curses that don’t have a religious derivation?

What else but a massive campaign including the shunning and shaming those with competing views could make real the existence of an odd triad from a dusty place that Alexander the Great ran over on his way to Egypt without so much as a footnote,  consisting of an omnipotent father, son, and holy ghost they we have never seen exist.  If 98.4% of our fellow men and women do believe in such an invisible thing,  I suppose a marketing award (maybe Saul/Paul could accept it) is in order:  this is an incredibly successful campaign for the thoughts and hearts of us all.  But the bottom line is, at least for this atheist,  that the triad could indeed exist, and I have no way to rule it out.  In other words,  I can’t say that you are wrong.     After all,  in parallel universe theory,  I am typing this meme in reverse, in Greek, and married to Madonna.  It’s possible, but the issue is that I can’t bring myself to believe it:  ironic that it comes back to that.   But  that’s where I stand.

That said,  I do have a bone to pick with my brethren of faith.  They keep asking me to believe what I might call the Great Charade.   It greatly annoys me, so your forbearance over the next few paragraphs would be appreciated.

To explain, what I call the Great Charade is that I am offered this deal for heaven if I would just believe instead of use my brain.  The players in this  game are our omnipotent god and me.  This is hardly a match.  God created the universe, and supplied me with both free will and intellect.  This same god, who holds all the cards, then asks me via intermediaries to ignore that very same free will and intellect in favor of “faith.”  I’m offered this tantalizing E-ticket for entry to heaven if I will just suspend my disbelief that the god, ghost, son trilogy is a truth, despite every concrete experience piled up in my brain that says otherwise.

Excuse me God,  you are all-powerful.  All I have is what you gave me (as in my intellect).  You have the power to just open up your robes and show your toes. That’s all it would take.  What’s the point of playing this great big game (charade) where you hold all your cards back and ask us to play the fool.  Please:  don’t ask me to ignore my god given intellect.  Has anyone considered that this surrender of intellect could just be a surrender to one of those false gods we keep hearing about?  Who would know if we are not using our brains in the first place.

Knock me off my feet on the road to Damascus, boom out my new name thrice as I lay in the sand wondering what hit me,  and then I may believe as you do.  Until then, the guy-in-the-sky story is entertaining,  grist for a movie or even a best-seller,  but it’s just not very persuasive, especially when it’s most crucial parts depend on me playing a hide and seek game with an all powerful being who could just step out from behind the curtain and convert me to a believer in a heartbeat.  That’s all it would take.

No,  my little missive here is not a proof of god’s non-existence, or even an argument for you to doubt your faith:   it’s just a curious and critical view based on experience and god-given (to use a phrase) intellect.  But if you must file this missive in the “one more boring whining atheist proselytizer for a cause file:” please,  there is no cause;  just some questions on this road to Damascus.

*************************************************************

It was then he made his famous observation that patriotism was the last refuge of scoundrels.  

How times have not changed at all.   

Today patriotism is sometimes measured by how large the flag is that flies from your mini-van,  or your truck perhaps,  but most especially by whether or not one wears the omnipresent American Flag Pin which can be purchased by the millions at thousands of on-line mail-order stores. 

Some of these pins are even made in America, but most, I suspect, come from Red-China.    

To craft a syllogism,  if all American scoundrels profess to be patriots, and all American scoundrels wear the American Flag Pin,  then Barack Obama cannot be a scoundrel, because does not  wear one.   

But, do all American Scoundrels really wear the American Flag pin?   Probably not.  But if Boswell’s maxim holds true,  many of them do, and it is great refuge for those who doth profess too much.   

Let’s try another syllogism:  If all American Patriots wear the pin, but numerous dead and or mangled US Soldiers who died in Iraq or Afghanistan never did,  were those dead or mangled soldiers really patriots?  

Of course they were patriots of the highest order.  But some would have us believe that the original assumption of this syllogism, i.e.,  that all American Patriots wear the pin, is true.  Too bad that many dead heroes bear mute testimony to this false thinking.   

