(photo from freegan.info, courtesy of falcophoto.com)

 They eat from dumpsters. The shun regular employment. They live in abandoned dwellings. You might think of them as “bums.” They prefer to be known as Freegans. And their ranks may well be growing.

 Dubbed “strategies for a sustainable life beyond capitalism,” the Freegans may well be on to something. In a society as wasteful as modern humanity has become, these “urban foragers” often come back from a night of “product reclamation” with some quality used items. From furniture to electronics to household cleaning products, Freegans are making the point that rampant consumerism fuels not only greed but waste too. But the fun doesn’t stop there.

Free food, even if it has spent a long hot day at the bottom of a dumpster, is the key to Freegan survival. Essentially vegetarians, Freegans relish in the waste of restaurants and retail grocers, creating feasts and sharing the goods with anyone who dares come along.

Free housing, even if it means living with the roaches and rats in an abandoned husk of a home, is a component of the Freegan lifestyle. Their solution to homelessness is to ignore the “No Trespassing” signs because shelter is a right, not a privilege.

Planned joblessness, because working to pay the man becomes less important if you don’t actually have to buy your stuff or pay your rent. And because having a steady job also means you are contributing to the over-production and over-consumption problems of the modern world.

Being Freegan means taking a stand against the environmental destruction caused by mass human consumption. It means working outside the system to bring attention to the problems of the system. It means….well to most of America, it means being a “bum.”

However…..

Our whole modern world is based on cheap oil. Once the cheap oil is gone there is a serious concern that whole economies may collapse. Certainly when the supply of easily obtainable oil reaches the point of diminishing returns, much of what we take for granted will no longer be available-from plastics to abundant crops to mass transportation. If humanity can’t create a viable substitute for a world run on oil, and soon, well then we all may become Freegans-whether we like it or not.

Dumpster diving anyone?

(cross posted on Bring It On!)

Neo-conservatives and the Bush Administration like to paint the 1994 Agreed Framework deal on North Korea’s nuclear program as a failure of Bill Clinton’s foreign policy efforts. They point out that North Korea continued to manufacture plutonium after agreeing not to, and that their breach of the agreement amounts to Bill Clinton having let the North Koreans become a nuclear power. According to Team Bush and his neophytes, the entire North Korean nuclear program is Bill Clinton’s fault.

Bush, ever the tough guy, took little time in labeling North Korea as a terrorist state, blacklisting them from international trade and aid and further isolating the reclusive regime-all in an effort to force the hand of Kim Jong-Il to give up his nukes. Yet instead of capitulating after admitting they had been ignoring the 1994 agreement, North Korea put their nuclear program on the fast track and out in the open, and finalized the process by detonating a nuclear device during the reign of George W. Bush. Arguably, while Clinton may have had the wool pulled over his eyes to North Korea’s true intent regarding its nuclear program, Bush watched whit eyes wide open as they advanced from a nuclear wannabe to a nuclear power. Indeed, it is perhaps the openly belligerent attitude of Bush that may have increased the North Korean nuclear timeline.

Yet now that North Korea has returned to the table to continue talks about their program, Bush has done a complete 180 degree turnabout, removed them from a US list of terrorist states, and approved aid to that country. And what has North Korea done to deserve this reward? Turns out that they haven’t done much at all. They’ve released details on some of their nuclear activities and programs and they blew up a building. And this after stalling for years. But the evidence that they intend to stop their nuclear program is no stronger now than it was after the 1994 agreement was signed, and yet Team Bush acts like its solved a major crisis in Asia.

The Clinton agreement was based on trust, and it turned out that trusting the regime in North Korea was not a wise choice. Without verification, that trust was misplaced and North Korea continued to work on their nuclear program while accepting the gifts that came with the agreement to stop those actions. The Bush doctrine in North Korea has been to end all US aid and brand the nation a rogue terror state. Remember that under Clinton, North Korea was still a fledgling nuclear hopeful working at a slow pace. Under Bush, their nuclear efforts were expanded and accelerated and they finally got a working nuclear bomb. Under Bush, North Korea got the power they wanted. And under Bush, they have used this power to get what they wanted-US aid, removal from the list of terrorist states. In return, they have provided relatively little and we have no evidence they have stopped anything.

