The View from Up Here

Insomniac Philosophy

noreply@blogger.com (Cathy) — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:01:00 +0000

Thinking way too early this morning, and in bullet points. Which... sure, why not.

Stew ingredients: My son, Patrick's post on his facebook page his frustration over the bureaucratic diddling over Libya; The Obama Doctrine in the Wall Street Journal; the memory of punching a bully on the school bus.

Everyone has heard that all evil needs to succeed in the world is for good to do nothing. Or something similar. Basically, when good people give up the righteous use of force, it does nothing but allow bullies, thugs and tyrants to have their way with innocents.

Which is not to say that I know that the rebels in Libya are any more likely to be good or innocent than their current tyrant is. Gadhafi is clearly a tyrant. But oftentimes, in a situation like this, the rebels simply want to install their own tyrant to tyrannize the innocent from another direction. See the Russian Revolution, among others. So... not trying to sort out who's who in Libya here... just making some general observations.

So often, in the West, there is this assumption that if we don't use force against "them," they'll certainly be sensible and come around to a more peaceful way of being, if we just explain why they should (maybe through strongly worded letters and unserious threats of handslaps). This is often considered a valid idea on the left, but there are certainly a lot of folks on the right who seem to think that the revelation that the "lion will lie down with the lamb" only requires us to want to make it so... here... now.

The problem seems to stem from the assumption that if the lamb will simply lie down with the unchanged lion, all would be well. In reality though, as it currently exists, what generally would happen if the lamb-lion initiation of togetherness were reversed from the standard description... is that there would be lamb for breakfast. Lions don't eat lambs because they are envious; because the lamb has encroached into the lion's territory; because the lamb has offended the lion with its existence. Lions eat lambs because they can. And because lambs are tasty.

From there, my mind takes a side trip into an imaginary conversation with those who favor talk over action. I've had enough real conversations along these lines over the years, certainly. For the sake of brevity, we'll just call the two sides of this conversation "Me" (yes... me), and "Cwaga" (Can't We All Get Along?). Here's how it generally ends:

Me: Tell you what... you guys get the all the bullies, thugs and tyrants in the world to give up the use of force, first. (Can't leave even one of them in non-compliance, because then he'd just terrorize everyone else. All lions must be lying down with lambs.). Then we'll talk about disarming the law-abiding and giving up on the need for defense of ourselves and innocents.

Cwaga: (brushing that aside) But that'll never happen! It's too hard!

Me: Exactly.

Reflections On Yesterday's Wave

noreply@blogger.com (Cathy) — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 16:11:00 +0000

In February of 2009, (yes, just after Obama's inauguration) I wrote this on a private message board, devoted to the philosophies of Elias. (All my non-ya-ya friends, especially my beloved Christian friends and family should probably just not click on the link. Y'all always knew I was a little off-base, and that I get ideas from odd sources, but verifying it, in black and white, so to speak, may not be your cup of tea. I love you guys... I really do, so I'm just asking you to keep intact, some of your comfort zone about me. I'd hate to lose you based on different sets of philosophical explorations. There are a lot of philosophical foundations in my belief systems... some more traditional than others. Some more out-there. If you haven't read my first post on this blog, maybe a click there would be a little more easily digested.)

Anyway.

(There I go on a tangent again, and I've barely even started this post. Yes, my brain can be a scary place... I believe we already established that some time ago.)

Ok... current reflections to follow, but first, here's the post:

Hi Fran,

I think I came here today to read this post. I don't think I really have any good insight to offer in regards to your specific situation, or anything like that, but I find it interesting that I had an impulse to come to the group today (which I haven't done in... well, a very long time) and then I come across this post and it resonates. "Say something!"

So... hmmm. (Adding this bit after writing a lot of stuff below: Obviously, this whole reply is not in direct response to what you've written. You asked if other people are experiencing what you are, and you've gotten a lot of replies validating that they are indeed. This is just really my thought trajectory sparked by your question, but not really in answer to it. Ie: I in no way believe that this has anything to do with what you were seeking when you wrote your note, and I totally know mileages will vary.)

My experiences of things I've done over the last few years have lent themselves to a few over-arching themes.

The major one being that "Reality is. It's not a question of what I want to change, as much as it is a question of how I am going to deal with it." I have created a reality, by drawing it to myself, so to get what I meant to get out of it, I have to look at it head on. Reality is. Period. I should note my inner responses, discover their causes and work to understand myself. But I still have to accept that Reality Is. The other part of it is that Reality is the Effect. Not the Cause. If I want my reality to change, I have to know myself and what I'm doing. If I don't do that, I'll just keep creating the same reality over and over.

So, for me, the big questions that keep popping up have similar answers... and I'm getting a lot of questions from people. The answer for me... I've learned it the super-hard-way... is well... just face the reality that everyone is going to pick what they pick. They're going to do it. The question is are you going down with their ship?