Astoundingly,  just such incredibly poor logic is pretty close to the argument some are making that Barack Obama is not a patriot.   Why,  well because just like some dead soldiers,  who never thought it was important to wear such a pin,  Obama claims that it is more important to do patriotic acts, rather than pin a symbol on his chest.   The fact that he does (or does not)  wear one does not make him a Patriot, or a non-patriot,  but it does place him in a small crowd of people who, at a minimum are not acting like scoundrels. 

*******************************************************************

Time will tell if he really is a patriot, pin or no pin. Until then,  it would be nice if the scoundrels would just exit left…or right…and without the pin.      

Googling the phrase“vertical thinking”  along with the word “god” yields a large number of hits, some referring to a secular definition (as in Wikipedia’s:   “Vertical thinking is a type of approach to problems that usually involves one being selective, analytical, and sequential. It could be said that it is the opposite of lateral thinking.”) to religious versions up to and including a Christian themed  web-sites including  http://www.verticalthought.org and http://christiansforhuckabeemobilize.blogspot.com/2007/09/vertical-day-monday-september-24-2007.html

And lest anyone think that vertical thinking lacks relationship specifically to Christian thinking consider the following from Norman Vincent Peale in his book Reaching Your Potential:  “It is vertical thinking: it rises to God, comes back to you, back to God, back to you; the power passes along a vertical line and, lest you think this is some kind of psychological dissertation, there is a text from the Bible that supports it, ‘Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind.”

To the uninitiated which includes me,  I agreed that the phrase looked odd and out of place.  However, to the initiated,  it is apparently a sign of inclusion in a religious membership,  a link to a common mode of thought and aspiration,  and an affirmation of like-mindedness that differs from the rest of the population.  In that light,  it is  much like the Christian symbol for the fish which was code for other Christians and an affirmation of membership in the early days of that religion’s development.     Josh’s musings that the evangelical Michael Huckabee is likely fashioning a  “clever dog whistle call out to Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals that his politics are God’s politics”   looks to be dead on.  If he is right,  what are the implications for the body politic? 

Well first,  if you happen not to be a Christian of the evangelical sort (possibly as in a Catholic or a Mormon) or worse,  if you are a Jew,  a Hindu,  a Muslim, or are similarly non-Christian,  be aware that Michael Huckabee appears to be calling on troops of  like believers of his particular evangelical mind-set to elect him to the highest office of the land by using code language.   If that is true,  it would make George Bush’s marshalling of the Christian right for his election pale by comparison, because George Bush did it openly. 

Huckabee appears to be doing it in code, sometimes while distracting us with a folksy populist bass guitar of all things.   I’m no conspiracy theorist,  but I have been proselytized enough times to know that there are groups out there that have a narrow aim of forcing everyone else on the planet to their way of thinking,  vertical or otherwise.    

I would prefer that anyone aspiring to the office of the Presidency speak honestly about their agenda, and if Mr. Huckabee really wants the rest of us to think, act, and feel like a good evangelical,  I would prefer that he just say that and see if he gets elected.  

Whether “vertical thinking” is evangelical code that passively signifies insider knowledge and Christian communality, or an evangelical “whistle” calling like minded evangelicals overtly to arms is of little consequence.  In the end,  Mr. Huckabee is being covert in an arena where transparency is demanded.      

I would like Mr. Huckabee to  honestly explain if he means it in the evangelical sense, or  state for the record that he means it in the secular sense before he gets my consideration for his vote, and I don’t care if he can play guitar or not. 

The long long war on Christmas has been co-opted by infidels.  In the early days of this epic conflict, this war could have been described as a minor league guerrilla operation. The body counts were low, traffic tended to flow uninterrupted,  there were no bombs or grenades going off, it flew below the radar, and like the current war on terror,  it was difficult to know who the bad guys were.   

Unlike the current phase of the war on Christmas,  there were no attempts then to pin the nefarious enterprise of eroding the Christian holy day upon some shadow enemy with names no one in history ever heard of like “Islamo-Fascist” and the like.  

No, until recently, the war on Christmas had been more subtle, and the enemies more anonymous, and water boarding had not been a part of the process.  But times are rapidly changing.   

Historians might have seen the origin and beginnings of the war on Christmas in Dickens.  The proverbial symbol of a lump of coal along with the very un-Christmas like the bah humbug (no “Merry Christmas for Scrooge”)  attitude may have marked the beginning of the war.  But it was also present in Capra’s “It’s a Wonderful Life.”  