Bush may claim that his “tough guy” approach actually got North Korea to come back to the table for talks. I dismiss this. Bush’s “tough guy” mentality just gave North Korea the push to finish their bomb project. Now that they have a nuclear weapon, they hold more cards than ever before, and Bush, trying to eke some success out of his mangled tenure somewhere, is ready to call it a day and claim Mission Accomplished.  But when it comes to North Korea, or any reclusive regime, what we know and what we think we know are always going to be very different things. And what they say and what they do will be too.

Clinton’s path of engagement didn’t stop the North Korean nuclear program, but it slowed it up while trying to open the country through humanitarian assistance. Bush’s path of belligerence brought to the world an uptick in North Korean nuclear program development and a nuclear armed North Korea, and now he is giving them humanitarian aid too. Pretending that his agreement is more valid, more enforceable, and more effective than the 1994 agreement is laughable at best.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Can I get a “No Shit Sherlock” from the group?

A recent AP-Yahoo poll shows that consumers don’t have a rosy outlook for their financial futures any time soon. Because of high gas prices.

From cancelled vacations to finding new jobs, people are struggling to cope with the high price of fuel. And they don’t think that current high prices are going to reverse course anytime soon.

“Do you think there’s an end in sight? I don’t,” 33-year-old Angela Crawford, a Dallas homemaker, said in an interview. “It’s depressing and it makes you nervous.”

“We just don’t do as much,” said William Fisk, 39, a former dishwasher in Freeport, Maine. “We used to go out to have dinner, but we’re cutting way back on that.”

“My parents said, ‘Come down, spend a week with us,’” said Julie Jacobs, 35. “But when you add on the expense of gas, it’s just not worth it.”

In fact, things are getting so tight, that some Nevada businesses are offering customers gas cards as incentives to keep coming in.

Oil price hikes are a direct result of the Bush policies in the Middle East. They are also a result of higher demand for oil in developing nations. They are also high as a result of financial speculators. The beating of war drums around Iran now has gas prices soaring higher.

The era of cheap transportation based on oil is coming to an end, and may be here already. The transition will cause us all to rethink many things about the way we live our lives. We are woefully unprepared as a nation.

Happy Monday.

(cross posted on Bring It On!)

Boy oh boy, George W. Bush must be doing the happy dance in the Oval Office this morning as newspapers and media outlets are all chanting the same verse: personal incomes in May rose to the highest levels in 33 years! 

What? I thought we were in some kind of recession. And rising gas prices are causing the price of everything to go up, up, and away. Thank god for the stimulus checks, because now we are all richer than ever!

Oh, wait a minute…no we are not.

The influx of tax rebates into the hands of ordinary Americans is a temporary blip in an ongoing downspin of the economy, not a harbinger of good economic times ahead. $600 buck a head may create a momentary uptick in consumer spending, but once the money is gone, income is right back to where it was-falling and failing to keep pace with inflation.

Despite the hoopla in today’s press, personal incomes, WITHOUT THE EFFECT OF THE STIMULUS REBATES, are actually flat. And when you factor in inflation and the costs of food and fuel, the personal fortunes of John and Jane Doe gets worse every day.

Economists only expect about 40% of the stimulus checks to actually find their way back into the consumer market anyhow, as people either pay down debt or save the extra cash for a rainier day instead of rushing out to buy a new flat screen television.

So Bush will have to wrap up his celebration a little early, especially since there isn’t much to really celebrate about. (Well, for him there probably is- his aides no doubt only show him the headlines that say all is well.) As Steven Pearlstein of the Washington Post reminds us, our economic woes aren’t over yet:

“This thing’s going down, fast and hard. Corporate bankruptcies, bond defaults, bank failures, hedge fund meltdowns and 6 percent unemployment. We’re caught in one of those vicious, downward spirals that, once it gets going, is very hard to pull out of.”

Add inflation and recession and what do you get? Soaring personal incomes due to artificially induced, one time cash infusions? Nope- just damn tough times ahead.

Enjoy your rebate folks. According to the press, you’re doing better this month than you ever have before. I bet you feel better now and your economic outlook has never been rosier.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Some things are repeated so often that they become accepted as truth, despite the fact that there is little reality attached to them. In politics, one of these “truths” is that Democrats will always raise taxes and Republicans will always try to reduce taxes. But how true is this really? And maybe more importantly, what rationale drives these positions if they are true?

