http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/opinion-report-glass-steagall/
If you are a regular reader of this blog you will know that a quasi-regular title to posts is WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?!? and today I am announcing the start of a new quasi-regular post SOMETHINGS I DO NOT UNDERSTAND. Thus today you are going to get a twofer.
There are plenty of things about the banking industry I do not understand. One of these is the hullabaloe around the purposed reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Banking Act. Here is what I understand
The act was passed during the Great Depression as a mean to separate financial banks from public banks. Such measure would prevent the waves of panic that swept through the banking industry from totally engulfing the private sector. (A brief aside: The U.S market is a mixture of the Free and Command Economy- just the public is allowed to follow the whims of the free market, while the Government controls and regulates the financial institutions that operate the markets) In the late 90's and early 00's, Republicans forced the repeal of the act, thus binding the two sectors together. These de-regulations (a favorite term of Republicans) in-turn led to the complex schemes which caused the financial melt down. What I am failing to understand, and what I assume is wrong with this picture is that now, with talk of bringing back the Act becoming a buzz, is why Republicans are opposed to the measure.
Understandably the Republicans want nothing more than to keep the act of the books because it would mean they were wrong in repealing it in the first place. Admitting they are wrong is something Republicans do very well, but it is for the good of the country. Dare our elected officials do anything to benefit the country. Such a naive thought! There is however a benefit to the Republicans getting on board to bring back the law. What could possibly be good about bring back a law that your party repealed? Two words: Political Capital.
If the Republicans were to bring back the Glass-Steagall Act, they could claim that they were the party that fixed the economy. Republicans want nothing more to be the party that "Saved The World." So why would they not seek measure to bring the act back? It is good for the country and good for the party. Yes it means more regulations but it also means the market is allowed to operate as it freely as it wished. Yes another of the Republican wet-dreams.
I may not be the quickest mind in the banking world, but when I see a good deal I try to take it. Even though any Republican that votes for the reinstatement of the bill will take his philosophical lumps, he will have all the more political capitol when they stand for re-election as "someone who cares about main street." Maybe I am wrong and I don't understand fully the implications of what I am suggesting, but then again there is something that seems wrong about this picture
Friday, July 27, 2012
Thursday, July 26, 2012
I Couldn't Help Myself
Things have gotten somewhat heavy here at FTPM lately, so I thought I would post about a survey on Facebook from my hometown news source. The question was (to some effect): How do you avoid being struck by lighting? I read all..I mean all...of the responses. They ranged from answers like "I stay inside and stay away from water." to " I pray to my Lord Jesus Christ that I don't get hit until the storm passes." to" I lay flat of the floor and take a nap until the storm passes...and I pray while I'm there." Oh the power of social media folks.
My first thought was that folks actually took that survey seriously?!? There were 60+ responses that read, "get inside" and nearly half had "stay away from water." As I read it I could not help but think of the person who sees that questions and thinks "What do I do to avoid being struck by lighting?" That person would then read all the posts and in their mind, hopefully, formulate the idea that if they stay inside, they won't be struck by lighting. I am afraid, however, that they might get confused about the staying away from water, and the laying down parts. I guess if a bunch of folks get struck by lighting while laying down near water, we'll know it didn't work and the news will have a hot story. The problem there is, they'll turn it into some kind of cult thing.
The best post, or shall I say the post that was the most different was to go where the lighting stuck and stay there. This operated under the precept that lighting never strikes twice in the same place. Sound reasoning. Even surrounded by "I go inside" and "I look like an idiot at work while I lay in the floor praying til the storm passes" this seemed like a monkey speaking Chinese, so I decided to impart my family's secret way of not being struck by lighting. Here is what I posted.
"I don't know about the rest of these folks but I crab a golf club and run around like a mad man. Lighting might be fast but if I run really fast and change directions a lot, it won't get me. Even with the metal golf club I'm safe, because a) I'm running around and b) the golf club has a rubber grip on it. Golfers get stuck because they're standing still or not moving very fast if they are moving. The keys are to move as fast as you can, and change directions"
My first thought was that folks actually took that survey seriously?!? There were 60+ responses that read, "get inside" and nearly half had "stay away from water." As I read it I could not help but think of the person who sees that questions and thinks "What do I do to avoid being struck by lighting?" That person would then read all the posts and in their mind, hopefully, formulate the idea that if they stay inside, they won't be struck by lighting. I am afraid, however, that they might get confused about the staying away from water, and the laying down parts. I guess if a bunch of folks get struck by lighting while laying down near water, we'll know it didn't work and the news will have a hot story. The problem there is, they'll turn it into some kind of cult thing.