That's how I'm handling the economic turmoil. Everyone is going to do what they do. Congress is feeding us a huge crap sandwich, which will drive the economy into a further tailspin. It's what people want to do. It's like a ship going down while everyone cartoonishly tries to run to the highest spot on the deck hoping they'll get rescued. They won't.

So, for me, then the question is not about worrying about the country. It will survive, after a painful way of learning what we need to learn, the basic concept will survive. My job is to make sure I can swim. Isn't the whole purpose of the Elias thing to be about people learning not to lean on "authority" and to rely on themselves?

Remember this?

"The emphasis is shifting, literally, from that of authorities and certain individuals as the directors of masses and groups of individuals into the expression of the reality being directed by the individual. The emphasis is moving into the expression of focusing the attention and appreciation, and recognizing the worth of the individual and the abilities of the individual.

You shall be directing of your reality, individually and intentionally, in an objective manner, rather than allowing yourselves to be dictated to by mass beliefs or authority figures that you have set as your examples or your directors previously.

In this, you offer yourselves tremendous freedom and new opportunities to be exploring this physical dimension and what you may be creating within this physical dimension in a much more expansive manner, allowing you to move within consciousness without limitation, but continuing the blueprint or the design of this particular physical dimension."

That was session 846b... the Website video session .

My interpretation of that has always been that the "authorities" are going to seriously over-reach and create a huge crash-and-burn scenario. There's pretty much no other way for authoritarian systems to give up power. They won't unless they have to. So, in one form or another, the authorities are going to try to control everything, and we will all escape like tiny little termites.

But not before a lot of people get hurt (the "trauma" we're trying to avoid for ourselves by learning what we need to learn earlier than we otherwise might). And my personal belief is that the more the "authorities" try to "do something!" the worse the hurting is going to be. They'll try to squeeze the life out of the country if they have to in order to hold onto power. And, again, in my mind and interpretation, that's not something I need to fear, it's just the reality I need to accept, because that is human nature.

We aren't shifting to get away from human nature. We're shifting to become self-directed and accepting of human nature and the choices of others, in my interpretation. I don't have to try to fix the authorities or try to make them understand. They'll figure it out when we all slip between their fingers like a handful of sand. I just have to decide they aren't controlling my choices. I don't have to try to bring a lifeboat around to everyone in a panic. I just need to offer my opinion if I'm asked. My opinion is always "look at reality, accept that it is real, and make a decision based on that." I trust that in the end, we will in fact end up with a whole lot of shifting going on. I just can't direct it or decide how anyone else is going to shift. I'm responsible for my own shifting. No one else's.

I can't emphasize this enough: It's all my interpretation in this note, and I am very sure it isn't going to find a lot of agreement in the world at large, but it does give me peace in the world's turmoil.

So given that, the question is what do I think will happen as the authoritarian systems crumble and engage their war against the individual to avoid losing power, and what plan do I have to address it on the personal level? Step one of our plan started a couple of years ago. The handwriting has been on the wall on the economy for quite a while... so our plan (Mike's and mine), was "get the hell out of debt." We've also got a plan for if things get bad enough economically that our families have to start combining households. None of us are there yet, but it could happen. And these plans aren't being made in a frenzy of panic, they're just like a reality check more than anything. "What would we do if..." "What skills would be beneficial to have anyway?" It's like a pilot taking off in a plane... he always is checking where he'd land if the engines go out. He's not panicking thinking the engine is going out... he's just making sure he knows how he'd handle it in that moment. "Can't do it... we'll be in the Hudson." (Amazing transcript of that flight, btw... he said it like he was saying "I'll meet you at the grocery store.")

Reading up on the depression has also been a tremendous help. I just got done with Amity Shales's "The Forgotten Man." And it really illustrates that those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it. Everything that's being done now economically was tried then... all the beliefs about the economy showing up in the "stimulus (hah!) package" were "new ideas" in the 30's. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. Problem is, the hero image of FDR is the history that people remember. What they don't remember is his war on individual success, and the "capital strike" that resulted. Knowing what the authorities are going to be aiming for, lets me assess where I stand in relationship to it, and make decisions with that in mind.

So... this was a long-winded way of saying... I've felt what you feel. But now, for me, I know it's a stormy sea and that I've got the tools to survive it. I found the tools when I most needed them, and discovered the hard way that I am a pretty damned impressive being. And that makes it ok for the sea to be stormy. Makes it more like an experiment and less like the end of the world. But I still am learning about new tools that I've discovered in the meantime... looking at the next big thing and rushing out to play with my tools.