A quick primer on taxes and government: government levies taxes (and fees) to pay for the services its citizens demand. Without taxes there would be no public enterprises: no roads, no schools, no fire departments or police, no libraries, no national defense, no social security, and so on and so forth. In theory, every tax collected by government is supposed to be used to advance the public good and pay for the overhead of government.

In 2005, I wrote this about taxation:

“Most Americans don’t really mind having to pay taxes. We understand that in order to get the things from government that we demand they provide, we must all share the burden of paying for those services. What really angers us though, is the obvious waste, corruption, diversion, and outright theft of our tax dollars at the hands of the people who are supposed to protect our precious dollars and us. And equally in our wrath, are the handfuls of corporations and millionaires that exploit an over-complicated tax code and weasel out of their share of the burden.”

I still believe this to be true- most Americans don’t mind paying taxes when they see the benefits. The anger comes when taxes are misspent and poorly accounted for. Bridges to nowhere, no-bid contracts, outright fraud by government contractors…these are the things that piss people off. And these are the things that get people up in arms whenever a politician talks about changing the tax code or hiking taxes and fees. In the view of most people, we pay enough in taxes already and its not our fault that the politicians spend more than they take in. So when someone hints that a politician wants to raise taxes, our initial reaction is “Screw You Buddy!”

In an election year, talk about who will raise taxes becomes even more rancorous, and the “truth” about the parties, their candidates, and taxes gets trotted out again. Republicans say that Obama will raise your taxes. Democrats say that McCain will simply extend tax cuts for the rich while continuing to spend as wildly as Bush has. Both positions are true. But they are not really so cut and dried.

Historically, Republican presidents have made efforts to reduce taxes in general, but the prime beneficiary has been the wealthy and the corporations. As they cut taxes to those groups, they also marginally reduce income taxes on the rest of us, but the real saving for the vast majority is barely a drop in the bucket compared to what the high-rollers get back. In addition to cutting taxes, GOP administrations also like to cut services. Seems to make sense- less taxes coming in, less services going out-perfect fiscal sanity, right? Well maybe if it were true. But what Republican administrations also do is spend a ton of money-on credit-while in office, leaving their successors with a huge deficit to contend with. They spend money on the military and on foreign meddling and promotion of American businesses abroad. What the GOP likes to spend the most money on isn’t programs at home for the benefit of Americans, but rather of the might of the American government abroad. Reagan’s deficit spending forced his Republican successor (the first George Bush) to raise taxes, and in turn, conservatives vilified him completely. The current president also began his reign by cutting taxes, mostly for the rich, and by increasing military spending on credit. Bush the Second may have lowered the taxes of the wealthy today, but his rampant spending of money he doesn’t have has all but guaranteed that future presidents will have to raise taxes just to pay the interest on the money Bush is spending now.

Historically, Democratic presidents have raised our taxes and then spent those revenues on programs that help Americans at home first, and then the outside world with the left overs. FDR and LBJ are the posterboys for tax and spend presidents, but they spent the money on projects that invigorated the American economy and gave the common folks a chance to better their position in life. Sure, these two men also spent a hell of a lot of money on war efforts (WWII & Vietnam respectively), but at least in the case of FDR it was a defensive war effort and not a war of choice. And when these two men explained to the American people what they wanted to do and why they needed the new taxes, a majority of America agreed with their ideas and felt that at least their taxes were being used well.

But for the last 8 years  Americans have watched their local, state, and national government gobble up more and more taxes while providing less and less services. Almost every legislative budget session ends with a cry from politicians about how they need more taxes to keep things running, and as they trot out the standard lines about how without taxes we’ll lose schools and police officers and the like, the voters pony up the dough. We’ve become so used to governmental waste and excuses that fiscal reality doesn’t even enter the picture. They say they need the money to give us what we say we want. Such is life. Or is it?