The best post, or shall I say the post that was the most different was to go where the lighting stuck and stay there. This operated under the precept that lighting never strikes twice in the same place. Sound reasoning. Even surrounded by "I go inside" and "I look like an idiot at work while I lay in the floor praying til the storm passes" this seemed like a monkey speaking Chinese, so I decided to impart my family's secret way of not being struck by lighting. Here is what I posted.
"I don't know about the rest of these folks but I crab a golf club and run around like a mad man. Lighting might be fast but if I run really fast and change directions a lot, it won't get me. Even with the metal golf club I'm safe, because a) I'm running around and b) the golf club has a rubber grip on it. Golfers get stuck because they're standing still or not moving very fast if they are moving. The keys are to move as fast as you can, and change directions"
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
An Unfortunate Class Of Heroes Has Been Created
http://kitup.military.com/2012/07/regarding-an-armed-citizenry.html
Amendment Two of the United States Constitution states that we shall right to bare arms and keep those guns for an active militia. I have no problems with an armed citizenry, nor do I have a problem with guns, but that is where I stop. While an armed citizenry (as shown in the article) stops shootings far sooner, there begs the question of the chicken and the egg. With tougher purchasing laws on record, would guns be needed to stop a crazy person from shooting into a crowd. Would the heroes listed in the article (not to detract from the hero status) be heroes if the gunman had not started shooting? No. These senseless acts carried out by those who have no good business owning a gun have created an unfortunate class of heroes. I find guns to be a necessity in America for hunting or sport shooting, but the ease of which the criminally insane can obtain a weapon serious a problem.
While guns are effective tools in the hands of someone trained in their use, they are deadly in the hands of someone who means harm. Having been around those who use guns as a tool, and those who mean harm, I am still more afraid of those who intend to ill will, but it is a close second for those who use them as tools. Take for example my friend M (I even changed his initial for anonymity. M is a competent gun owner who has the proper carry permits, several extensive gun classes, and time in law enforcement. Even with the weapons training M has gone through, I still worry that his gun maybe used in an over zealous manner should an event take place. With adrenaline pumping and the excitement of a shooting clouding judgment, it would be easy for someone who is armed to hurt a bystander or someone trying to help. Even the the fog of excitement, the most trained of people make mistakes.
On the other hand I have been around those who use guns for destruction. My case for this side of the coin is J (again changed for anonymity). J owned a massive amount of guns, only a few of which were registered and lacked proper training in the use of the guns. He had no experience in law enforcement or the military. J eventually used a tactical shot gun to kill himself on the front porch of his former place of business. J had suffered from documented mental psychosis and when the weapon was recovered it was noted that he had fully loaded the magazine of the shotgun. His ultimate intentions were to harm himself, but the investigating police determined he could have easily decide to harm those in the place of business. J (carrying the shotgun in a dufflebag) walked among pedestrians on the street, took a bus, and spied on those in the business as they work. All of this went undetected and his intention were not made clear until the fatal shot was fired.
Understandably M is the safer gun owner of the two. J's incident was however more common than anything M might face. Research shows that death by an armed psychotic person outnumbers those shoot by good Samaritans, but neither are pleasant options With stricter laws in place that limit the sale of guns, we might limit the types and numbers of gun that end up in the hands of those who wish ill on others. It is simply too easy for anyone to buy a weapon in this country. Taking the Colorado shooter (who was a broke college student), and M (who owned a disproportional amount of weapons) as examples, it should be clear to anyone that a call for stricter laws on the purchase of guns must go up. By no means am I petitioning for a limit of certain types of guns, or the number of guns, just the placement of limitations on who buys guns. A full background check should be required on ALL guns bought in the United State, including those purchased at gun shows and flea markets. Should these constraints be in place, we will not have to deal with the horrific cases like those listed in the article, J, or the Colorado shooter and with any luck, those who have become heroes for stopping a shooting might become heroes for something more peaceful.
Amendment Two of the United States Constitution states that we shall right to bare arms and keep those guns for an active militia. I have no problems with an armed citizenry, nor do I have a problem with guns, but that is where I stop. While an armed citizenry (as shown in the article) stops shootings far sooner, there begs the question of the chicken and the egg. With tougher purchasing laws on record, would guns be needed to stop a crazy person from shooting into a crowd. Would the heroes listed in the article (not to detract from the hero status) be heroes if the gunman had not started shooting? No. These senseless acts carried out by those who have no good business owning a gun have created an unfortunate class of heroes. I find guns to be a necessity in America for hunting or sport shooting, but the ease of which the criminally insane can obtain a weapon serious a problem.
