Of Bamboozlement and Bailouts
Obama’s recent speech on April 22 on overhauling financial regulation, is an important example of the right, well crafted, cool message at the right time; a rather nice piece of expository writing that I felt needed to be analyzed and stirred a bit to get a clearer taste of content and substance; I read it several times; I enjoyed what I was reading as one enjoys an ice cold lemonade on a hot day. But you can only drink so much lemonade, especially when you taste artificial ingredients and unhealthy sweeteners.
The more I read and the less satisfied I became, as the lemonade's artificial ingredients surfaced to the top; the more I stirred this particular presidential lemonade, the clearer I began to see the artifice, the unhealthy ingredients, the cancerous sweeteners; it all raised the fundamental questions and serious concerns about our government’s words, weighed against reality and actions; here are just some key verbatim excerpts from that speech, my reactions, my question after each and my conclusions:
• 1. QUOTE: “a new foundation for economic growth and Wall Street is absolutely an essential part of that foundation”…
MY QUESTION/COMMENT: Why mention only Wall Street? Aren’t there other financial” streets” in other parts of our world?
MY CONCLUSION: this is very telling of our government’s sense of exceptionalism; it is implied that we’re the only ones that can make a difference; it is implied that the
dollar will rescue the world. Even if we were 100% certain, would not an inclusive approach be more effective? Furthermore our government's passionate focus on success defined by money and profit is not the “foundation” we need. The “foundation” we do need is a “Cultural foundation” where success is not measured by the dollars ones makes. Where success is measured by our principled words backed by principled actions, such as prosecution of well known war criminals who we know still are at large.
• 2. QUOTE: “…some of these lobbyists work for you and they’re doing what they’re being paid to do”… these reforms are in the best interest of the financial sector”
MY QUESTION/COMMENT: why do the financial moguls need lobbyists? And if we conclude that lobbyists are needed to advance one’s plight/cause/company, in the “financial sector”, then where are the lobbyists for the “poor sector”? Where are the lobbyists for people at the other end of humanity’s spectrum; you know, the poor and those who do not make millions in bonuses, those who barely scrape enough to put bread on the table! Where are the lobbyists for the people of Gaza who are being strangled with our support and our dollars?
MY CONCLUSION: our government is in no uncertain terms more than ever a greedy corporacracy motivated by personal profit and accumulation of personal wealth; the above confirms it; the “regulations” being proposed in this handy speech, are just another puff of strong hopeium ;
• 3. QUOTE: ” …the failure of Lehman Brothers”
MY QUESTION/COMMENT: why don’t you call what Lehman did by its proper name? Fraud and Criminal?
CONCLUSION: it’s a good old, privileged, well off, boy’s club , all controlled by, and paid for by white boys, who continue to control every presidency; what Lehman does is somehow only a “failure”, an implied lapse of judgment; nobody goes to jail for that; in fact, my friends, we’ll give you more money so you can keep doing it; but, in stark contrast, the poor, not privileged, often not white (or white looking) young man who himself may have had a lapse of judgment, surviving his world of daily despair, in defending himself against unwarranted police inquisition and instigation, is beaten, handcuffed and accused of resisting arrest and hauled to jail as a criminal.
• 4. QUOTE: “ We had to deploy taxpayer dollars”...to bailout the fraudulent criminal Wall Street slugs.
MY QUESTION/COMMENT: Mr. President, now that all these criminal firms seem to be once again making record profits; why not DEPLOY these criminal firms’ dollars to bailout the taxpayer?! Seriously!This would be equitable common sense! But common sense is not common practice when it comes to helping the common folk, isn’t that right?
CONCLUSION: See number 3
• 5. QUOTE: “…we’ll help ensure that our financial system-and our economy continue to be the envy of the world"
QUESTION/COMMENT: Why must our financial system be “the envy of the world? Why not strive to be the best that “WE” could be; We are focusing on the wrong and self-destructive motivational driver! A pernicious sense of superiority that is making us anything but the "envy" of anyone!
CONCLUSION: See number 1 ; this alsodemonstrates why our government’s foreign policy continues to fail: because we see ourselves as a Nation ABOVE Nations instead of a Nation AMONG Nations!
• 6. QUOTE: “…many of these practices (fraudulent)were so opaque, so confusing, so complex that the people inside the firms didn’t understand them, much less those who were charged with overseeing them”
MY QUESTION/COMMENT: Please, please do not offend us! You expect us to believe that those fraudulent financial experts millionaires, advisors, with teams of PhDs and economists and MBAs from top USA Business Schools , did not understand the financial product they were selling? Really now? Assuming that’s true, then our Business schools are not doing a good job are they? And what about if firms in other sectors used the same logic as an excuse for their failings? For instance: if Toyota, Kia, Maserati, BMW, Volvo, Skoda or any other reputable firm’s innovative product (let’s use a car as an example of a new product; and let’s call this new car: the HoodwinCar) caused unexpected accidents and pain? Would you buy the excuse you are using for the failings of the fraudulent wall men with sacks of gold? Following that same logic the HoodwinCar manufacturer’s excuse could plausibly sound like this: “The new HoodwinCar failed and caused pain and suffering because the manufacturing process is so opaque, so confusing and its engineering so complex that even the people inside the firm don’t understand how the Hoodwincar functions”.