California state government is entering its umpteenth consecutive years of budget shortfalls. When voters were asked if they would support tax increases or spending cuts to balance the books, 63% of voters said they wanted government to cut spending. Yet when asked where those cuts should occur, no single category of services got more than half agreeing to cut costs. Most public spending in California goes to schools, health care and public safety. (Well, most really gets eaten up in nonsense studies, commissions, over-spending, and fraud, but that’s another facet of the story.) Nearly 70% of the voters would not support spending cuts in any of those areas. So the reality is that voters don’t want to cut spending or raise taxes-they want to continue to live in Fantasy Tax Land where they get all the goods and someone else (like their children and grandchildren) pays all the bills. That sounds to me a lot like taxation without representation-you know, one of those little issues that led to the American Revolution-and future generations will have financial obligations they never agreed to or even benefitted from. Our tax policies are really setting the stage for a future revolt. But again I digress…

Getting back to the current presidential election, I have heard time and again from conservative leaning voters that although the do not like McCain and do not see him as a “real conservative,” they simply won’t vote for Obama because “he’s gonna raise my taxes!” In fact, its become the latest GOP talking point in an effort to derail Obama’s growing popularity. But will it work? Not if voters really examine the issue and try to understand the dynamics of the reality.

The reality is this: our government is broke and operating only on imaginary currency and borrowed cash. The War in Iraq has created a multi-trillion dollar sinkhole, financed by loans from abroad and the guarantee of future generations toiling for a foreign master. The Bush Administration has continued the fine GOP tradition of slashing taxes, but they forgot to cut costs as well. If the old “truth” we started with ever did apply, it certainly can’t be true today. In todays world, Republicans not only tax less, they spend more than ever before, and in the prpocess create the worst fiscal imbalance ever seen in such a short time.

So what’s the next president to do? Cut taxes even more and keep fighting wars of choice or raise taxes and adjust spending to accomplish the things we need and want to accomplish?

In trying to decipher the difference between Obama and McCain on taxes, the truth can be boiled down pretty easily, and Business Week does a good job with it:

“Senator McCain’s tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their aftertax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts, and those whose taxes fall would, on average, see their aftertax income rise much less.

In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise. “

Of course, the details become a bit convoluted, but that is the crux of their attitudes on taxation. If you are really rich and taxes are your only concern, by all means vote McCain. But to say that Obama is going to raise taxes on Americans, and then to fear his leadership because of that, is simply not logical.

But suppose Obama does indeed raise taxes on us all. What if he has to? He has said that he would help fund many of his ideas from the savings we are spending in Iraq. Sorry Obama, we don’t have that money anyway. Any money not spent on Iraq is only money that future generations won’t have to repay. It’s not money we have that we could spend at home today. So maybe he will have to raise taxes. If he does, you only have the GOP to blame.

And might McCain also have to raise taxes at some point? Or would he continue to heap debt on future Americans?

When it comes to taxes, and the waste of the whole system, both political parties share the blame. The current Democratically controlled Congress has been as fiscally irresponsible as their GOP predecessors, and certainly in state governments like California, Democrats deserve more of the blame for bad fiscal policy.

But this presidential election is more important than just who might raise taxes, and if you really look at the details, Obama’s tax policy ideas are much friendlier to the average working American than McCains are. And more importantly, Obama’s thoughts on how best to use America’s tax resources-for Americans in America-make for a better future than McCain’s tax and bomb mentality ever will.

(Cross posted at Bring It On!)

On paper, public transportation is a fantastic idea. You can move more people with less vehicles. You can move more people with less energy. You can keep less vehicles on the road, causing a decrease in emissions and pollution. And you can offer low cost transit to people who can’t afford personal vehicles.

Boiled down into even simpler terms, public transit means less congestion, less pollution, and greater efficiency at a low price.

At least, that’s the theory. And in a few places the theory holds up pretty well. Who can imagine traversing New York City without subways and busses? In 2004, nearly one-third of the nation’s public transit users lived in NYC, with over 50% of New Yorkers using public transit for commuting to work. In DC, it was 37%, Boston and San Francisco 31%. This makes sense too, because these metropolises have huge populations concentrated into relatively small areas. Imagine the traffic congestion and accompanying pollution if every one who worked in NYC drove to work alone in a car?

But get away from the east coast (well, okay, and San Francisco) and public transit usage drops way down- 12% in LA, 6% in Houston- so that the national percentage of Americans using public transportation to commute to work in 2004 was only 5%.

Being that it is a public enterprise, public transportation funding comes from a combination of fares and taxes. Fares from actual users, taxes from everyone regardless of whether they ever step foot on a bus or train. A major chunk of the taxes come from fuel excise and sales taxes. This funding system actually relies on a larger number of people NOT using the service to keep it afloat financially. Paradox #1.