While guns are effective tools in the hands of someone trained in their use, they are deadly in the hands of someone who means harm. Having been around those who use guns as a tool, and those who mean harm, I am still more afraid of those who intend to ill will, but it is a close second for those who use them as tools. Take for example my friend M (I even changed his initial for anonymity. M is a competent gun owner who has the proper carry permits, several extensive gun classes, and time in law enforcement. Even with the weapons training M has gone through, I still worry that his gun maybe used in an over zealous manner should an event take place. With adrenaline pumping and the excitement of a shooting clouding judgment, it would be easy for someone who is armed to hurt a bystander or someone trying to help. Even the the fog of excitement, the most trained of people make mistakes.
On the other hand I have been around those who use guns for destruction. My case for this side of the coin is J (again changed for anonymity). J owned a massive amount of guns, only a few of which were registered and lacked proper training in the use of the guns. He had no experience in law enforcement or the military. J eventually used a tactical shot gun to kill himself on the front porch of his former place of business. J had suffered from documented mental psychosis and when the weapon was recovered it was noted that he had fully loaded the magazine of the shotgun. His ultimate intentions were to harm himself, but the investigating police determined he could have easily decide to harm those in the place of business. J (carrying the shotgun in a dufflebag) walked among pedestrians on the street, took a bus, and spied on those in the business as they work. All of this went undetected and his intention were not made clear until the fatal shot was fired.
Understandably M is the safer gun owner of the two. J's incident was however more common than anything M might face. Research shows that death by an armed psychotic person outnumbers those shoot by good Samaritans, but neither are pleasant options With stricter laws in place that limit the sale of guns, we might limit the types and numbers of gun that end up in the hands of those who wish ill on others. It is simply too easy for anyone to buy a weapon in this country. Taking the Colorado shooter (who was a broke college student), and M (who owned a disproportional amount of weapons) as examples, it should be clear to anyone that a call for stricter laws on the purchase of guns must go up. By no means am I petitioning for a limit of certain types of guns, or the number of guns, just the placement of limitations on who buys guns. A full background check should be required on ALL guns bought in the United State, including those purchased at gun shows and flea markets. Should these constraints be in place, we will not have to deal with the horrific cases like those listed in the article, J, or the Colorado shooter and with any luck, those who have become heroes for stopping a shooting might become heroes for something more peaceful.
The Suits File A Suit
http://www2.tricities.com/news/2012/jul/18/lawsuit-filed-strip-special-exception-permit-allow-ar-2064413/
It seems there is a new twist in the continues sage that is the Loves Truckstop in Meadowview, Virginia. If you are a regular reader of this blog you will know how I feel about this. If you aren't then here is a rundown of the posts that I have written. This remains the hottest issue that has been discussed here on FTPM and that is really cool.
http://fairtopartlymoderate.blogspot.com/2012/07/you-wont-be-sleeping-much-at-night.html
http://fairtopartlymoderate.blogspot.com/2012/04/two-interesting-perspective-on-truck.html
http://fairtopartlymoderate.blogspot.com/2012/03/busted-flat-in-meadowview-waiting-for.html
ttp://fairtopartlymoderate.blogspot.com/2012/03/stop-truck-stop-in-meadowview.html
Online Petition
http://www.change.org/petitions/love-s-travel-centers-oklahoma-city-ok-abandon-plans-to-build-a-truck-stop-at-exit-24-on-i-81-in-meadowview-va
It seems there is a new twist in the continues sage that is the Loves Truckstop in Meadowview, Virginia. If you are a regular reader of this blog you will know how I feel about this. If you aren't then here is a rundown of the posts that I have written. This remains the hottest issue that has been discussed here on FTPM and that is really cool.
http://fairtopartlymoderate.blogspot.com/2012/07/you-wont-be-sleeping-much-at-night.html
http://fairtopartlymoderate.blogspot.com/2012/04/two-interesting-perspective-on-truck.html
http://fairtopartlymoderate.blogspot.com/2012/03/busted-flat-in-meadowview-waiting-for.html
ttp://fairtopartlymoderate.blogspot.com/2012/03/stop-truck-stop-in-meadowview.html
Online Petition
http://www.change.org/petitions/love-s-travel-centers-oklahoma-city-ok-abandon-plans-to-build-a-truck-stop-at-exit-24-on-i-81-in-meadowview-va
Monday, July 23, 2012
Somethings I Won't Understand..Maybe Ever
http://2politicaljunkies.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-religious-right-begins-blaming.html
Religious conservatives (RCs for short) are a group of people that I might not ever understand. They are good people, have good intentions, and have stuck to their guns which are worthy of my admiration. They are however often hypocritical and contradict themselves frequently. What I fail to wrap my mind around is how many try to demand ideals on both side of a argument. Understandably these issues are complex, deeming complex opinions. Most often though, the overtly conservative Christian (OCCs for short) tends to take the polar opposites and force them together. (I will use the terms Religious conservative and overtly conservative Christians interchangeably)
Take prayer in public places, since that is what the sited article is about. Most RCs say our government needs to do more to promote prayer, (particular prayer to a Christian God), and the lack of prayer causes events like the shooting in Colorado. That is fine in my book, I understand why you think that (and to some degree agree). If you think the government should promote prayer in public places, then we (according to the Constitution) are to promote prayer of all religions. Herein lies that problem. OCCs do not want all religions to be promoted, just their singularly narrow point of view on the Christian religion. If you will, indulge me in a history/ Constitution lesson.
