Category: Opinions (Page 8 of 11)

I was reading the letters, in response to Alex Koppelman’s commentary on the Stewart-Cramer interview. For those living under a rock, Jon Stewart, the host of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, accused CNBC’s – a cable financial news network – of knowingly deceiving the public about the nature of the “bubble”. Cramer, one of the hosts, took offense to that, going after Stewart on all sorts of programs – and Stewart kept getting the best of him. For some unexplainable reason, Cramer agreed to go on the Daily Show for an interview with Stewart, and Stewart massacred him once again. What can I say? He’s a very intelligent man, who does his homework and seems to have his heart in the right place.
But I am not interested in writing about the interview here – I’m sure the blogosphere is overflowing of postings about that interview – but about the “bubble”. Now, if you know me, you know that I’m completely ignorant about finance. I don’t have two-cents to my name, so I’ve never had to think about how to invest money. I also don’t have cable, so before the Daily Show bit I’d never even heard of that Cramer guy. Hey, I’m not sure if I’d heard about CNBC.
But what I did hear, somewhere circa 2002 or 2003, was that the Fed (aka Greenspan) had decided to respond to the bursting of the internet bubble, with such low interest rates as to create a housing bubble. That bubble, of course, could not be sustainable and would burst bringing down the economy with it. That opinion piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal – and I’m pretty sure that I was not the only person to read it and remember it throughout in the last 5-7 years. I mention this because one of the letter writers mentioned above, as well as many other commentators, have said over and over that the nobody knew we were in a bubble – which clearly is crap. People may not have wanted to believe we were in a bubble – but they knew.
A few minutes ago, I went hunting for that WSJ article – given that I have no idea when it was published, it is not an easy task. But while looking for it, I came across this 2005 article at the website of the Cato Institute, titled “No Housing Bubble Trouble”. That someone at that institution would argue that point is not surprising – after all, these are the people who scammed us all (well, at least those of you who own(ed) something). But what is interesting is that the article is responding to the “economic pessimists” who warn that “the ‘housing bubble’ [is] about to burst, with a supposedly devastating impact on household wealth.” Among those pessimist the author mentions Ed Leamer of University of California-Los Angeles and Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley. The author also takes to task the July 2, 2002, Wall Street Journal editorial (perhaps the one I read) which worried that “homebuyers are resorting to greater levels of mortgage debt”. Hmmm.
Another google hit took me to this 2005 Los Angeles Times article titled “It’s Not a Bubble Until It Bursts”, which basically says that both economists and regular people knew there was a housing bubble, they just didn’t know when it’d burst, so the idea was to get in the game and make money until then.
So, I’m sorry, I don’t believe for a second that the best minds in finance in this country did not realize we were in a housing bubble. Now, they may have not known in the intricacies of derivatives and what-have-you, but they knew that our economy was resting on feet of mud – and that everything would come down once the housing bubble burst, and that, of course, it would burst.

Apparently Mormons are now up on arms because the HBO series “Big Love” (about a Mormon polygamist family living in SLC) will depict one of their “sacred” ceremonies in its next episode (read about it here – the Church statement is here). It’s hard to feel bad about their sensibilities. The Mormon Church is one the most intolerant institutions in the world. Until recently, they did not accept blacks into the Church – saying literally

‘No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood’ (Brigham Young). It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same.

In the Mormon Church, all men are considered priests – so there is no such a thing for a man as being Mormon without holding the priesthood. Only in the 1970’s, when the IRS threatened to deny them their tax-free status, did the Mormon church start accepting blacks as members.
The Church has also shown its desire to meddle with the private lives and religious beliefs of others by, on the one hand, baptizing as Mormons people who have died (including the Jewish victims of the holocaust), and on the other putting tons of money into Proposition 8 – the California initiative that banned gay marriage. They want to literally get in your bed to judge whom you should sleep with – but they don’t want their rites exposed to the world. Well, too bad.
The rites, real or imagined, of the Catholic religion have been the object of movies and TV programs for ages. As far as I know, Catholics have not protested about this specific aspect. But then again, Catholics, unlike Mormons, are pretty open about the tenets of their faith. I’ve spent quite a lot of time talking to Mormons who tried to convert me – and never once did they mention their belief that if men (never women) were pious and good enough, they would become gods and be given their own planets to rule over. No wonder they don’t want people to know about this. In that they remind me of Scientologists, with their wacky beliefs on Xenu (BTW, you can vote for Xenu to be the name of the new International Space Station’s Node 3 at http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/name_ISS/)

I just read an interesting opinion piece (by UCLA professor Saree Makdisi) on what’s behind Israel’s attack on Gaza – in which 6,000 civilians were killed or injured, a third of them children. According to Makdisi:

Clearly, the aim of the bombardment of Gaza wasn’t to extirpate this population. But it was intended to pound them, and all other Palestinians, into submission, to make them give up their call for self-determination and justice. It was intended to extirpate them in a symbolic sense — a kind of politicide, to use the term coined by the Israeli sociologist Baruch Kimmerling.