When fuel tax revenue declines, public transit coffers suffer. For public transportation, more efficient vehicles plus more public transit users means a loss of revenue and an increase in costs for its own fuel requirements to accommodate more users. So fares go up. And ridership declines.

If one of the benefits of public transit is a reduction in environmental pollution, it should be a goal of public transit agencies to increase public usage. But to do this, public transit authorities have to develop a system that is both expansive and convenient. Out west, historically low usage of public transit has not encouraged systemic expansion, meaning that would be users of public transit face longer and more difficult commutes to get from point A to point B and choose to drive themselves. A lack of comprehensive transit stops and connections reinforces the inefficiency of the system and puts more cars on the road that could otherwise be parked. Paradox #2.

So public transit relies on people NOT using the service to keep financially solvent and poorly designed public transit actually keeps MORE cars on the road due to its inefficiency. Except for New York City, public transit seems to be a net loser, in spite of its valuable service to lower income Americans.

But wait! Gas heads towards $5 a gallon and a lot of people start looking at public transit as a reality. Demand for public transit is increasing. Fewer people can afford high gas prices, and even more are trying to help reduce pollution. But the more efficient cars that continue to drive use less fuel which decreases income for public transit, even as fare paying costumers increase. What’s a transit authority to do?

Raise fares of course. And cut services too.

I guess the message is that public transit is a great thing-just so long as not too many people use it.

Just at a time when we should be increasing public transit and making it more available and affordable, public transit agencies are talking about reducing stops and raising fares. Just at a time when the larger public finally seems to consider the benefits of public transit, agencies are forced to make it less attractive just to stay in service.

So if you try to save money, energy, and reduce pollution by using public transportation, you’re really making public transit authorities cut their services and raise the fares for everyone by overloading the system and not paying enough taxes. Why do you hate America?

Maybe we should all just stay home.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Despite the ravings of American televangelists, most religious Americans dispute the idea that the only way to eternal life after death is through Jesus. This will be news to the Pat Robertson’s of the airwaves…

According to a survey conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, fully 70% of Americans who have some religious affiliation say that many religions-aside from their own particular faith- can lead to eternal life after death on Earth-including non-Christian faiths.

Here are some other interesting facts that the survey reveals about the attitudes of self-described religious Americans (and those who consider themselves “unaffiliated” with any particular religion):

POLITICS & SOCIETY

Political Party Affiliation: Nationally, 36% of religiously minded folks are Republican or lean Republican compared to 47% who are Democrats or lean towards the Democrats.

Political Ideology: Nationally, 37% of these folks consider themselves to be conservative, versus 36% who claim to be moderate and 20% who claim to be liberal. (Maybe not surprisingly, the more conservative folks are Christian evangelicals and Mormons while the most liberal denominations include Buddhists, Hindus, and Jews.)

Government Size: 43% want smaller government with fewer services; 46% want bigger government with more services.

Abortion: 51% believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases; 43% believe it should be illegal in most or all cases.

Homosexuality: 50% think it homosexuality should be accepted by society; 40% say it should not be accepted.

Environment: 30% think that environmental laws and regulations are harming the economy and costing jobs; 61% think stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost.

The survey of over 35,000 also revealed (among other things) that only about 59% believe in Hell while nearly 74% believe in heaven.

Clearly, America’s religious aren’t as dogmatic as we may be led to believe, or even as dogmatic as some anecdotal evidence may have us believe. Clearly, the media overhypes the religious differences anywhere and everywhere it can. And while some regions of the country are more religious than others, as a whole, Americans don’t seem to conform to the standard media view that there are but two sides of the religious equation-nutjob evangelical and raging athiest. In fact, most seem to be just regular folks who hold their own beliefs dear without having to force them on others or condemn others as heretics and blasphemers-or, more importantly, force them upon the nation as a whole via legislation.

This is good news, especially for those of us who live outside the religious tent and have no affinity for religion, other than for the entertainment value it offers us. But what it really shows is that by and large, Americans aren’t hell-bent to mold this nation into a theocracy, despite the overtly vocal rantings of televangelists, “family” groups, and some certain politicians. Let’s hope they get the message.