Sorry to be so wordy. But... that's me. :-)

Love,

Cath :-)

So... current reflections. Note again... this was nearly two years ago. At that time, the Tea Parties hadn't seriously begun to fight. Also, I always go at everything from the inside-out, so I was keeping my interpretation very personal then. There are always mass events, mass movements, of course, and I feel a strong affinity for the movement of the Tea Party masses, who have chosen not to go down with the foolish and idiotic ship of state, who have chosen to let the "Powers That Be" understand that "no" means "NO." And I lend energy to that effort in my own small way with my little signs and my little votes, but my own personal efforts usually look inward first. It's just the way I roll. Now though, I'm really enjoying seeing a sort of massive wave of individuals choosing for themselves, and this wave that's getting stronger intersecting with the actual here-and-now reality.

It wasn't a pebble tossed into the ocean of reality yesterday. It was a meteor.

I woke up this morning thinking "So it begins."

Migraine medicine musings

noreply@blogger.com (Cathy) — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:34:00 +0000

So I’ve been thinking this morning. Bear with me here, since this may be partially induced by the migraine medicine I took last night.

Typically, I go around and around, without landing anywhere, on the whole “government should do everything” push that we all seem to be engaged in.

There’s the side of me that’s so completely wedded to the American idea… freedom, liberty, creativity, courage, endless horizons, the primacy of the individual… I see it kind of like one great big amazing circus. The Greatest Show on Earth! Look at us go! This side is normally completely dominant. I love this feeling of the American character. I breathe it like air in the wide open country out West. It’s inspiring and life-affirming, to me.

Then there’s the other part of me that sees just how damned scary all of that is to so many people. A lot of people like to watch a circus, and live vicariously through the trapeze artists and lion tamers, but not a lot of people want to be the performers in the circus. Most of us just don’t have the guts. And really, there is nothing wrong with wanting a little safety in one’s life. I can empathize with that idea too.

My insight this morning is this: The problem I seem to have with the idea of turning responsibility for the circus over to the government so everyone can feel safer, is that it is just so damned Boring that way. Dull, dull, dull. Lacking in imagination. Rote. Repeated. Practiced so many times, there’s no new way to do it. Utterly and completely BORING.

If the government gets to have ultimate responsibility for, and by extension control of, everything… our finances, our health, our education, our jobs, our environment, our washing machine size and water usage, our toilet flushes, our light bulbs… then just how much is there left for any particular individual to give a shit about? If the government is responsible for ensuring “correct and fair” results for all our biggest acts in life, all our biggest decisions, all our charitable impulses, why bother dreaming outside the anthill?

Hasn’t this been done too many times to count, throughout history? I mean, yeah, we call it different names… Theocracy, Monarchy, Autocracy, Kleptocracy, Socialism, Fascism, Communism, Totalitarianism… yada, yada, yada. The age of the Greeks, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, the New World Order, the UN, the European Union… the Mongols, the Goths (the Visigoths! Whatever they were… Goths with vision?). The Cherokee, the Iroquois, the Sioux, the Miami. Everyone fighting everyone else for control of land and other people, in particular their own neighbors, who bug the hell out of them with their different ways and their different ideas. Others fighting to rid themselves of the need to make their own decisions while also controlling their neighbors because their neighbors make different decisions and might be more successful at life without the shackles of government on their ankles. What a complete lack of imagination this mindset takes. A bunch of crabs in a pot, pulling each other down so we can all get boiled together.

Basically, every governmental system we’ve tried ultimately ends up meaning that someone else is responsible for everything that matters. We had a chance to do it differently in the US, but we got scared with the Great Depression, and looked to government to save the day here too. And so the great march toward world-wide collectivism continued. With just a few hiccups here and there.

So I watch the passing of this American idea, and I think to myself, on the one hand “well, it is a country meant for the young-at-heart after all, and maybe the youth in this country really did mean to vote for collectivism. Maybe this is what they want. All money and all power and all choice in the hands of the government, which will then decide who is moral enough to get a share back, and whose ideas are not worth the time it takes to dismiss them. It’s not the America I dream about it, but maybe this dream isn’t meant for me any more.”

Then on the other hand I think: Do we really all have to be collectivists in this world, in order to come to an eventual agreement that this is getting really dull? How boring can a people get?

On Writing

noreply@blogger.com (Cathy) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:11:00 +0000

I wrote this in a letter to my sister-in-law:

As for the writing, I suspect this may not be easy to believe, but I'm not really interested in making money off my writing. I'm not really looking to sell anything.

Believe me, I've given this much thought and examined my nature in a great deal of detail where writing is concerned and the truth of the matter is that I know I am good. I'm an excellent writer. And I don't care if anyone else ever reads what I write.

I'm completely confident about my knowledge of myself on this issue, and I'll explain a little of it here, just so you can rest assured that I've indeed thought this through.

So, we start with the fact that I'm good at it. And I enjoy it when I do it. When do I do it? Well, when I have something I want to say. Or when I have some people talking in my head telling me a story.

