Guns and children

So, we have entered into a new day. I'm not sure I like this one all that much. The changes to our world seem to be coming faster and more furiously, or maybe it is just a case of more knowledge and information about what is happening across the world that makes everything seem to be compounding. Regardless, I felt a major shift happened with 9/11/2001 and now again 12/14/2012. The Newtown, CT shooting is challenging us once again as a nation to determine how we will respond to tragic events where someone decided to commit evil against the innocent. It's not fair, it's not ok and it will not be forgotten. But in the midst of this terrible tragedy, we are again drawing the battle lines between our friends and family members across this nation spewing hate and violence of words over gun laws and mental illness practices. The reality of the situation is that we cannot accurately predict where or when this sort of thing will occur. Nor can we specifically determine who is liable to do such terrible things. So, we try to create some kind of control over our lives by enacting stricter laws or creating greater and greater barriers around our lives that we remain immune to the world around us. Both the martial law idea and the citadel idea even though they come to two opposed conclusions stem from the same underlying issue--fear. Since those towers came down in 2001, it should be clear that there are situations outside of our control that we can't predict or adequately prepare for, because as soon as we think we have it covered, there appears another loophole, another way to break through our protective barriers. Although our nation is rabidly searching for a simple inoculation to prevent these tragedies from ever occurring again, the hard truth is that it is not an easy solution required here. Becoming a nation of gun-toting vigilantes or a nation completely locked down with no access to guns-neither solve the deeper issue. Offering more healthcare options to families and individuals struggling with mental illness is a step in the right direction, but I actually want to suggest a more radical idea. As Americans, we have embraced the myth of extreme individualism, a la Ayn Rand, where we are solely responsible for ourselves. This has become a point of pride as seen by many during the latest Presidential election. But the basic problem with this point of view is the myth that the answers to all our problems are found in ourselves. Instead, what if we began to live under the idea that we are interconnected as people and your struggle is my struggle and your victory is my victory? What if we actually believed in community again where we learn to bear one another's burdens while taking responsibility for our own in the midst of accepting help with ours? What if we refrained from pointing the finger at the government/the mother/the gunman/the gun laws/the school rules and started to pull together instead to find a way to become a community again? What if we could all get to a place where we know our neighbors, our community and we don't let fear rule us and encourage us to hide from one another? Maybe it's just me, but I think that is a safer society. I think knowing my community, reaching out when someone is struggling, when something is going wrong, this rebuilding of the "small town" concept where we don't leave people to fend for themselves, but we engage with them and encourage them to find their place and their purpose, I think that's where there is acceptance and security. If I know my community and they know me, then maybe together we can look out for each other and look for the warning signs to prevent tragedies like this from happening again. Maybe my hypothesis is wrong and building a stronger community won't prevent these sorts of events from occurring. But at least in the wake of these tragedies, we would have a strong support system to draw upon.

Socialized healthcare to boost job creation?

“American business is about maximizing shareholder value,” said Allen Sinai, chief global economist at the research firm Decision Economics. “You basically don’t want workers. You hire less, and you try to find capital equipment to replace them.”-- taken from NY Times article on how the ranks of unemployed aren't diminishing even as the recovery is taking hold in more segments of the US economy. Maybe firms would be less likely to shy away from hiring workers if the associated costs decreased (eg. healthcare, pension, etc.) Essentially, the scorned "public option" could provide incentives, particularly for the lifeblood of the US economy, small and medium-sized businesses to hire folks again, especially for full-time positions, since it seems that part-time is preferred since it doesn't carry some of the same requirements on the part of the business in terms of insurance, pension, etc.

Who's on the "road to hell"?

Hmmm. The Czech PM, who is currently holding the EU Presidency, says that Obama's plan for economic recovery is the "road to hell". While this guy just lost a no-confidence vote in his own country's parliament and US stocks and other indicators are showing a rebound after hearing the details of the Obama administration's plan. Hmmm. Who might be out of touch here?

Obama Overexposed?

Larry King asked Megan McCain if she thought Obama was overexposed [in the media] and she responded by saying probably. Interesting question, Larry. From his gaffe on Jay Leno to his recent op-ed piece carried in 30+ papers around the world to his town hall meetings and the like as discussed here. It is clear that Obama recognizes that we are living in a media-crazed world and he is responding to it. I guess the phrase "strike while the iron's hot" is apt here as he tries to push through a number of groundbreaking plans while his popularity remains high, despite last week's Special Olympics comment.

Does he risk alienating older Americans who might not appreciate all the media blasts or is he even a victim of the press's overindulgence in all things Obama? Hard question to answer, but it bears mentioning that he does have an extremely high approval rating right now and Americans, particularly the younger generation as mentioned by Ms. McCain have an obsession with their celebrities. So, who knows how long this will last, but my hope is that the public will give him a little more time to see the effects of some of his new policies before trying to villify him or his team. I am obviously a fan, but even for those who aren't, isn't it traditional that we wait and start evaluating a President's job after the first 100 days. Given the fast-paced, media frenzy surrounding Obama, it doesn't look like he will be given that grace period, but here's hoping...

Are we the terrorists now?