In those early days of the war as depicted by Capra,   the spirit of Christmas was set upon by collective apathy and threats from materialistic forces, as symbolized in the mean old banker (Old man Potter) who tries to take over the town of Bedford Falls by capitalizing on other’s misfortune. 

Yet in both of those epic tales,  Christmas wins,  Christians win,  and the need for political correctness on holiday sentiment is not even in play.  In Capra’s film, there was not a single threat from any character played by a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, nor Atheist to be found, although it should be remembered that Jimmy Stewart’s character (George Bailey) is in a strong state of doubt about God just when he jumps in an attempted suicide into the frozen river below the bridge. 

I suppose his agnosticism should be acknowledged along with the pure Mammon like character of old man Potter who could have doubled for Scrooge any day.    

Frankly,  if there were a specific enemy to be found in the early days of the war on Christmas,  it would have to have been in the generic cynicism that Jimmy Stewart displayed, or the crass materialism that was shown as the alter ego of the town of Bedford Falls during Stewart’s dream when he returned as a ghost to the renamed  town of Pottersville, the namesake of the materialistic and unholy banker played by Lionel Barrymore.   Pottersville was the symbolic embodiment of a town that had become a godless, materialistic, faithless enterprise that all could see had lost hold of its Christmas spirit.  And as if to underline the point,  Mary the woman that George Bailey might have married, (had he not committed suicide in a fit of agnosticism and rage over not being able to keep up with the Jones’s), and whose name might be construed as to have had a biblical namesake,  had become a barren, loveless, frightened, and lost person without a faithful George at her side as the George’s angel reveals to him in a Dickens like revisit to a world without George in it.   

Yet despite the symbolic roles assigned to George Bailey, and Henry F. Potter as ultimately good and evil characters,  most viewers of Capra’s film at the time would have agreed that the slippery slope leading from god to godless, or Christmas Spirit to crass materialism was not lined with Islamo-fascists nor any other named group against Christians, but was a slope contained in all of us:  contained in our souls.  

It was nothing more than the self doubt about god reflected in the character of George Bailey just as effectively as presented in the challenges of Job.  Put another way,  liberals were not responsible for the symbolic slide toward Pottersville.   Not then.    

So given the original anonymity of the enemy of Christmas, i.e., our collective bouts with agnosticism,  what is most interesting is that the war on Christmas today now has distinct players all lined up neatly either on the side of either good or evil.  On the one hand, one group is in the role of all good Christians, and the other in the role of, well,  godless liberals. 

The preeminently good players, i.e., the Christians,  might be symbolized by the likes of outwardly Christian folks like Sean Hannity,  Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, Bill O’Reilly,  or even Tony Snow who recently spoke about the second war on terror being the “war on god” which was supposedly being waged from the pulpits of liberal universities. 

Kindly note that all of these advocates for god are highly conservative Republican types who echo the sentiments of large swaths of the Christian Right of today in their defense of Christmas against godless liberal pagans sometimes known more simply as “dems.” 

Put another way, as odd as it may seem at first,  Michael Savage might get to play George Bailey (and get to kiss Donna Reed as a bonus, whooee), and a skinny Ted Kennedy would get to play Harry F. Potter and spit on poor people, especially if they are minorities.   

This creation of opposing sides in the war on Christmas is a very interesting new development, especially in light of the politics of that most famous of the early warriors of god,  the one an angel converted from agnosticism, a little like a modern version of Saul of Tarsus who became Paul of the new testament:    George Bailey of Bedford Falls. 

Unfortunately for the war effort, George Bailey who rescued Baileyville’s Christmas from the grip of a godless Pottersville, displayed all the traits of a bleeding heart liberal,  and old man Potter who strove to take Christmas out of Bedford falls and banish it from Pottersville had all the traits of un unrestrained, free market, capitalist who would just as soon load your socks   with lumps of coal while smoking Cuban cigars.    

Let’s take a look at George.  First,  he places the savings and loan he runs,  in complete jeopardy by loaning to the great unwashed masses or who old man Potter calls the “rabble.”  He even loans money to black women and Italian bartenders no less, much to the chagrin of more experienced business managers like old man Potter at the Bank across the way. 