That still doesn't mean that I want to sell what I write, though, it only means that I need to express what I need to express. I firmly believe that anyone else in the world who needs to read what I write will either a) find my blog and keep going back, reading into the history of it though the category links in the sidebar, or through random clicks on the "older posts" links or post titles, until they feel satisfied, or b) ask me a question.

From the fiction angle, I have realized that I hate writing the boring bits. I only enjoy writing the scenes that come to me in a flash, fully discussed by my characters, and surrounded by tantalizing glimpses of meaning. People don't buy books with only the interesting bits written though. Generally speaking, in this world, people prefer to buy a story that holds together coherently that they can read straight through from point A to point Z and not get lost wondering how in the hell we got to point 123 when we thought we were in the alphabet.

I don't think that way, for the most part. I don't even enjoy reading that way, truthfully. My reading points usually go in an order (and yes, I'm talking about reading fiction here) more like: AB Z C P D EF T GH R IJ U KL Y X MNO P(yes, again then my mind goes... oh am I close to R now? So...) R Q R V S T(again) U(again) V (again) W X (again) Y (again) Z (again) and possibly, if I've really enjoyed the end, another Y and Z.

My type of writing fiction, hating transitions as I do, and only enjoying the meaningful scenes, is better suited to the stage or screen, I think, and maybe one day I'll give that a shot, if I feel so inclined. But that does bring it back to "sell! or write for everyone else!" which I don't care if I do. I know that in most people's minds, when one has a gift for something, one also has a duty to share it with the world. Unfortunately for most people though, I don't share that belief. Or more accurately, my belief on that level is a bit more subtle. See, I do share it with the world, but on a very small scale, and not out of duty. I share it with people who through serendipity or luck happen to stumble across it or ask for it. I figure that what I'm inspired to put "out there" on my own impulse, will be the thing that some random someone, somewhere will want or need to read. If not, that's fine too. I'm just putting it out there for me, then. If I'm forcing it, or trying to make it bigger than it is, then I'm just being stubborn, going against my nature, and creating the perfect opportunity for me to give myself "writer's block" because I'm going against what I believe. And what I truly do believe is that we all, through serendipity, find or are offered exactly what we need when we need it.

Every time I write, whether in a letter (like this one to you), a blog post, a rant, a journal entry, or a fictional scene... it's all really me writing to me. The rest of the world, or even one single member of that tribe, may or may not have the opportunity to read it. I may or may not post it where they can see it, or "do something with it", but it doesn't matter to me. The energy that I put into it is for my own benefit and enjoyment. If I tell myself a fictional story, then I've told myself a great story... better than a lot of stories I've actually read, honestly. And generally speaking, that's enough for me. I do enjoy sharing the cool scenes though (like on my blog) just because I think they're cool and think someone else may find them cool too. Particularly my friends and family who read there.

And interestingly enough, all of this to you has been something that I've been meaning to say on my blog, but never got around to putting into words. So, thanks for offering me, through serendipity, the opportunity to do what I want to do. And... I'm going to post most of this letter to you, there.

So now you know.

When Pravda is taking you out to the woodshed for a spanking, you do have a problem.

noreply@blogger.com (Cathy) — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:59:00 +0000

And it's a fascinating spanking too, given the complete lack of delicacy and political correctness, as well as some of the overblown distortions of what America is like.

Here's the link, from back in April:

American capitalism gone with a whimper

Killer quote (from page 2):

The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

I would caution the world, though, in its temptation to snicker. It is certainly understandable that a lot of the world feels a very strong urge to gloat. But, I think Putin himself may be wondering (given his speech, linked below), if America follows the world into socialism, who exactly will be left to buy the world's products? Didn't someone once say "the trouble with socialism is that soon you run out of other people's money"?

If America is simply giving up the fight, joining the rest of the world's preferred economic template, (as well as the rest of the world's "someone should do something" whine about the world's hotspots), then what countries, exactly, will be the new engine of the world's economic machine, and the world's new policemen? I sure hope somebody is stepping up to the plate. Atlas is shrugging in a pretty big way over here. Hope the world has a plan for who's going to be the next big guy holding things up. Everyone's been griping long enough about America doing it. So, I guess you could say we quit. Europe should be thrilled.

Sounds like Putin hopes it will be Russia taking on the roles America is abandoning. I'll bet that's more than likely. A Russia/China partnership should be interesting for the world to watch. Hope Russia and China are also keen on keeping the peace and trying to help people living under totalitarians to be free. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

But if Putin, back in January, sounds more capitalistic than the American President, you know the world is turning upside down. It's truly mind-bending.

Putin's speech at the Davos World Economic Forum.

National Bankruptcy

noreply@blogger.com (Cathy) — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:41:00 +0000

Not the change we need.