So, back in 2001, we were well aware that there are interests diametrically opposed to everything we stand for as a country and they were out to destroy us. They wanted to destroy our spirit and our economic system. Well, they didn't. We have done it ourselves.

Isn't there some idea that capitalism sows the seeds of its own destruction? I'm not sure I would go that far, but definitely I'm in agreement with the idea of capitalism as creative destruction--i.e. one necessarily expects firms to compete in the market and either be forced out by the competition or retool themselves to find that market sweet spot where they can thrive for a bit longer before again the competition revs up and forces them to change or get out of the market. In all, the idea presupposes a great deal of change in markets, that status quo is never forever, but rather change is the real status quo. So, when we see certain companies failing, as in the dot com bust of a few years back, we initially feel a lot of fear but then as the dust settles we see new companies emerging that then become leaders in new fields or subsets of previously established fields. hell0--google? while at the same time we see giants fall and either scale back or revert to dust (what happened to the power and pervasiveness of AOL, for instance.) So, the idea of boom and bust cycles aren't so scary, given the lessons of capitalistic history.

But today, we have a whole new phenomenon. It's not firms, per se, that have been run out of the market by competition, but worse--credit has been frightened out of the market. Without credit to grease the wheels of the economy, things start to shut down, so it's not the normal boom/bust cycle, but something quite different. In this new realm, we see companies failing not because of any big mistakes or wrong decisions, even, but perhaps due to the perception of possible mistakes or risk associated with it. Not only this, but companies are cutting back because the lack of credit not only affects the ability of business to function, but also the ability of consumers to purchase. So buyers aren't buying, retailers aren't ordering more to refill their shelves, manufacturers don't order more from their supply chains and the economy starts to fold like a house of cards.

The worst part is that it's not just our country, but this is affecting the entire world. As the production process has expanded across borders, continents and oceans through the processes of globalisation so has the credit crunch. This is bad news for developing countries, particularly those who are using export-driven economic growth strategies. This has serious potential to drive back gains made against poverty across the developing world that have been achieved in recent decades.

So, back to my original question: Since we have done what the terrorists were unable to do, does this mean we are the terrorists now? Not only have we devastated our own economy, but the economies of countries around the world, rich and poor, affecting the livelihoods of too many people to count. Ouch.

Creating these crazy, complex derivatives, risky investment schemes and overblown housing markets has backfired tremendously. We have neighbors, friends and families losing their homes, jobs and investments. We have leveraged ourselves to the point that there is nothing left to leverage and now we are reaping the consequences of our insatiable appetite for stuff. No doubt about it, this sucks. We have created the circumstances of our own demise, and no doubt the terrorist cells hoping to do just this are sitting back and relaxing since we have done their work for them. I keep thinking back to the SNL sketch from Fall 2008 where Kenan Thompson portrays the financial analyst on Weekend Update who keeps saying,"we need to fix it!" He doesn't provide a plan or a way out, but just the emphatic idea that it's got to be fixed.

Unfortunately, it seems that most of our country's economic and financial leaders agree, but have no clear solution to get us out of this mess. Without getting too preachy, I hope this causes us to do another re-evaluation of our lives and brings about a sense of gratitude for all the benefits we have in our lives, sorta like what we saw happen after 9/11. I also hope that this crisis puts the emphasis back on character, responsibility and accountability particularly among financial corporations, banks and the like, rather than seeming to run on greed, avarice and the belief in massive consumption--as if more=better.

A friend of mine is starting a website soon: have less, love more. It's a great idea and I hope it will gain tremendous traction, not just in these lean months, but even in the fat months in the (currently) distant future.

Cheney is really, really scary

I don't really want to add any more to this op-ed piece by CNN contributor Paul Begala, other than to shudder a bit at the scariness of Cheney.

Thank you Rush Limbaugh!

I first heard tales of the Republican bru-haha this past weekend--the kerfuffle between Michael Steele, head of the GOP, and Rush over Steele's statement that Rush was "an entertainer" and has been known to make ugly remarks. Duh. Where's the surprise there? Why did this man then hurriedly rush (forgive the Pun) to retract or minimize damages from these statements, which are more or less true. When I heard this, my first reaction was "Brilliant, Rush is showing himself to be the ass he is, which will require conservatives and Republicans to finally take a stand and hopefully repudiate him as the "intellectual" leader of the GOP."

Reading Tim Egan's blog on NYT just confirmed my hopes, that in fact Rush was acting as his and the Republican party's own worst enemy--falling into the well-played trap set for him by the Democrats and egged on by Rahm Emmanuel's comments on "Meet the Press" (I believe). He represents all that is wrong with the Republican party--so focused on partisan divisions that he refuses to consider any sort of compromise or horse trading over issues. He pretends to be the moral force for the conservative party and yet as Egan's blog illustrates his comments are often racist, sexist and divisionary. How is that useful for putting our country back together again. Although, really, someone who could continually defend GWB over the past 8 years without batting an eye is maybe not the best role model for any political party. Even supporters of certain candidates should be able to look on their chosen one with some degree of criticality. Anyway, I'm going to defer to Al Franken's book from a few years ago: Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot.