Free Market Extinction

In response to a rant about the big three bailout proposal.

I agree with your rant against the potential bailout for the big three American auto makers. I too believe that a failed business strategy in a competitive market is not justification for a bailout. The big three previously focused on larger, passenger heavy vehicles for production. The realization that consumers would move towards more fuel efficient cars should not be shocking since it occurred before in 1973.

Consumers flocked away from large cars to smaller ones in part to an oil embargo which limited supply creating extremely higher costs for fuel. Coupled with the stock market crash of 1973, Americans chose smaller vehicles to save money in gas and pinch pennies. The 1973 crisis foreshadowed problems we would face today. With our economy experiencing a recession and with recent sky rocketing oil prices, our situation is not far removed from the incident 35 years earlier.

Union controlled employment in Detroit and other northern cities does not help American automakers either. The pay for union workers in northern cities is $78.00 per hour compared to southern foreign automakers non-union employee costing just $48.00 per hour. If a union member is on strike, guess how much he makes per hour? He still makes $78.00. Union control has decimated the American automakers making cars costlier and harder to compete in a market saturated with low cost, fuel economic automobiles.

In the end let’s allow free market ideology to reign where previous bailouts proved it to be a hoax. If we infuse these beleaguered businesses, the only payoff is that we will stave off the inevitable collapse for a few more years at the expense of the taxpayers.

Ham Next Year

They’ve picked through the carcass of an old and dry bird leaving it boneless and bare. Instead of a turkey, the banking industry decided they’d dine on a bald eagle. This seems to be the point of view that the financial industry has taken since they are using taxpayer money to prop back up the plummeting economy. The subprime mortgage crisis coupled with the lack of faith in commercial paper markets further fed the recession we are facing. The concept of a free market has been absolutely leveled with the government’s philosophy on sustaining failing enterprises.

What bothers me most however is the lack of oversight that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson failed in carrying out. After all, his job is to act as the watchdog and notify the president of what he notices. Paulson’s connections also raise alarms. He is friends with many of the bailout recipients since his previous job was CEO of Goldman Sachs.

He implored the president and congress on the passage of the United States Emergency Economic Stabilization Fund, injecting $700 billion dollars into the worsening banks. The passage of this act essentially gave him the authority to write blank checks to his banking buddies at the tax payers’ expense. The $700 billion estimate seemed a bit on the short side with the number continuing to increase. The financial bailout is now considered the most expensive U.S. expenditure ever totaling $7.5 trillion. That’s half of last year’s gross domestic product. This graph shows how tremendous the cost is to us.

I understand that hindsight is 20/20 and that it’s a naïve to believe that one man is responsible for this entire mess. But I’m feeling it right now in the depreciation of my retirement funds and the job-loss experienced by my neighbors. It’s hurting all of us. Paulson unwittingly became my personal scapegoat with his declaration in July of 2007 that the subprime mortgage crisis didn't pose any threat to the economy. In my psyche, I need a single fallible foil on whom to direct my resentment. Fueled by the unsettling image of a scavenger feasting on my 401k, Paulson turned into my ideal vulture.

Q: Are we there yet? A: I said yes if only you had paid attention.

The following soap-box rant was in response to this post.

I think your view is overwhelming pessimistic for the president-elect. Both candidates had made their views what they would have enacted. You could have viewed their stance on major issues that ran the gamut of education to the war in Iraq on their websites (McCain and Obama).


I do not agree with you on the concept that the candidates were sidestepping major issues. Both candidates, along with the American public, are fully aware of the developing financial crisis. Our fears have been echoed in our sinking retirement plans and the reductio ad absurdum belief that we’ll be soon dwelling in hoovervilles. The financial issue is the primary problem the public is facing, not the distant and unjustified war in Iraq.


Could you please quantify who you believe is “qualified” in the role of president? You’ve stated that you disliked both candidates, but failed to elaborate on what traits define a good president. You had also made the claim that previous presidents only know how to run the county and I'm of the belief that this does not qualify or give merit to our current commander-in-chief based on the examples of the botched Katrina disaster and the baseless Iraq war.


This election is historic on many levels by just looking at the context of our current situation: We’re currently engaged in costly wars on two fronts. The United States is in a major financial crisis. Unemployment rates are the highest they’ve been in 14 years, and to the rest of the world the ideal of America had distorted from the protector to the bully. Barack Obama will be the first black president in an age that people still have recent memories of the civil rights movement. I believe that's enough to deem it historic. It’s refreshing to think that someone has thoughts on getting us out of this ever-deepening hole, instead of using a “dig-deeper” approach.

Subliminally Superior

Teddy Roosevelt proclaimed, “The most ultimately righteous of all wars is a war with savages.” The overtones of racial superiority have been echoed before in many past presidents. The prejudicial sentiments seem to be bubbling back up to the surface in the current election year.