Like it or not, Israel is doomed. Palestinian Muslims – both within and outside Israel’s borders – reproduce at a much higher rate than Jews (and even Christians). While Arabs now constitute less than 20% of Israel’s population, their higher birth rate means that they will become a majority in Israel between 2035 and 2048. Israel has failed to integrate its Palestinian citizens into the political and social life of the country and in many ways treats them as de facto second class citizens. That’s not surprising, given that Israel defines itself as a Jewish state, but it’s dangerous, because by further marginalizing its Palestinian population, it encourages it to self-identify more and more strongly with their repressed brethren in Gaza and Palestine.
If we assume that Israelis are not stupid (and I think there is no reason to assume that they are), then it has to be apparent to them that the real danger to the Israeli state is its growing Arab Muslim population and not the antics of Hamas. While, according to Israeli figures, about 35 people were killed in terrorist attacks in 2008 – only 4 or 5 of them died from Hamas’ mortars before the Israelis attacked Gaza. Only a handful more were injured. In other words, Israelis have more to fear from dog bites and lightning strikes than they do from Hamas rockets. So why go to war, and risk more Israelis dying, for the possibility of saving 5 lives a year?
Well, I think the only logical reason is that they want to intimidate the Palestinian population – both within and outside Israel – into submission. Really, this is not so different from the tactics used by the Argentinian junta and other repressive regimes throughout the world: take a few terrorist attacks as an excuse to terrorize the whole population. “First we’ll kill all the subversives. Then we’ll kill the collaborators. Then the sympathizers. Then the undecided. Finally, we’ll kill the indifferent” said a a high-ranking Argentine military man during the “dirty war”. Israel has taken the same tactic – only that it’s killing them all at once.
What the Israeli government is doing, is showing that it’d have no reservations about committing crimes against humanity if that, in any way whatsoever, behooves it. And that it will do so with complete impunity. Finally, it’s showing that the United States will stand by it, no matter how grave and disproportionate its actions are. Yes, it’s saying, Israel can do anything, including committing genocide (because that’s the silent threat which comes with killing & injuring hundreds of Palestinian civilians), without the world, and in particular the United States, batting an eye. And if they don’t bat it for the Palestinian population outside Israel’s borders, why would it care about the Palestinian population within its borders? It’s easy enough for the government to invent some threat from them to justify any repression – and nobody will care. So let them heed this message.

I’m crying, or at least tearing up. I, who almost didn’t vote for Obama (because of the FISA bill – California is a “safe” democratic state, so I considered voting for Nader). But I’m crying because, not to be corny, I finally have faith, hope, that America is a country I could be proud of. A country that has finally been able to transcend race, where the possibilities might finally exists for *anyone* (perhaps even a 10-year old Muslim boy somewhere in the Midwest) to one day become President.
Given the incredibly nasty, fear mongering, disgusting campaign that McCain (and Palin, let’s not forget her) ran – it wasn’t clear to me that that was possible. And still, almost 50% of the country voted for a ticket that represented that fear and that hate. But the majority didn’t – which tell me that we are finally moving in the right direction.
I’m also thrilled that so many young people put so much of themselves into the Obama campaign. Young people tend to be idealistic (and Obama really presented hope) and active – so perhaps there shouldn’t be much of a surprise. But what matters is that these young people represent a new generation of Americans that may very well be color blind. Today we cherish the fact that a black man could become president of the US. Perhaps 20 or 30 years from now, we won’t think anything of it. Our kids won’t understand what the big deal was.
It was easy for me, ultimately and despite Obama’s vote on the FISA bill, to vote for Obama. No, I haven’t read his books and I haven’t listened to many of his speeches – but what I’ve heard made me think that Obama was one of us. A generation of people who received a liberal education (in the actual sense of the word) in massive numbers, and who share a core set of principles: a belief on liberty (again, despite the FISA bill), on equality, on the fraternity of man. Yes, those beliefs that inspired the American constitution and the French revolution. The beliefs and ideals on which this country was founded and that once made it lead the world, not by force, but by example. Who knows? Perhaps I’m optimistic. Perhaps I’m thinking of a liberal elite, from my safe haven in the Bay Area. I wish to think that my generation will change America.
Locally, I am just as ecstatic that the three candidates I supported for local office also won. I had no doubt that Morgan Mack-Rose would win. All in all, she was the perfect candidate, but also a safe candidate: a college educated mom, PTA president, with an in-depth knowledge of both education and the shortcomings of our school district. But I wondered if Ursula Reed, our black candidate, could beat Linda Perry, a white woman and native of San Leandro who has been involved in local politics forever. San Leandro, after all, was until the ’70’s, an enclave of white racism. Blacks and other minorities were not allowed to live in town (see The Suburban Wall, a TV magazine segment about San Leandro), and were hassled by police when they crossed the border from Oakland. We’ve had two black city council members before, but they had to be appointed. This is the first time that a black political novice wins an election – and she did it without the support of the political establishment.
I’m equally happy – and amazed – that Hermy Almonte won a seat in the School Board, against a well known white incumbent. Hermy is a Filipino immigrant, with an accent as thick as mine. Even though San Leandro has a population that is at least 25% foreign-born, I really doubted that a person of color that wasn’t born here could get the support of the electorate. I was wrong – and I’m thrilled that I was wrong. Not just because Hermy is going to be a great School Board member – he’s smart, thoughtful and actually cares about improving education in San Leandro (imagine that), but because I was wrong on my assumptions. San Leandro has changed, it is now a much more inclusive city. I can be proud not only to be an American, but a San Leandran.