CONCLUSION: Our government thinks we are stupid; hence, they can tell us whatever they like and we’ll believe it as long as there are enough reality shows, and enough cheap gastroexplosive fast foods to keep our fat bellies full and our little mouths shut.
A final observation for our President on this particular speech: why does this speech end with “God Bless The United States America”? If you genuinely believe we must set the example for the rest of the "world'; if you truly believe this speech was about fixing the “global” financial machine(and hence those who suffer by this wretchedly broken machine), if you truly believe there is a symbiosis between "all the economies of the world", why not bless (if you must) our world and not just the US Of America?
mm
 "Photo: N/A")
About a month shy of her 24th birthday in March 2003, activist and Evergreen State student Rachel Corrie was killed by an Israeli Defense Force bulldozer while protesting the destruction of Palestinian homes in the Gaza strip. Her controversial death may be what made her famous, but it is her life that is the subject of the one-woman play “My Name is Rachel Corrie.”
Showing this Friday at 8 p.m. in Rockefeller Hall 200, this production of “Rachel Corrie” is a traveling show, featuring actress Courtney Day Nassar. The Grassroots Alliance for Alternative Politics, a student organization, joined forces with local groups Middle East Crisis Response (MECR) and the Dutchess Peace Coalition to host the play.
The MECR, a group described on its website as “joined in support of human rights for Palestinians and an end to the U.S.’s aggressive policies in the Middle East,” has been working on staging a version of this play for some time. Wrote MECR member Paul Rehm in an emailed statement, “After returning from a visit to Israel/Palestine as members of a delegation from Every Church a Peace Church…my wife and I had the good fortune to see the play during its initial run in London and were deeply moved by it.”
He continued: “Along with other members of Middle East Crisis Response, we’ve been working for the day when people in the Hudson Valley might also be able to see this remarkable one-woman play and through it, to learn about Rachel Corrie,” wrote MECR member Paul Rehm in an e-mailed statement.
Written by Alan Rickman and Katherine Viner, the play uses Corrie’s own e-mails, letters and journal entries as sources of material. Given the nature of Corrie’s death, there is something inherently political about the play, but it nevertheless focuses more on Corrie as a human character. MECR member Fred Nagel feels that the focus on the apolitical is an important part of the play. “I think that art brings us to a level of understanding that facts on the ground cannot,” wrote Nagel in an e-mailed statement. “This Friday, we will experience the truths as Rachel Corrie saw them. And the play will help us celebrate what is best in the human experience.”
The play has prompted some controversy in its brief history. A cancelled 2006 run of the show at the New York Theater Workshop caused a stir, raising claims of censorship. There have even been some bumps along the way for this particular production. MECR’s initial attempts to find Albany-to-Hudson area theatre companies interested in performing the play were met with discouraging results: “Honest theatre can be hard for some to handle,” said Rehm.
Once the MECR discovered Courtney Day Nassar’s performance, the search for a venue led the group to Vassar, where they got in touch with the Grassroots Alliance.
Peter Satin ’10, of the Grassroots Alliance, recognized the potential for controversy, but didn’t believe that it would present a significant issue. “I do know that there are a lot of Israeli sympathizers on campus,” he said. “But we hosted something in a similar vein about Israeli military conscious objectors earlier this year, and that went really well.”
Addressing the political nature of the play, he continued, “I guess the structure of the show is not so much agenda’d as it is bringing to light human rights abuses in general—it’s not politically charged. Hopefully the student body will see through the politics involved to look at the greater message.”
Rehm has a distinct vision of what this “greater message” entails: “We live in a society that tends to put on a pedestal those among us who pick up a gun, turning to violence to protect or promote the things we believe in,” he wrote. “Rachel’s life embodied the spirit, the ideal, the belief that there is another way and that defending the lives or homes of others non-violently requires just as much courage and may also call for the ultimate sacrifice.”
Satin continued, “That Vassar students might hear—above the din of voices calling for violent answers in conflict situations—one young woman’s voice rising in support of non-violent responses and from her life know something of the strength those responses require, is worth the efforts of all who care about the justice that accompanies real peace.”
He added, “I hope the student body can approach it with open minds, and I think it’s an important message that regardless of your political stance towards the Middle East, conflict can speak to anyone.”