Further, in the process of catering to the less than fortunate,  he outwardly states his pride in being able to provide credit to the middle class so that they can enjoy some of the fruits of this great land.   Fruits like home ownership. He is not just stuck working with the lower and middle class,  he does it by choice and he is proud of it.  Partly because of this liberal flight of fancy,  he winds up having no money to invest in a “ground floor opportunity” in the plastics industry.  Others will profit from making “plastics from soybeans,” but not George,  he has been giving away too much of the banks money to poor people to invest elsewhere.   

Worse than that,  he hires and maintains employment for people who are mentally handicapped.  His decision to keep Uncle Billy, whose mental incompetence and tendencies toward alcoholism are obvious,  and it becomes the trigger for the run on the Savings and Loan that Harry F. Potter is so eager to exploit. 

In a far greater flight to liberal fancy,  he succeeds in helping the town floozy  to move away from the streets toward a wholesome life in the middle class and a new life in New York.  

Finally,  he gives up on the offer of a huge salary from Potter, just because he believes more in what he is doing (helping the rabble) than in surpassing the Jones’s at the expense of his conscience.   

Now, for Harry F. Potter:    Mr. Potter is the recipient of a large deposit intended for the Bailey Savings and Loan that is delivered to him accidentally by Uncle Billy,  the mental incompetent employed by the liberal George Bailey.  Mr. Potter,  free market capitalist that he is,  recognizes that he can make a financial gain at the expense of George Bailey’s savings and loan and destroy the competition in the process. 

The retention of deposit being nothing more than a white collar crime,  Potter does not think twice about returning the found money to the rightful owner.  He’s capitalist to the core in all of its unfettered glory where only the strong get to win. 

We learn during the dream sequence of the film where we see what life would be like with Potter running things that:  the town floozy would become the town prostitute, Uncle Billy would be committed to an insane asylum, the entire town would become a commercialized secular enterprise controlled by Potter, and the Italian bartender would become the purveyor of “hard liquor” to men who wanted to drink hard and get drunk fast.  It may be assumed that the Italian rabble that he is,  does not become a homeowner in Potterville.   

So in this war on the spirit of Christmas, which I suggest really does go on within all of us as a sort of nagging doubt about the goodness of life, or even the godliness of life,  it is good to keep a perspective on the battlefield and where it lies.  It lies within all of us if the book of Job, or the doubting of Thomas, or the early attitudes of an unconverted Paul are to be believed as presented to us in that book of ages called the bible.    

Yet I further suggest that there is a distinct irony in how the war is now being portrayed as a battle between godless liberalism and godly republicanism.

That view is very much at odds with the sentiment of a movie that many of us would agree sits comfortably in the hopeful and generous heart of many Americans as symbolic of us as Americans and as a people.  It is symbolic of our belief in the ultimate triumph of good over mere mercantilism.

But what is most ironic in the polarization of Christmas, is that when looking at that beloved film through the prism of the new war on Christmas,  I find it so easy to see Hannity,  Savage, Malkin,  and O’Reilly standing tall behind old man Potter all the while mocking George Bailey for his wacko liberal views on life and as they root for him to fail in his progressive vision of Baileyville as a town filled with middle class people with homes of their own living in dignity and voting like democrats. 

Merry Christmas 

History may be repeating itself is a strange way.  A century and a half ago,  the West (mainly Britain) encouraged Opium smoking in the East (mainly China and India) and profited from its trade.  Opium dens devastated China and created widespread addiction in that land. 

But recently, China, in serendipitous concert with Japan (which actually makes most of its product for export in China, India, & other low cost countries in the Orient), may have stumbled on a form of revenge on the west by rendering the United States a slave to a new kind of opium:  cheap money & cheap goods.  Here’s how it could be working its effects on us right now.

Remember that the US Government spends more than it takes in taxes, and that is more true today than at any other time in our history.  Currently it is doing that to support programs like the recent cuts in Estate Taxes and Income Taxes, unfunded Social Security liabilities (which will soon come due as boomers start to retire),  new long term commitments by the current administration for increased Medicare costs (adding subsidies for prescription medicines), ever increasing costs of  the War with Iraq and Afghanistan, increasing costs for Homeland Security & a long list of federally funded social programs.