Historically, stereotypical imagery of African Americans has been irreprehensible from the use of the blackface minstrel shows of the 19th century to modern media’s depiction of African Americans as morally inferior. Lawrence Grossman, former CNS News president, stated local news “disproportionately show African-Americans under arrest, living in slums, on welfare, and in need of help from the community.” Even in video games, the stereotypes are alive in that 79% of African American male characters engaged in physical and verbal aggression. The constant barrage of stereotypical imagery has been subconsciously placed in the minds of many Americans and it is constantly affirmed in entertainment and media.

Recently there was a fabricated story of the mutilation of a white McCain supporter by a tall knife-wielding black man that has been making the rounds. The fact that a McCain aide pushed the story along to news organization without substantiating a shred of it is idiotic. The backwards “B” carved into her cheek should be as clear of an indicator one need for the validity of her story. This underlying meaning of the story perpetrates the imagery of the “savage” and it’s frightening because it plays on the fear and imagery of that stereotype.

I wish that these types of stories would not sway people toward the McCain camp by fueling the perpetual fear created by stereotypes. I fear many have already chosen their candidate by the superficial color of their skin because of their subliminal trepidations. Because media and entertainment continuously recycle negative labels, I’m defeated in knowing that this behavior will continue indefinitely.

Positives in Negativity

The Christian Science Monitor’s opinion piece entitled “What’s Good About McCain-Obama Mudslinging” by John Greer, a professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, makes the claim that negative campaigning is more beneficial than positive campaign advertisements. I originally had intended to take issue with Mr. Greer’s point of view regarding negative campaigning but the more I dissect his argument the more sense it makes.

Throughout the article, Greer makes the statement that since a nominee will not present their flaws and weaknesses to the general public it’s up to the opponents to do this for them. I see this also in how nominees always try to shape their image by only presenting nondescript and vague attributes to them that tend to be built to attract on the fence voters (i.e. cutting taxes, expanding healthcare). These attributes are echoed exactly by the almost all of the other candidates. Because of this, an informed critique is needed to at least give disclaimers on why the general public, who is not that political informed, shouldn’t cast their vote for a specific candidate.

Greer also makes the point then when attack ads cross the line it can prove disastrous if the ad doesn’t contain the evidence needed to support it. Mr. Greer gives the example of the McCain’s recent “sex education” ad, claiming that Obama was supporting sex education for kindergartners. An additional example can be taken from McCain’s “celebrity” ad where it compares Obama to the likes of Paris Hilton and Brittney Spears. These types of ads lack evidence and primarily attempt to impart a subconsciously negative image of the opponent to undecided voters. In a recent poll conducted by ABC News and the Washington Post indicate that the 59 percent of the American public accused McCain of negative campaigning while 35 percent claimed he was addressing the issues. These negative attack ads are proving to be a detriment when attacking opponents with unsubstantiated evidence and personal attacks in the current presidential election.

Greer’s article identifies that negative ads when used correctly provides the American voting public a source to gain an informed critique. When used incorrectly it can backfire by making the candidate appear petty and slanderous. The strengths of each candidate will always be displayed prominently since tooting their own horn is a skill in which each has mastered. Their weaknesses also need to be accessed and the best way to convey to a generally ill informed populace in a digestible manner is through negative ads.

Alaska, The Eye that Watches Putin’s Incessant Head Rearing

Bob Herbert, a Meyer Berger award winning editor at the New York Times, wrote a recent opinion column, “Palin’s Words Raise Red Flags”, regarding the latest interviews with Sarah Palin, posing the question of whether the vice presidential nominee’s lack of preparedness is an indicator of her absence of qualifications. I can’t help but agree with Mr. Herbert. His article is written for a liberal audience but it appears that some conservatives echo Mr. Herbert's concern as seen in the National Review blog titled “Free Sarah Palin!” by Kathryn Jean Lopez. During her first interview on ABC News with Charlie Gibson, the republican V.P. nominee was asked the question of her take on the Bush Doctrine, a legal pre-emptive attack against a country as long as it has knowledge of an imminent attack, provided a thoroughly nebulous response a first signal to her credibility. Most Americans do not know what the Bush Doctrine is, however most Americans are not in a position of becoming the leader of the free world in an instant. In the most recent interview with Katie Couric, Sarah Palin fumbled through questioning regarding her experience with foreign policies. Mr. Herbert details a transcript of the interview further noting that watching her performance was surreal. The column advocates that her performances in unscripted appearances are great; however under the scrutiny of being interviewed Mrs. Palin appears unqualified. Governor Palin, the self proclaimed “bull dog” hockey mom, needs to analyze the best choice for her answers carefully to at least give the impression of a competent candidate rather than stumble over softball questions tossed by “America’s Sweetheart”.

"Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!"

I find it ironic that the most notorious political consultant in the history of the United States who raised the bar on negative campaigning would be the one who speaks out about his own party’s presidential candidate crossing the line in his recent attack advertisements. In a recent CNN article, Karl Rove assessed the most recent John McCain advertisements as going “…one step too far”. The entire article addresses the recent quote by Karl Rove, the negative campaigning done by both Democrat and Republican parties during this election year, and the current campaign donations received in the month of August. These funds insure that the smear campaigns and mudslinging will continue until the polls are closed in early November.