(cross posted at Bring It on!)

Conservatives have a mantra- the market is king. They feel that any government regulation of business activity is too much, and further, that if a consumer is too “stupid” to understand all the fine print legalese then too bad, so sad. To make money is the ultimate goal, regardless of who you throw under the bus to do so.

After the Great Depression and the stock market collapse of 1929, government eventually (under a Democratic president) managed to rein in the worst abuses of the private sector, and particularly the financial sectors, through regulation. Regulation that worked to protect the little guy, Joe and Jane American, while ensuring that businesses could still operate and make a profit. And low and behold, those regulations created a nation that had the highest levels of education, the highest levels of prosperity among citizens and companies, and the highest levels of innovation in the history of the modern world. But for the money-hungry power brokers and executives, that wasn’t good enough; they wanted more money and fewer rules. And so they began to lobby our supposed public servants to change the rules.

Between the late 1930’s and the early 1970’s, government regulations afforded working class Americans a way to buy a home, have safe foods and medicines, and even to save for a rainy day. It was unlikely that a serious illness could drive you from your home due to bankruptcy. It was next to unheard of for a family to be foreclosed on due to shady mortgage finances. Regulations and government agencies designed to benefit the working poor saw to it that people could find a piece of the American dream without having to sacrifice their childrens future or become indentured to the banks and corporations.

After World War II, until the late 1970s, the system work. The savings-and-loan industry was highly regulated by the federal government, with a mission to take people’s deposits and then provide loans for the sole purpose of helping people buy homes to live in. Washington insured those loans through the FDIC, provided mortgage discounts through FHA and the Veterans Administration, created a secondary mortgage market to guarantee a steady flow of capital, and required S&Ls to make predictable 30-year fixed loans. The result was a steady increase in homeownership and few foreclosures. –The American Prospect

But then came the era of Civil Rights, and it was discovered that even these regulations weren’t offering the American Dream to all citizens. The FHA, along with private lenders, were found to be discriminating against people of color in their lending practices so Congress had to act. And they did so by outlawing discrimination in lending. More regulation, passed in the spirit of fairness for all, only pissed off the money brokers.

And so began the push from the financial industry, and then every other industry under the sun, to eliminate or reduce those very regulations that made the American economy the envy of the world and the American people among the most prosperous. 

The American government, both Democrats and Republicans, have helped usher in this era of messy economics hand in hand, but the greater damage has been done under Republican administrations beholden to corporate financial largess through campaign contributions and other assorted financial goodies. The S & L crisis of the 1980’s was a direct result of government abolishing interest rate caps, opening the door to sub-prime lending practices. (An interesting note about that particular messy political era- Both John McCain (the GOP presidential nominee) and Neil Bush (the current presidents brother) were up to their eyeballs in fudiciary fiascoes during the S & L bail-outs, but we have such a short memory in this country don’t we?) The result was an intensive run-up of paper wealth, which became actual wealth in the hands of a few top CEO’s and financiers. Oh, and politicians too.

The deregulation of banking led to merger mania, with banks and S&Ls gobbling each other up and making loans to finance shopping malls, golf courses, office buildings, and condo projects that had no financial logic other than a quick-buck profit. When the dust settled in the late 1980s, hundreds of S&Ls and banks had gone under, billions of dollars of commercial loans were useless, and the federal government was left to bail out the depositors whose money the speculators had put at risk. –The American Prospect

So much for a benevolent government looking out for the little guy. And it only got worse. With the evaporation of serious financial regulation, creative money managers invented all sorts of risky schemes and unleashed them on the less-than-saavy American public.

Under Ronald Reagan, the Patron Saint of Greedy Douchebags, government interest in regulating financial markets withered away to next to nothing. Government agencies like the FHA were all but discarded, leaving unscrupulous lenders to fill the gap. The first George Bush was not only complicit in letting this massive shift of governmental responsibility, he continued it while his sons profitted from one bad business deal after another.

The S & L bail-out cost American taxpayers billions of dollars while those at the top got little more than a slap on the wrist to think about while they counted their ill-got gains.

An eight year stint with a Democrat in the White House did little to change the tide. Although the Clinton era is widely viewed as one of economic boom, the reality is that the rise of bad lending practices really took root in the 1990’s under his watch, and continued gutting of many New Deal era regulations during the 1990’s set the stage for the unbridled greed and ultimate collapse we now live with.

