Barack Obama still not shooting straight on the economy

In the June 19 edition of The Nation, William Greider, a political journalist, argues (in "Obama's False Financial Reform") that Barack Obama needs to stop running interference for politicians and Wall Street. The proper parties to blame for the economic meltdown and a legitimate long-term fix are two sides of the same coin. Greider argues that Obama's "reform" is merely "kicking the can down the road." Greider pulls no punches:

The most disturbing thing about Barack Obama's call for financial reform was the way in which the president falsified our predicament. He tried to make it sound as though everyone was implicated in the financial breakdown and therefore no one was really to blame . . . That is not what happened, to put it charitably. Unlike some other presidents, Obama is much too intelligent not to know this. The regulatory system was not overwhelmed by historic forces. It was systematically gutted and dismantled by the government in Washington at the behest of the banking interests.

If you want specifics, Greider's article has lots of them. Consider what to do about Obama's false solution to unregulated mortgage securitization. As Greider explains, Obama's proposed solution is clearly bogus, yet there is a real solution:

Obama's answer is to require the originating lender to retain a 5 percent interest in the mortgage and pass on the rest. That seems ludicrous and innocent of how that cutthroat world actually works. The financial geniuses who created the subprime mortgage scandal could hide 5 percent of the mortgage value with a couple of keystrokes--adding fees, closing costs or other dodges. To hold lenders genuinely responsible, they should be made to hold onto something like 50 percent of liability for the original loan with perhaps the other 50 percent assigned to whatever bank or investment house packages the mortgage security and sells it to financial markets. That would be "responsibility" with old-fashioned force.

Continue ReadingBarack Obama still not shooting straight on the economy

Happy Father’s Day –

- to all the men out there raising honest, compassionate, inquisitive children. - to all the dads who aren't afraid to show their children how much they love them, all the men who model participation and positive values, good health and a passion to learn. - to the fathers who say no when they need to and who teach their children that mistakes are part of the journey; the dads who forgive, who tell stories and know how to laugh at themselves. - to every man who makes sure his children know, without having to ask, that he will be there for them, in form or spirit, whenever he is needed, for the rest of their lives. - and to the other fathers out there, somehow, may they learn how important their presence could be, and find a way to get there.

Continue ReadingHappy Father’s Day –

Sticker Shock

Back in the 1980's I learned that digital electronics always rapidly descend in price. Pretty much, if you bought a computer, disc player, or digital camera a month ago then the price would already be noticeably lower. But I recently was told (by Erich as he took the pictures here) that the camera he (and I) love to carry has increased in price since we bought them. I didn't believe him, so I looked it up at Pricegrabber.com and at Amazon. Amazon seems to show the real prices that the (lower) PriceGrabber links jump to. The exact camera that I bought for $160 from Amazon 7 months ago is now a whopping $358! Un-be-(expletive)-lievable. You may remember Erich and I raving about this little gem since he first bought his over a year ago. I shopped independently and at length to select the same camera. One odd feature of it is that it is available in a range of colors. I bought mine in Gold because it was the cheapest at the time, by $5. Now however, the price is about $180 in blue or brown, up to $358 in ... Gold! Apparently, this camera is now a hot item. Possibly one reason besides those we've mentioned on this site is that hackers have been at work. One can download uncertified "patches" to make this camera do even more amazing things. See Turn Your Point-and-Shoot into a Super-Camera at LifeHacker.com I feel that this is but another sign of our living in Interesting Times.

Continue ReadingSticker Shock

Making this the year of the Bible might make people read it

Some in Congress are pressing to make 2009 the "National Year of the Bible." As Politics Daily points out, such a pronouncement might encourage people to actually read the Bible before extolling its virtues. And lots of people do extol its virtues (93% of U.S. homes have at least one Bible). But do they read it? Polls suggest that it is not read often or well by millions of Americans:

A 2000 survey showed that even 60 percent of those chapter-and-verse-quoting Evangelicals thought Jesus was born in Jerusalem rather than Bethlehem. Similarly, a 2004 survey of high school students found that 17 percent thought "the road to Damascus" was where Jesus was crucified and 22 percent thought Moses was either one of Jesus' 12 apostles or an Egyptian pharaoh or an angel. Half of high school seniors also thought Sodom and Gomorrah were married . . . But before you pile on the slacker generation, consider that one in 10 of all Americans believe that Joan of Arc was Noah's wife, and 60 percent can't name five of the Ten Commandments.

But here's more:

Only three out of five Christians can recall the names of the first four books of the New Testament. Only half of the Christians polled correctly identified the person who delivered the Sermon on the Mount. And a full 42% of the Christians said that without the government's laws, there would be no real guidelines for people to follow in daily life.

And more:

A Gallup survey shows that fewer than half of Americans can name the first book of the Bible (Genesis), only one-third know who delivered the Sermon on the Mount (many named Billy Graham, not Jesus), and one quarter do not know what is celebrated on Easter. . . A 1997 Barna Research poll showed [that] eighty percent of born-again Christians believe it is the Bible that says "God helps them that help themselves."

These polls substantiate what I've been seeing and hearing. Many of the people who argue with me about religion (they come to my door a couple times each year) know almost nothing about the Bible. Most believers know absolutely nothing about the history of the Bible--how the Bible came to be the Bible. It's a truly fascinating story and there's no excuse that a Believer wouldn't know many of the details. See this post on Bart Ehrman setting for many quotes mistakenly attributed to Jesus. Consider, also, a book I am currently reading, Robert Wright's The Evolution of God, with makes a strong argument that Jesus didn't really say, "Love your enemies" or extol the Good Samaritan. These stories were inserted many decades after the crucifixion (e.g., see p. 260). I was raised Catholic and I know many Catholics (many of them good-hearted and thoughtful people). Almost none of them read the Bible with any familiarity. They hear passages on Sundays, but that's about it. I've spoken to dozens of serious Catholics who have no idea that there are any contradictions in the Bible and they freely admit that they don't read it on their own. So much for the "Word of God" among a large group (dozens) of educated and committed Catholics. If they really believed that the Bible was divinely inspired word of God, how could they possibly have time for anything else?

Continue ReadingMaking this the year of the Bible might make people read it

U.S. Supreme Court: no federal right to review DNA evidence

Here's the context: 240 convicted felons have now been proven to be totally innocent thanks to analysis of DNA evidence. Many states have enacted laws giving prisoners the opportunity to obtain DNA analysis of critical evidence used at their trials in years past. The U.S. Supreme Court has now ruled, however, that there is no federal constitutional right to DNA evidence that could exculpate a convict.

The Supreme Court said Thursday that a convicted rapist has no constitutional right to test biological evidence used at his trial in Alaska years earlier, leaving it to the states to decide when prisoners get access to genetic evidence that might prove their innocence . . .

Dissenting liberal justices and advocates for prisoners who seek genetic testing complained that the court is penalizing a small group of inmates who lack access to a simple test that would conclusively show their innocence, or reaffirm their guilt.

Here is the full opinion, District Attorney's Office v. Osborne. Justice John Roberts (supported by the Court's conservatives) wrote the majority opinion, concluding both of the following:

A) "DNA testing has an unparalleled ability both to exonerate the wrongly convicted and to identify the guilty." and

B) If you were convicted in one of the handful of states that aren't willing to analyze the DNA evidence of your case, you're screwed. Case over. Too bad for you. Why? Because it would mean more work for the federal judiciary.

Way to go, Justice Roberts. You are compiling quite a track record of refusing to look out for the oppressed and powerless. And see here and here. For more information, visit Project Innocent.

Continue ReadingU.S. Supreme Court: no federal right to review DNA evidence