Migraine medicine musings

So I’ve been thinking this morning. Bear with me here, since this may be partially induced by the migraine medicine I took last night.

Typically, I go around and around, without landing anywhere, on the whole “government should do everything” push that we all seem to be engaged in.

There’s the side of me that’s so completely wedded to the American idea… freedom, liberty, creativity, courage, endless horizons, the primacy of the individual… I see it kind of like one great big amazing circus. The Greatest Show on Earth! Look at us go! This side is normally completely dominant. I love this feeling of the American character. I breathe it like air in the wide open country out West. It’s inspiring and life-affirming, to me.

Then there’s the other part of me that sees just how damned scary all of that is to so many people. A lot of people like to watch a circus, and live vicariously through the trapeze artists and lion tamers, but not a lot of people want to be the performers in the circus. Most of us just don’t have the guts. And really, there is nothing wrong with wanting a little safety in one’s life. I can empathize with that idea too.

My insight this morning is this: The problem I seem to have with the idea of turning responsibility for the circus over to the government so everyone can feel safer, is that it is just so damned Boring that way. Dull, dull, dull. Lacking in imagination. Rote. Repeated. Practiced so many times, there’s no new way to do it. Utterly and completely BORING.

If the government gets to have ultimate responsibility for, and by extension control of, everything… our finances, our health, our education, our jobs, our environment, our washing machine size and water usage, our toilet flushes, our light bulbs… then just how much is there left for any particular individual to give a shit about? If the government is responsible for ensuring “correct and fair” results for all our biggest acts in life, all our biggest decisions, all our charitable impulses, why bother dreaming outside the anthill?

Hasn’t this been done too many times to count, throughout history? I mean, yeah, we call it different names… Theocracy, Monarchy, Autocracy, Kleptocracy, Socialism, Fascism, Communism, Totalitarianism… yada, yada, yada. The age of the Greeks, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, the New World Order, the UN, the European Union… the Mongols, the Goths (the Visigoths! Whatever they were… Goths with vision?). The Cherokee, the Iroquois, the Sioux, the Miami. Everyone fighting everyone else for control of land and other people, in particular their own neighbors, who bug the hell out of them with their different ways and their different ideas. Others fighting to rid themselves of the need to make their own decisions while also controlling their neighbors because their neighbors make different decisions and might be more successful at life without the shackles of government on their ankles. What a complete lack of imagination this mindset takes. A bunch of crabs in a pot, pulling each other down so we can all get boiled together.

Basically, every governmental system we’ve tried ultimately ends up meaning that someone else is responsible for everything that matters. We had a chance to do it differently in the US, but we got scared with the Great Depression, and looked to government to save the day here too. And so the great march toward world-wide collectivism continued. With just a few hiccups here and there.

So I watch the passing of this American idea, and I think to myself, on the one hand “well, it is a country meant for the young-at-heart after all, and maybe the youth in this country really did mean to vote for collectivism. Maybe this is what they want. All money and all power and all choice in the hands of the government, which will then decide who is moral enough to get a share back, and whose ideas are not worth the time it takes to dismiss them. It’s not the America I dream about it, but maybe this dream isn’t meant for me any more.”

Then on the other hand I think: Do we really all have to be collectivists in this world, in order to come to an eventual agreement that this is getting really dull? How boring can a people get?

On Writing

I wrote this in a letter to my sister-in-law:

As for the writing, I suspect this may not be easy to believe, but I'm not really interested in making money off my writing. I'm not really looking to sell anything.

Believe me, I've given this much thought and examined my nature in a great deal of detail where writing is concerned and the truth of the matter is that I know I am good. I'm an excellent writer. And I don't care if anyone else ever reads what I write.

I'm completely confident about my knowledge of myself on this issue, and I'll explain a little of it here, just so you can rest assured that I've indeed thought this through.

So, we start with the fact that I'm good at it. And I enjoy it when I do it. When do I do it? Well, when I have something I want to say. Or when I have some people talking in my head telling me a story.

That still doesn't mean that I want to sell what I write, though, it only means that I need to express what I need to express. I firmly believe that anyone else in the world who needs to read what I write will either a) find my blog and keep going back, reading into the history of it though the category links in the sidebar, or through random clicks on the "older posts" links or post titles, until they feel satisfied, or b) ask me a question.

From the fiction angle, I have realized that I hate writing the boring bits. I only enjoy writing the scenes that come to me in a flash, fully discussed by my characters, and surrounded by tantalizing glimpses of meaning. People don't buy books with only the interesting bits written though. Generally speaking, in this world, people prefer to buy a story that holds together coherently that they can read straight through from point A to point Z and not get lost wondering how in the hell we got to point 123 when we thought we were in the alphabet.

I don't think that way, for the most part. I don't even enjoy reading that way, truthfully. My reading points usually go in an order (and yes, I'm talking about reading fiction here) more like: AB Z C P D EF T GH R IJ U KL Y X MNO P(yes, again then my mind goes... oh am I close to R now? So...) R Q R V S T(again) U(again) V (again) W X (again) Y (again) Z (again) and possibly, if I've really enjoyed the end, another Y and Z.