The sub-prime mess, the huge risks taken by hedge funds, and the conflicts of interest that led to Enron and kindred scandals, are all the consequences of serial bouts of financial deregulation. Since the 1970s, in the name of free-market efficiency, Congress and presidents of both parties repealed key protections put in place by the New Deal. But the main effect has been to engineer windfall profits for financial insiders, replace real productive innovation with financial engineering, shift wealth from families to corporations, and put the entire American economy at ever greater risk. -The American Prospect

It would be nice to put most of the blame on the current Idiot in Charge, George W. Bush, but it just can’t be done. This era of compounding deregulation is as bi-partisan as it gets. But Georgie Boy managed to accelerate the concept to a new degree and under his watch, deregulation has enjoyed a Blitzkreig that would have made Goering proud. Where previous administrations and Congresses seemed content to limit the deregulation to the financial sector, Bush has presided over widespread deregulation of most government agencies, and especially those who’s task was to help the little guy get a leg up. The FDA, USDA, FEMA, FHA are just the tip of the iceburg. Compound this reality to the massive privatization of services once handled by government employees, services now handed out under no-bid contracts and hardly scrutinized by government accountability teams, and you can see that the conservative War on Good Government has achieved a remarkable success, at least in terms of shafting the citizens of this country and creating financial havoc the world over.

Yet it could be that the tide is finally turning…again. Enraged by the scandals of energy manipulation and loose accounting standards discovered when Enron blew apart (led by yet another Bush buddy), Americans began to pull the wool off their eyes a little at a time. Not nearly enough or fast enough to spot the shady dealings underwriting the entire mortgage industry, but enough to get politicians to start rethinking regulation policy. And that is a good thing.

And so is this. As federal prosecutors begin to haul those who practised the worst kinds of predatory financing and deceptive investment schemes, it is time for lawmakers to rekindle the idea that consumers need protection from the worst excesses of capitalism-the very kinds of excesses that too often find life wihtout a watchdog agency at their backs.

Alan Greenspan, the former Fed Chief who presided over what may well become the most serious financial crisis in modern times, once noted that it was a “collectivist” myth the idea that businessmen, left to their own devices, “would attempt to sell unsafe food and drugs, fraudulent securities and shoddy buildings.”On the contrary, he declared, “it is in the self-interest of every businessman to have a reputation for honest dealings and a quality product.” – TheNewsTribune.com

Right Alan. Unless of course there are no consequences to their actions and no government willing to end them. Especially when the government aids and abets their shady, unscrupulous, and definitely immoral ways.

This crisis isn’t over, in fact, it’s only really beginning. And it’s worldwide again, just like in the 1930’s. Only this time, in addition to a financial quagmire, we have an urgent energy crisis that is spiking costs of everything under the sun, a formidable environmental challenge that is creating food shortages and natural disasters of ever increasing destructive power, and several unending wars of ideology that do little more than make things worse for average people all over the world.

But the politicians and CEO’s are still raking in the dough, so I guess everything is fine after all. I mean, who really gives a shit about the rest of us? We’re just supposed to shut up and take it, right?

(Articles used for background include: Deregulation fueled mortgage fiasco, The Conservative Origins of the Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis, The Bubble Economy, The Dangers of Deregulation, and Hundreds Indicted In Mortgage Fraud Probe. )

(Cross posted at Bring It On!) 

Remember those old X-Ray Vision goggles advertised in the back of your favorite comic books? The thrill of surreptitiously seeing through peoples clothes drove youthful imaginations into a frenzy of giggles and gasps. Of course, if you actually ponied up a few bucks and sent off for a pair, you were probably disappointed with the results-not only could you NOT see through people’s clothes, you couldn’t see much at all through the little red peephole centered amid those creepy hypnotic lens covers.

Seems as if a few pissed off kids grew up to make their frustrated childhood peepshows a reality, and now, in the name of SECURITY, real x-ray vision is being deployed across the United States at major airports.

The new scanners use a technology called millimeter wave scanning and can see through clothing, leaving no part of your anatomy unviewed. (Another similar scanner uses a process called backscatter radiation and offers similarly revealing results.)