On top of that,  the Federal Government is now borrowing money just to repay the interest on debt that has already been incurred.   Recently, the current administration broke with history and simultaneously cut taxes while increasing expenditures for war and additional entitlements at the same time, something that even Ronal Reagan and George Bush (senior) did not do.   

It should be obvious that to obtain the cash needed to pay the bills for its programs, the government must borrow money to make up for what it does not have.  A principal way that it borrows is by selling  “Treasuries” or “T-Bills.”  Note that  Treasuries are really just loan certificates stating that the US Government agrees to pay interest for a set period of time on the principal amount and also agrees to pay back the principal at the end of the term. 

These loans go out for various time periods from a few months to many years.  At the end of the term,  Uncle Sam pays back the whole bill, but for the period of the loan, Sam  pays interest to the holder or (“buyer”) of the Treasury Bill. 

T-Bills are eventually subject to the law of supply and demand after discounting the short term ups and downs that are not rationally related to economic realities.  Right now,  T Bills pay less interest than comparable Bills sold by Europe so higher interest European Bills should be more attractive than the low interest US T Bill  right?  Well, the attractiveness of a borrower to a lender is about more than just the rate. 

On the other hand,  European Bills are not risky by any stretch, so the difference between what a Euro Bill pays in interest and what a T Bill pays in interest should make the Euro much more attractive than it is.  Yet,  T Bills continue to fly off the shelves even as they promise to pay miserably low interest rates to their buyers.  Could it be that somebody has an interest in buying low interest Treasuries that is not based on simple supply and demand.  In other words, might somebody be “lending” us money to keep currency and our credit cheap in the
USA.  Well, combined foreign governments now own 40% of our total debt financed through T-Bills, and their motives for snapping up our debt issues should be cause for debate and possibly some concern.   

Why, and what would be the motives for foreign creditors to lend money for less than they could earn elsewhere?  Is it just the stability and reliability factor associated with the US Dollar and the high credit rating of the USA. Is it just the fact that they have so many dollars from trade imbalances with us that they need to reinvest in dollar denominated debt? Consider, in the alternative, that the motive might be to control and influence the US consumer’s willingness to spend money to buy goods (which are coming in large part from China and Japan).  After all, a key effect of those miserably low interest rates is that Uncle Sam gets to borrow money on the cheap, and by so doing is able to service its own debt and pay for government programs without, in the short term, raising taxes to pay for them.  Also remember that those cheaply lent dollars ultimately wind up in the hands of the US consumer through private lenders.  Those private lenders, remember,  facilitate US Consumer’s purchases of houses (which, when mortgage rates are low,  appreciate in price since there are so many cheaply lent dollars chasing so few houses for sale) and by secondary lenders who lend homeowners an advance on their house “appreciation” on the bet that the house price will just continue to rise and rise ad infinitum. 

And ultimately,  what are those consumers doing with their advances on their houses:  they are using the money to buy the massive amounts of cheap consumption goods that they can’t really afford on their static or declining wages.  Their wages are static or in decline because the job they used to have was exported to a country that desperately wants both the job, and even more, the know-how that comes with the job so that they can have it permanently.  To keep us buying their goods during the period that our infrastructure, i.e., our means to produce, are being dismantled and exported to China,  they lend our country money at low interest rates.  We, in turn, use that cheap money to buy their goods all the while transferring our technology infrastructure so that they can make more cheap goods that we can buy with their cheaply lent money.  Some economists think the Chinese and Japanese are stupid for lending us money for such low interest rates.   Really. 

Ok, now its time to fast forward with this scenario of cheap money being supplied by foreign creditors for the purposes of propping up the US consumer and the US government spending long enough facilitate the transfer of this country’s means of production through the transfer of plant and equipment on the misguided premise of US corporations ever cheaper goods are the way of their long term future.

In a few years China will have all the technical infrastructure (from us) that they need to make anything they want.  We will have transferred it to them via outright shipment of factories, outsourcing, technology sales, or the like.  Right this second, they don’t have all they need,  but at some point in the future, they will cross a threshold, and they will no longer need the technology we are exporting to them or the dollars we exchange for the cheap goods in the first place. 