And so... Tea Parties.

If you want to understand what happened...

noreply@blogger.com (Cathy) — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 23:17:00 +0000

You've got to watch this video. It is long, for sure. But it's an amazingly cogent and comprehensive explanation of how this whole depression/recession thing got going and what can help. You need an hour and a half. But it is really time well-spent.

Mysticism, Logic, Yin, Yang, and Fanaticism

noreply@blogger.com (Cathy) — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:38:00 +0000

Patrick has this poster in his room.

There are times when I'm reading something, exploring ideas, and the imagery of this poster pops into my head for the duration. This is a primal symbolic key... it is always relevant. It's actually the basis for how I approach pretty much any new idea.

Yin and Yang. Dark, Light. Female, Male.

Mysticism, Logic.

I was delighted today to come across this bit of writing from Gilbert Magazine. (I found the link in a comment discussion at the Gates of Vienna blog.)

This article is timely in so many ways. Not the least of which is that it brings up Tolstoy, which is connected again to Patrick, and to the whole "all things Russian" interest that we've got going around here. I haven't talked about that here on the blog, but it's been in the background for a while now since Patrick's taking Russian at IU.

Anyway. A couple of relevant bits of the article on Fanaticism, linked above (God, I Love this!):

“Fanaticism has nothing at all to do with religion,” Chesterton affirms. The origins of fanaticism lie elsewhere and neither science nor politics nor academia is immune from it. Tolstoy was no doubt a genius. He had great faith. He lacked only one thing. “He is not a mystic and therefore he has a tendency to go mad.”

This passage recalls Chesterton's discussion of the maniac in Orthodoxy. The maniac is not a man with many ideas that tend to balance each other off in common sense. Rather he is a man with one idea according to which he sees all else in a distorted light. Tolstoy “is not a mystic; and therefore he has a tendency to go mad. Men talk of the extravagances and frenzies that have been produced by mysticism; they are a mere drop in the bucket. In the main, and from the beginning of time, mysticism has kept men sane.” It is the mystic who is open to all things, even if they seem at first not to make sense.

And then:

Chesterton comes to his main point. “The thing that has driven them mad was logic.” The poets were less likely to go insane than the scientists—the “mad scientist” is a well-known character, in fact. Tolstoy was deficient in poetry. “The only thing that kept the race of men from the mad extremes of the convent and the pirate-galley, the night-club and the lethal chamber, has been mysticism—the belief that logic is misleading, and that things are not what they seem.”

You've got to read the whole thing. Let it seep into your consciousness through the mystical senses. Maybe it's just me, but this article feels steeped in so much more. You could say it is much more than it seems.

Yin and Yang are both necessary, I think. Mysticism coupled with Logic.

It will take courage for a committed Obama voter to pay attention to this.

noreply@blogger.com (Cathy) — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:04:00 +0000

Obama voters need to ask themselves if they really believe in the philosophy that they've committed themselves to voting for. The case will take about 6 minutes to make.

4 and 1/4 minutes on Youtube, and probably less than 2 minutes to read. Suggestion: Choose to read, if you've only got time for one or the other.

If a person can't put aside his or her own automatic responses for 6 minutes to look at a philosophy objectively, I'd just have to suggest that maybe that person should do the rest of us a favor by not voting.

If a potential Obama voter can look at the philosophy objectively, find it not to his or her liking, but can't stomach voting for McCain... there are third party candidates out there. Maybe considering voting for one of them would be more palatable.

I guess to a socialist, running the economy into the ground looks good.

noreply@blogger.com (Cathy) — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:18:00 +0000

I've always questioned the wisdom of counting on the current "rules" to last beyond the government's whim and appetite.

Chilling:

Democrats to kill 401(k)s for … privatized Social Security?

Of course, reading through that and the article linked here:

House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax Breaks

... it becomes very clear that what they're talking about is not "privatizing Social Security" since there is no actual proposal anywhere to do anything with the great ponzi scheme known as Social Security, other than to increase mandatory contributions by another 5%. No, what they're talking about is making a governmental grab at money that is currently tax-deferred, to increase government revenue now, to pretend that they can paper over the fact that the "Social Security Trust Fund" is nothing but a cardboard box filled with IOU's.

Basically, if you've had the foresight to realize that you weren't born soon enough to get anything at all from Social Security, and you knew that your generation is actually going to be the one left without a chair in the generational game of musical chairs... if that's you... and you decided to buy into the promises of government by investing in a 401-k... well, sorry. The rules are going to get changed on you mid-stream, sucker. It's just not fair you know, for you to have all that money where the government can't tax it right now when we need it so badly.

This bit from the second article just makes me sick:

“The savings rate isn’t going up for the investment of $80 billion,” he said. “We have to start to think about ... whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that’s not generating what we now say it should.”