The First Amendment states that we shall make not law respecting the establishment of a religion. Constitutional scholars, including the men who shaped the document itself, have long understood that to mean one single religion. This was an direct answer to the fact that in some colonies (Maryland) the Catholic Church was the official church. In others (Virginia) it was Church of England or Episcopal Church. In these states residents were required (member or not) to pay money into the church, which in turn used that money for things that today are know as welfare. Many in early America felt this unjust since we had just recently rebelled against England for (atleast partly) that very reason. Unfortunately today, this battle continues.
If history and the Constitution are not your thing, then maybe patriotism and American Pride are. Most RCs will tout "America is the great country in the world because we can come here (their church) and worship as we chose without any type of government interference or fear of persecution"..I have actually heard this said. That is fine and dandy with me. I agree that America is pretty unique in its understand that religion is a personal choice, but it is a personal choice. If you want to have pride in America's religious freedom as it regards you, have a minimal understanding for what it means to other people. Does a Hindu have any less pride in America because he is Hindu? Does the Buddhist teacher at my school not think America is the coolest place in the world because he can sit at our lunch table and talk about religion with a Catholic, Methodist, Brethren, and Agnostic? He does, let me tell you. There lies the problem I have with OCCs or RCs. They forget there are people out there that do not look at religion the same way they do.
So if RCs and OCCs want to blame the shooting in Colorado on a lack of prayer, that is their understanding. Do I think it is right? No. Am I going to think any less of them? Admittedly yes some, but I will not attack them like they would me for saying that. I will simply scratch my head and move on, thus there are somethings I won't understand..maybe ever.
Religious conservatives (RCs for short) are a group of people that I might not ever understand. They are good people, have good intentions, and have stuck to their guns which are worthy of my admiration. They are however often hypocritical and contradict themselves frequently. What I fail to wrap my mind around is how many try to demand ideals on both side of a argument. Understandably these issues are complex, deeming complex opinions. Most often though, the overtly conservative Christian (OCCs for short) tends to take the polar opposites and force them together. (I will use the terms Religious conservative and overtly conservative Christians interchangeably)
Take prayer in public places, since that is what the sited article is about. Most RCs say our government needs to do more to promote prayer, (particular prayer to a Christian God), and the lack of prayer causes events like the shooting in Colorado. That is fine in my book, I understand why you think that (and to some degree agree). If you think the government should promote prayer in public places, then we (according to the Constitution) are to promote prayer of all religions. Herein lies that problem. OCCs do not want all religions to be promoted, just their singularly narrow point of view on the Christian religion. If you will, indulge me in a history/ Constitution lesson.
The First Amendment states that we shall make not law respecting the establishment of a religion. Constitutional scholars, including the men who shaped the document itself, have long understood that to mean one single religion. This was an direct answer to the fact that in some colonies (Maryland) the Catholic Church was the official church. In others (Virginia) it was Church of England or Episcopal Church. In these states residents were required (member or not) to pay money into the church, which in turn used that money for things that today are know as welfare. Many in early America felt this unjust since we had just recently rebelled against England for (atleast partly) that very reason. Unfortunately today, this battle continues.
If history and the Constitution are not your thing, then maybe patriotism and American Pride are. Most RCs will tout "America is the great country in the world because we can come here (their church) and worship as we chose without any type of government interference or fear of persecution"..I have actually heard this said. That is fine and dandy with me. I agree that America is pretty unique in its understand that religion is a personal choice, but it is a personal choice. If you want to have pride in America's religious freedom as it regards you, have a minimal understanding for what it means to other people. Does a Hindu have any less pride in America because he is Hindu? Does the Buddhist teacher at my school not think America is the coolest place in the world because he can sit at our lunch table and talk about religion with a Catholic, Methodist, Brethren, and Agnostic? He does, let me tell you. There lies the problem I have with OCCs or RCs. They forget there are people out there that do not look at religion the same way they do.
So if RCs and OCCs want to blame the shooting in Colorado on a lack of prayer, that is their understanding. Do I think it is right? No. Am I going to think any less of them? Admittedly yes some, but I will not attack them like they would me for saying that. I will simply scratch my head and move on, thus there are somethings I won't understand..maybe ever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)