At that point, they may decide that they do not need or want to buy T Bills which are not paying much and buy Euros instead.  In March of 2007,  China announced that they would be forming an investment group to manage their foreign currency reserves which total over a Trillion US dollars.  Does anyone doubt that this investment group is going to be focused on getting higher yields than can be had with a US T Bill?  Might the formation of this investment group foreshadow a sea change and an end to cheap foreign loans to support the US consumer?.  

In addition, they might “unpeg” their currency from the dollar and let it float to the much higher level it should be (which would make Chinese goods too expensive for us to buy). 

After all,  China could just start making goods for internal consumption.  What would stop them?  Shouldn’t it be a good thing to make most of what you need right in your own country and just import the few things that are made better or less expensively elsewhere, while exporting your superior high value added products (made with the imported infrastructure you managed to wheedle away from unwitting addicts of your cheap money supply?) 

Ok, now fast forward again to the time that China does not want (or need) to lend us money anymore at low interest rates.  Who is going to buy our T Bills, or put another way,  who is going to lend us money to buy cheap imported goods that we no longer can or know how to make? 

One source of lenders to make up the foreign exodus from US Treasuries could be a reversion to the US Consumer.  After all, it used to be that Grandma was the biggest purchaser of T Bills (before the foreigners including the Chinese stepped in to buy 40% of our national debt). 

 But now,  remember, the US Consumer will have developed severely limited means of generating income, or savings that might wind up in T Bills,  because he/she has no job or has a lower paying service job (the good jobs having been exported to China  or India so that those countries could make goods cheaply for the US Consumer who bought them using foreign loans).  

Further, the US Consumer has failed to save at adequate rates for a long time now, and thus has no cushion of savings to use to buy T Bills.   Without that good paying job (which is now in China or maybe India) the US Consumer will either be unable to buy T Bills, or,  even if he/she has some extra cash,  may be unwilling to buy them because the interest rates Uncle Sam has willing to lend them on was a pittance.

So now, Uncle Sam,  being unable to sell his T Bills to compete with other borrowers rates (like the Euro loans or possibly now the China, Japan, or India loans), raises the ante by raising the interest rate he is willing to pay in order to attract more sales of the Bills.  Great,  the few remaining US Consumers with extra cash will snap them up. But, the bad news is that when rates rise,  the cost of money rises along with it,  and low-and-behold,  affordable money for home loans, imported cars, imported toys, or anything else disappears.  And without loans from foreigners, there will now be no money to buy their “cheap” goods. 

Beyond that,  the US Government has been servicing its own massive debt by borrowing money to service the debt.  So long as money was cheap,  it could get away with that, but not forever,  Consider the consequences of our huge government debt that has to be serviced using borrowed money whose rates are rising through the roof. It was great while the loan rate was cheap wasn’t it?  Our government’s position is not much different than that of the hapless homeowner who bought an expensive house at the top of the real-estate bubble, and then rashly decided to get the lowest payment possible on that expensive house by taking out a variable interest loan.  When the rate eventually rises, and it will,   the homeowner will be stuck with a higher and higher payment,  just like the
US government will. 

It’s at about that time that we will realize that by giving up our means to production (namely our infrastructure for manufacturing and technology), we also give up our means for creating actual (un-borrowed) wealth.  If we continue to give up those means, we as a nation will then be in the unenviable position of owing money for past consumption,  but will be without the infrastructural means of servicing the debt (by producing and selling high quality goods at high prices).  

If you think of consumption of cheap goods as analogous to the pleasure induced by Opium you will have entered my den.  For like the opium dealer,  the creator of cheap borrowing wants to make sure that you are hooked.  So,  at first,  the dealer primes your habit cheaply and gradually.  You do not notice, in your opium induced haze, that your house is starting to look messy, and that you are missing work, or that you are borrowing money to buy those Chinese goods, nor that you are starting to sell tools from your garage, and even the technology patents from your employer, to support your habit. 

Then,  as you sink deeper and deeper into consumer bliss,  the cost of the consumption drug starts to go up. By then,  you may no longer be working, or, you are working at a low paying third world job.  You are starting to sense that something is wrong, despite your leaders’ encouragement that we are turning the corner or that help is on the way.  But by then,  you are starting to become useless to your money supply dealer. 