That's the House Education and Labor Committee Chairman, Democrat, George Miller. Talking not about any investment the government has made, mind you, but about the deferred tax payments on individual contributions and company matches to individual 401-k accounts. Individual investments. $80 billion in taxes not collected now, but deferred until the time the withdrawals begin.

The bit on mandatory contribution increases is in the same article, here:

Under Ghilarducci’s plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.

Now, call me cynical, but I'd be willing to bet that the "guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration" is kind of what people thought they were buying into when the monster was created in the first place back in the days of FDR. Fool me once, shame on you. Twice?

Do they really think anyone is going to believe this again? Yeah... I think they do. And they're probably right.

Just makes me want to weep for this country.

I lost my mind last night, but it came back.

noreply@blogger.com (Cathy) — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 17:59:00 +0000

It was a tough night for me last night. Sometimes, I just look too far into the mists of time, and the energy "out there" overwhelms me. It's the uncertainty that does it. If I knew exactly where the pivot comes, where the path splits, when it occurs... if I could pinpoint that moment reality will no longer be considered optional, I could stay with the generally relaxed and philosophical position I ordinarily inhabit, as it relates to the vagaries of direction of mass events. (Which is to say that on a personal level, some would not define me as "relaxed" though I certainly handle drama fairly well. I'm not exactly a greatly soothing presence for some people. Others, yes... but... well, this tangent seems to lead to a completely different post, I suppose.)

Usually, I can stand back far enough that looking at the big picture is fairly easy for me. Times like last night undo a lot of centeredness, though, and I feel like I've been tossed by a massive wave of emotion. Then I just can't contain it. It's got to come out somewhere. Unfortunately, it happens so late at night that there isn't much I can do to make it easier. Calling someone is not an option... since waking people up in the middle of the night to have a mini-freakout is usually considered rude.

So, Mike got to be the witness. He had no words, really, but at the end of the freakout he did come out with the one thing I needed to hear. "It's all going to be all right." Then I reached for sleep and Thomas Jefferson. Let his spirit hold me, also murmuring "it's going to be all right."

Taking my comfort where I could get it, I at least was able to sleep. Dreamed interesting dreams of redecorating a house... lovely, really... I wish I could draw... then a good friend moving, and the thought that maybe I should move too, to remain close. The dreams were related to changes of realities, too, but not in a freak-out way.

I think that if I knew for certain that we don't, as a nation, really plan to dive off the cliff before we try to reverse course and decide to go back to accepting that reality is real, I'd feel more confident in our ability to weather the outcome of our follies.

Sometimes I just bite off more despair than I can chew.

I'm on my way back to centeredness, though.

One thing is certain: The financial mess is going to lead to bureaucracy

noreply@blogger.com (Cathy) — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:07:00 +0000

Depressing stuff. A snippet:

As to what can be done, it may not matter. That is, it's important what we do, but the chance that it will be done sanely and rationally is very small. What will be done must be decided by the most unpopular Administration in nearly a century in connection with the most unpopular Congress in history; and everyone involved in finding a remedy was in one way or another a part of creating the mess. By everyone, I mean everyone: the Administration, the Treasury, the Congress under Carter and Clinton, Congress under Reagan and Bush, Congress controlled by both Democrats and Republicans, the regulatory agencies, and the "experts" now out of jobs who will be hired to manage the new institutions that will be set up to buy bad debts: every one of them. What will be done will be settled by politics, not by economics.

I say this because those who did foresee this disaster tried repeatedly to rein in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but the Fred and Fan lobbyists were easily able to defeat those efforts. Moreover the leaders of Fred and Fan were fired, but left with multi-million dollar bonuses, as did the leaders of various firms ruined in the disaster. The remedies being proposed aren't going to do much more than create a bureaucracy. Once that happens, Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy will take over, and whatever is required to keep that bureaucracy healthy will be done. One thing is certain: the people who must pay for this debacle will largely be those who took out sensible loans and have kept up their mortgage payments; those who did nothing wrong, but will be handed the bill.

Read the whole thing.

A cogent analysis of where the Fed stands now

noreply@blogger.com (Cathy) — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 02:50:00 +0000

Welcome to History. Threading this needle is going to be a real trick.

Exactly!

noreply@blogger.com (Cathy) — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 02:43:00 +0000

Hear, hear! Hope McCain's people read the Wall Street Journal:

Yes, the Obama campaign is trying to hang the Bush presidency around his neck. Mr. McCain knows -- and should give -- the answer to that: Voter disgust with Washington goes far beyond George W. Bush.
In the 2006 off-year election, voters threw out the Republican bums and turned over control of Congress to the Democrats. In an odd thank-you, the Democratic Congress earned the lowest approval ratings ever recorded in opinion polls.