The image above was produced by backscatter radiation scanning. The millimeter scan is even more revealing. But remember, it’s for YOUR OWN SAFETY that these devices are in use. Just like it was in YOUR OWN BEST INTEREST not to be able to take a bottle of water on a plane, or toothpaste.

The TSA, who is in charge of deploying these machines, says that the images shown have blurred out faces (like they can’t see your face when you walk in to the scanner) and that images can’t be printed, sent, or saved on the machines. But those charged with screening will still be able to know for certainty who has had a mastectomy or a penile implant, and of course, who is carrying a gun. (Oh wait, I thought metal detectors sniffed out guns.)

The question is this: how much privacy should we be forced to sacrifice in the name of SECURITY? Should we really have to expose our genitals to some low-paid airport screener just to go visit grandma in another state?

The machines have been in use at a few locations abroad for a little while, and testing of the devices has been occuring at Phoenix International Airport since October, 2007.

Next time you fly, you might as well just fly naked. Just remember that it’s all in the name of SECURITY. And it is FOR YOUR OWN GOOD.

(Cross psoted at Bring It On!)

The Rapture is coming, you know. Just ask an Evangelical Christian. They’ll tell you it’s true. Even though predictions for hundreds of “imminent raptures” have thus far failed to materialize (or is it dematerialize?), these folks are as sure as fresh snow is white that the REAL Rapture is definitely on the way. But they also know that their message is not whole-heartedly embraced by everyone. But for the Rapture Disciples this only means that they still have work to do, and they know that once the Rapture really does happen, all those who have missed the train to Heaven will cast aside their disbelief and fervently work to join their righteous loved ones in Heaven, who had warned them all along.

To that end, welcome to the world wide web youvebeenleftbehind.com. This handy-dandy website allows subscribers the opportunity to remind special friends and family members who missed the Rapture that they still have hope, and a chance, to gain the Kingdom of Heaven.

From their website:

“You’ve Been Left Behind gives you one last opportunity to reach your lost family and friends For Christ. Imagine being in the presence of the Lord and hearing all of heaven rejoice over the salvation of your loved ones. It is our prayer that this site makes it happen.”

That’s right friends…for a mere $40 per year subscription fee, youvebeenleftbehind.com will let you store up to 250Mb of documents that can be automatically e-mailed to up to 62 different sinners when the Rapture happens. But wait…there’s more! That 250Mb is partitioned so that you can have document encryption for 150Mb worth of information. What better way to pass along sensitive password information to that sinful Aunt Tessa who never took Jesus into her heart? No reason to deny her your money (which you no longer need, right?) just because she denied the Lord now is there?

But wait, you might be asking, how does this service work? I mean, the Rapture takes all the good Christians away, and these folks who run this site are obviously good Christians. How does the system send out all these e-mails to the black-hearted non-believers if they’ve (the site hosts) been taken back to Jesus?

Just as Noah got instructions from God on how to build a really big boat, the fine folks at youvebeenleftbehind.com have an ingenious trigger that can only be divinely inspired.

“We have set up a system to send documents by the email, to the addresses you provide, 6 days after the “Rapture” of the Church. This occurs when 3 of our 5 team members scattered around the U.S fail to log in over a 3 day period. Another 3 days are given to fail safe any false triggering of the system.”

Got it? If three of the five team members fail to log in to the system for three days in a row, the trigger is set. Another three days pass, and it’s sure the Rapture took place. (Odd though that only 3 need to log in. I wonder if that means that two of the five are really closet sinners?) Talk about fail-proof!

 The site is the brainchild of Mark Heard, who came up with the idea while buying stocks online one day. He worried about how his wife would gain access to his account and password if he were to be Raptured at that moment.

“In the encrypted portion of your account you can give them access to your banking, brokerage, hidden valuables and powers of attorneys. There won’t be any bodies, so probate court will take seven years to clear your assets to your next of kin. Seven years, of course, is all the time that will be left (during the Tribulation) so, basically the Government of the Antichrist gets your stuff, unless you make it available in another way.”

I guess Mr. Heard’s wife isn’t as devout as he wishes she were. But you know what they say….behind every great man….

So better join today. Why? Because the Rapture is coming! And because when you’re gone, you’ll never get another chance to save your loved ones from a fiery eternity. Oh wait….with this service, I guess you will get one more chance.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)