And remember, your dealer now has all your tools, not to mention,  all the money you will ever earn.  So, having drained you of all economic usefulness, your lender/dealer walks. 

At that point your may dimly recognize that foreigners, with China in the lead, will then have completed their goal of creating the means to sustain themselves by co-opting the technology and know how that was so willingly and cheaply transferred to them by the USA,  and that they do not need tapped out losers like the American Consumer any longer. 

Wal-Mart anyone? 

Rich Brock, Resipsa

I know,  name calling, innuendo,  smug tones, and character assasination are innappropriate responses to staid editorials such as Jonah Goldberg’s on the Wilsons, even when that is the principal style, method, and content of his attack on them.

What was clearly absent from Goldberg’s swift boating of “Val” and her pal “Joe” were any substantive facts other than innuendos and a regurgitation of the principal talking points against Wilson, i.e.,  that poor “unemployed” Joe really needed a junket trip to beautiful Niger, and that Joe lied when he [allegedly] said that Cheney requested he go when the real “truth” was that his wife arranged it.   

But who wants to deal with facts.  If you want those, just see Media Matters for a complete debunking of  those very consistently delivered talking points that have been bouncing around right wing circles and Faux News for several years.  Repeat them often enough, and they become true:  presto. 

Enough!  Let’s get to Jonah’s real issue:  the Wilson’s look cool,  they write books,  he probably surfs,  she likes high heels and looks good in a Jag, she was covert CIA (why else would the CIA request an investigation of her outing), and oh by the way,  other than being a retired Ambassador of the United States, he has that really cool commendation from George H.W. Bush (Senior) for personally standing up to Saddam Hussein in the first gulf war thus saving about 100 US citizens from an unknown fate.  Somehow Jonah,  I just can’t imagine you in any of those situations, especially the Jag.   

Unlike Jonah,  I would like to end with a fact:  Joe Wilson was right.  The administration certainly was “exaggerating the Iraqi threat” in order to justify war.” Jonah,  you were wrong.   How’s that for a fact? 

Rich Brock, Resipsa

(Note:  an edited version of this article was published in the LA Times)

Essentially,  Sowell wrongly asserts that because Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald learned early on that Armitage leaked information to the press,  that there was no reason to continue the investigation.  Thus,  the Libby prosecution, and conviction for Perjury was unnecessary.  While much of the information that Fitzgerald discovered during his investigation still remains classified, several key public facts refute Mr. Sowell’s claim that Fitzgerald should have ceased and desisted in his efforts to pursue the leakers.  Let’s start with conspiracy. 

We know that there were multiple sources that “leaked” other than Armitage.  Libby, in-fact,  was one of those leakers.  Was there a conspiracy to leak?  If not,  was Libby an independent leaker with his own motives?  Why did Rove leak?  Were the Libby and Rove leaks connected?   Who else besides Armitage, Libby, or Rove leaked, and why?  Who had access to the classified information in the first place?  What was the motive (of each of the leakers), because motive is key to the crime.  Was the information about Valerie Plame classified at the time of the leak, or, had it been declassified in advance by someone with that power (such as Dick Cheney)?    

The question for Fitzgerald was,  did Libby (or Rove, or Armitage) leak in a way that was prosecutable under Identities Protection Act.  The mere fact of leaking the information is insufficient grounds for prosecution, and so yes,  Armitage was eliminated based on  examination of the law.  But could Libby and Rove also be eliminated in the same way?  How would that be known without a vigorous analysis of their actions through an aggressive discovery process?   To be prosecuted, it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the leaker 1)  had access to classified information identifying a covert agent; 2)  intentionally disclosed it to an unauthorized person while, at the same time,  the U.S. was taking affirmative actions to conceal this person’s covert status.  The elements of the crime must all be there and there is no way to know if each element is there (or provable) absent a complete investigation which was not even close to complete when Armitage’s role had been made clear.   Sowell further asserts that there was “no crime” because Ms. Plame “had a desk job” at the CIA (implying that she was not “covert” and therefore not covered under the law).  The CIA has been silent on this, with one exception:  it was the CIA itself that requested the Justice Department investigate the leaking of the identity of a “undercover CIA officer,” which is what got this whole thing going in the first place.  If the CIA believed she was covered by the statute,  you can bet that Fitzgerald got the message and pursued it vigorously in good-faith,  just like the Bar Association says prosecutors should act in pursuit of their sworn duties.   That Libby lied in the process possibly to protect himself from federal prosecution was Libby’s choice.  A jury of his peers said so anyway. 