Explain: Lehman, AIG, Fannie, Freddie and Bear

noreply@blogger.com (Cathy) — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 02:43:00 +0000

Yeah, everyone is confused. So it's quite a breath of fresh air to see this explanation, putting things in layman's terms.

Several commenters seem to think that something on this scale only takes 8 years to unravel though.

(via Althouse)

Fannie and Freddie "invest" in lawmakers

noreply@blogger.com (Cathy) — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 02:43:00 +0000

A 1989-2008 list is here. I'm disappointed to see both my senators and my representative on the list. They are: Evan Bayh (#28, with $ 41,100), Richard Lugar (lost count, he's down a ways at $ 4,500), and Baron Hill (also down a ways, with $5,000).

Sheesh.

noreply@blogger.com (Cathy) — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:55:00 +0000

So not only do Obama and Biden think it is a good idea for an incoming administration to scour the decisions of an out-going administration, effectively making policy disagreements into criminal offenses:

Looking to the future but with one eye on the past, Biden also promised that an Obama-Biden government would go through Bush administration data with "a fine-toothed comb" and pursue criminal charges if necessary.

But, also, Obama seems to think it's a good idea for potential office-holders to undermine current office-holders when it comes to decisions that are the direct responsibility of the President.

In a long interview with the pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, Zebari says: "Obama asked me why, in view of the closeness of a change of administration, we were hurrying the signing of this special agreement, and why we did not wait until the coming of the new administration next year and agree on some issues and matters."

Jeez. I'm betting he wouldn't take too kindly to a future Republican opponent undermining him this way, if he should succeed in becoming the next president. Seems to me that if this behavior is now going to be viewed as "ok", there is great potential for creating chaos and hobbling any future president's ability to follow his own advisers and intelligence. Talk about unravelling the fabric of our Constitutional system.

And of course, the so-called "mainstream media" is AWOL. Any guesses on why that might be? Yeah, Dan Calabrese is guessing.

Further illustration

noreply@blogger.com (Cathy) — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:13:00 +0000

This goes to the point that economically, Presidents can propose, then sign or veto, as well as appointing heads of certain departments... but only have any power if Congress goes along with them.

The credit crisis and the lack of oversight over government-subsidized lenders like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac occurred on the watch of George Bush, and many blame his economic team for their lack of oversight in the collapse. Barack Obama has made this point one of his major campaign themes, arguing that John McCain would provide more of the same failures that Bush did. However, what many do not recall is that Bush wanted to tighten oversight with a new regulatory board for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other government recipients for the express purpose of addressing bad loan practices — and Democrats blocked it.

Read the whole thing.

This is why it is so critically important to have a president who can communicate clearly to the American people. President Bush's greatest failing, in my view, is that he has never been convincing enough, or articulate enough, to actually explain what he has been trying to accomplish in any field. He has left it to the media to explain for him. And the mainstream press hasn't been interested in actually doing their jobs, but have preferred to be advocates for their own agendas.

I think Ronald Reagan's greatest strength was his ability to do an end-run around the media to talk directly to the American people. When we knew what he was trying to do, it was really easy to harass Congress to get with the program.

Voting the congressional bums out... all of them... and having a President who talks directly to the people to get his agenda accomplished, by specifically spelling it out and naming names, is critical.

I wish one of the candidates would address the issue of congressional corruption rather than harping on Wall Street. If anyone can really be fingered with the "greed" label, I'd say it's congress.

But I'm not hearing that from either McCain or Obama. Obama wants to keep the Dems in power so he can get all his massive programs enacted easily. McCain... who knows what his problem is?... I don't know why he thinks Wall Street is the big culprit here. Maybe he's afraid to piss off Congress too much, figuring he's going to have to try to work with them, either way, after the election.

Disappointing.

Partial Correction

noreply@blogger.com (Cathy) — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:49:00 +0000

In my ranting mood yesterday, I didn't take into consideration that the heads of Freddie and Fannie and the Fed are political appointees.

Guess who brought in the politicos responsible for this huge meltdown, though. Yeah. Clinton. My point about Congress holding the purse strings still stands. It's just that with the cronyism involved the whole "checks and balances" thing has really taken a back seat to the fun of lining congressional pockets and being bought off to look the other way. And clearly President Bush has not been much help to the taxpayers when it comes to cleaning house. I somehow doubt Obama would be any better at reforming this crap either, given his connections and the fact that he's been second in line for the payouts.

I'm sorry for the rant yesterday. The basic point is true. The president has very little control over the economy. But he does have some ability to put decent people in charge of some important agencies.

Mea culpa.

UPDATE: Adding this link to my previous post, and this link to the post that references comment moderation.

Will Someone Please TELL Them

noreply@blogger.com (Cathy) — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:14:00 +0000

That in this country, spending is controlled by the Congress. You know those guys... the SENATORS and House Members who write the budgets for the President to either sign or veto!