Rich Brock, Resipsa

(Note:  this article recently appeared in the Orange County Register) 

A fuming John Yoo,  famous author of specious legal arguments for ever greater war powers by this President, sounds personally affronted by the Supreme Court’s recent rebuke of his own arguments in “The high court’s Hamdan power grab” in the LA Times.   He accuses the Court of being “hostile,” via its “interference,” and in its “lack of judicial restraint” in the Hamdan case. He labels their decision a “Power Grab.”   This is not legal argument, this is a familiar conservative ad-hominem tirade against presumably liberal members of the full bench.   

But wait,  this “hostile, unrestrained, & interfering” court is comprised of four justices appointed by a person named “Bush,” two by a “Reagan, and one by a “Ford.”  That means fully 78% of the nine justices were appointed by Republicans.  If ever a court such as this were to be “hostile” to a Republican President, an intelligent question might be to ask why?   A good place to start would be with the phrase:  “overreaching Executive Branch” with unconvincing legal basis for said overreaching supplied by Mr. Yoo:  Mr.  Yoo’s ad-hominem fuming against this conservative Supreme Court, notwithstanding.

Rich Brock, Resipsa

I did watch key excerpts of Mr. Bush’s address and now follow Mr. Mehlman’s advice to write a letter to the White House.  

Dear Mr. President:

September 11, 2001 did not change everything. 

We should not be drubbed into converting this proud country into a nation cowering in fear, and into a nation many in the  civilized world believes (according to a major poll this week) is more dangerous to world peace than Iraq,  Iran, China, Korea, or Russia. 

We should have been, and need to become again, a nation of laws and should abide by them, but we have not been that way since 9/11.   This long belated effort (suspiciously tied to an election cycle) to “ask congress” to set rules by which alleged “terrorists”  can be tried on the basis of hearsay,  forced (tortured) confessions, and on the basis of  secret evidence that may not be impeached by them is a cruel twist on a country that used to pride itself on being the freest and most optimistic nation on earth.   Now we can have pride in neither,  and not because of the September 11^th tragedy, but because of our collective reaction to it which enabled some to erode our fragile social contract to place our faith in and to abide by laws and our collective sense of human decency.   

It is especially ironic that you celebrated this act of bringing people from “secret CIA prisons”  to justice when it took the Supreme Court of this country to force your request of congress to set the legal groundwork for their very detention and trial after the Court objected to the unconstitutional (un-American) elements of your secret detention and extra-judicial program in the first place. 

Mr. Mehlman has stated that Democrats have bragged about trying to defeat the Patriot Act, and that the #2 Democrat in the Senate even likened America‘s interrogation practices to those in Nazi or Soviet concentration camps.  

On the first point,  any congress-person who asked for reasonable safeguards against government intrusion into the private life of citizens as part of the debate over the Patriot Act was patriotically mirroring the most elemental principle of our founding fathers as they shaped this land with an instrument called the Constitution of the United States. 

You should recall that during this debate, Democrats were by far the loudest voice of opposition to the more extreme parts of the Act,  however,  they were joined by moderate Republicans as well.  It is also instructive to note that the Patriot Act passed  and was renewed by a Congress that contains at least a few Democrats.   

On the second point,  I am sorry to have to agree with the #2 Democrat which brings me great sadness as an older American to see what has quickly become of this great land over the past five years of fear mongering, death, and destruction. 

I am tired of being asked to live in terror, to give up basic rights in return for false security, and to walk in lock-stepped silence like a vassal to a king while the core values of this country are being shredded.  

I refuse.  I want my “old” country back, you know, the one that actually won World Wars:  the brave one the world respected and admired as a country of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the unbent rule of law.   

Rich Brock, Resipsa