I am so sick of seeing things like this in the news, and coming from candidates who really should know better, given that three quarters of the ones running for the offices of President and Vice President happen to be current Senators.

Maybe Obama has got an excuse, since he's hardly ever there, doing his job and doesn't know what he'd actually be responsible for if he wins... but what about McCain and Biden? (Biden should educate Obama on this matter in a hurry, since he (Biden) won't actually be responsible for anything much if he gets elected.) Shouldn't they know that all the President will get to do financially, after winning election and being sworn in, is propose programs and hopeful budgets, and possibly, maybe, if Congress is feeling friendly, get them enacted? Congress is responsible for writing the budgets, the new programs, the bailouts and the laws.

Or the President can Veto until the CongressCritturs come back with a more reasonable budget, program, bailout, or law.

That's it. That is the scope of Presidential power where the economy is concerned. Propose, Sign or Veto. Not a lot there.

So, if the media or the candidates or the voters are unhappy with spending, let them look at Congress. Vote those bums out. Which financial problems do you want to address? Look at Congress for the answer to the question of where the problem lies. Bailouts of the big guys? Thank Congress. (Many members also happen to be the Big Guys getting bailed out.) Taxes? Wasteful spending? Thank Congress. Earmarks? Thank Congress.

The only thing anyone can blame Bush for financially is that he didn't Veto any of the ridiculous and wasteful stupid-ass programs that Congress put on his desk. Yes, he proposed some of them. They wouldn't have happened without Congressional assent. No Child Left Behind? President Bush would have been singing alone on that one, with no power to enact it if Congress had never presented the bill for him to sign.

The state of education in this country is sorely lacking still. Especially education about the functions of the branches of the American Government, apparently.

The bums that really need to be thrown out reside in Congress. Oh, wait. We did that two years ago on one side of the aisle. Did it help? Nope... it got worse. No surprise there. Now the congressional approval ratings are lower than President Bush's.

What we need is a president who will Veto spending... Left, Right and Center... until the rats in Congress get a clue and pass a budget that doesn't hand out favors to everyone's brother.

Ok. I'm done ranting for now.

Palin's so-called "Troopergate"

noreply@blogger.com (Cathy) — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 02:58:00 +0000

And the hits just keep on coming.

Obama Partisan Tampers with Palin Subpoena List

The actual time-line, with tons of links:

Palin’s Trooper’Gate: Beating MSM distortions to the truth

This stuff has got to get out to the average non-blogging voter. Chicago style politics is a big problem, and the media seems to be completely in the tank.

When is the mainstream press going to pick up this ball?

noreply@blogger.com (Cathy) — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 02:02:00 +0000

Right. That would be "never."

At any rate, the Obama-Ayers connection needs some serious investigation.

See:

Inside Obama’s Acorn

Then:

Chicago Annenberg Challenge Shutdown?

And finally:

Obama and the Annenberg Files: The Mystery Deepens

The unedited interview

noreply@blogger.com (Cathy) — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:48:00 +0000

So Charlie Gibson threw objectivity out the window too. I guess he had to, with so much at stake for the press, hmm? They'd already decided that Governor Palin is "unqualified" so they needed those choppy edits.

Disgusting.

Well, now we know.

noreply@blogger.com (Cathy) — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 22:25:00 +0000

Seems the world would prefer to cast our votes for us. This from BBC news: "Obama win preferred in world poll." I kind of wondered, when I saw that a couple of days ago, if the "world" really gets how... well... contrary we can be in this country.

Then I saw this, today: "Barack Obama the speechmaker is being rumbled." Apparently some reporters across the pond do actually "get it." Good to see, now and then.

This needs wider circulation

noreply@blogger.com (Cathy) — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 05:27:00 +0000

I've stayed up much too late tonight reading on the blogosphere, and came upon this link in a comment thread. The film is called "We Will Not Be Silenced" and it is about voter fraud in the Democratic primary this year. Pretty damning stuff. I've really learned to respect Hillary much more than I ever thought I would this year, given the garbage that's been thrown at her. I wouldn't have voted for her in the General Election, but I wasn't going to fret if she won either. I figured her more leftward leaning tendencies would be moderated by the realities of seeking a consensus. I do think it's pretty likely she was robbed of the chance to find out if she could make it to the top though.

Anyway... if you've got an open mind, look at those first four parts of the video, on that page, and see if the behavior chronicled seems right to you.

And since this is posted on my blog, and I consider it my own personal space to air my own personal views, I'll just say this. I have no problem with deleting trollish comments unceremoniously. I've turned on comment moderation, so if anyone wants to spew venomous stuff, it won't see the light of day here. There are plenty of other places for nastiness on the internet. If that makes me a censoring dictator, I'm ok with it.