My type of writing fiction, hating transitions as I do, and only enjoying the meaningful scenes, is better suited to the stage or screen, I think, and maybe one day I'll give that a shot, if I feel so inclined. But that does bring it back to "sell! or write for everyone else!" which I don't care if I do. I know that in most people's minds, when one has a gift for something, one also has a duty to share it with the world. Unfortunately for most people though, I don't share that belief. Or more accurately, my belief on that level is a bit more subtle. See, I do share it with the world, but on a very small scale, and not out of duty. I share it with people who through serendipity or luck happen to stumble across it or ask for it. I figure that what I'm inspired to put "out there" on my own impulse, will be the thing that some random someone, somewhere will want or need to read. If not, that's fine too. I'm just putting it out there for me, then. If I'm forcing it, or trying to make it bigger than it is, then I'm just being stubborn, going against my nature, and creating the perfect opportunity for me to give myself "writer's block" because I'm going against what I believe. And what I truly do believe is that we all, through serendipity, find or are offered exactly what we need when we need it.

Every time I write, whether in a letter (like this one to you), a blog post, a rant, a journal entry, or a fictional scene... it's all really me writing to me. The rest of the world, or even one single member of that tribe, may or may not have the opportunity to read it. I may or may not post it where they can see it, or "do something with it", but it doesn't matter to me. The energy that I put into it is for my own benefit and enjoyment. If I tell myself a fictional story, then I've told myself a great story... better than a lot of stories I've actually read, honestly. And generally speaking, that's enough for me. I do enjoy sharing the cool scenes though (like on my blog) just because I think they're cool and think someone else may find them cool too. Particularly my friends and family who read there.

And interestingly enough, all of this to you has been something that I've been meaning to say on my blog, but never got around to putting into words. So, thanks for offering me, through serendipity, the opportunity to do what I want to do. And... I'm going to post most of this letter to you, there.

So now you know.

When Pravda is taking you out to the woodshed for a spanking, you do have a problem.

And it's a fascinating spanking too, given the complete lack of delicacy and political correctness, as well as some of the overblown distortions of what America is like.

Here's the link, from back in April:

American capitalism gone with a whimper

Killer quote (from page 2):

The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

I would caution the world, though, in its temptation to snicker. It is certainly understandable that a lot of the world feels a very strong urge to gloat. But, I think Putin himself may be wondering (given his speech, linked below), if America follows the world into socialism, who exactly will be left to buy the world's products? Didn't someone once say "the trouble with socialism is that soon you run out of other people's money"?

If America is simply giving up the fight, joining the rest of the world's preferred economic template, (as well as the rest of the world's "someone should do something" whine about the world's hotspots), then what countries, exactly, will be the new engine of the world's economic machine, and the world's new policemen? I sure hope somebody is stepping up to the plate. Atlas is shrugging in a pretty big way over here. Hope the world has a plan for who's going to be the next big guy holding things up. Everyone's been griping long enough about America doing it. So, I guess you could say we quit. Europe should be thrilled.

Sounds like Putin hopes it will be Russia taking on the roles America is abandoning. I'll bet that's more than likely. A Russia/China partnership should be interesting for the world to watch. Hope Russia and China are also keen on keeping the peace and trying to help people living under totalitarians to be free. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

But if Putin, back in January, sounds more capitalistic than the American President, you know the world is turning upside down. It's truly mind-bending.

Putin's speech at the Davos World Economic Forum.

National Bankruptcy

Not the change we need.

And so... Tea Parties.

If you want to understand what happened...

You've got to watch this video. It is long, for sure. But it's an amazingly cogent and comprehensive explanation of how this whole depression/recession thing got going and what can help. You need an hour and a half. But it is really time well-spent.

Mysticism, Logic, Yin, Yang, and Fanaticism

Patrick has this poster in his room.

There are times when I'm reading something, exploring ideas, and the imagery of this poster pops into my head for the duration. This is a primal symbolic key... it is always relevant. It's actually the basis for how I approach pretty much any new idea.

Yin and Yang. Dark, Light. Female, Male.

Mysticism, Logic.

I was delighted today to come across this bit of writing from Gilbert Magazine. (I found the link in a comment discussion at the Gates of Vienna blog.)

This article is timely in so many ways. Not the least of which is that it brings up Tolstoy, which is connected again to Patrick, and to the whole "all things Russian" interest that we've got going around here. I haven't talked about that here on the blog, but it's been in the background for a while now since Patrick's taking Russian at IU.

Anyway. A couple of relevant bits of the article on Fanaticism, linked above (God, I Love this!):

“Fanaticism has nothing at all to do with religion,” Chesterton affirms. The origins of fanaticism lie elsewhere and neither science nor politics nor academia is immune from it. Tolstoy was no doubt a genius. He had great faith. He lacked only one thing. “He is not a mystic and therefore he has a tendency to go mad.”

This passage recalls Chesterton's discussion of the maniac in Orthodoxy. The maniac is not a man with many ideas that tend to balance each other off in common sense. Rather he is a man with one idea according to which he sees all else in a distorted light. Tolstoy “is not a mystic; and therefore he has a tendency to go mad. Men talk of the extravagances and frenzies that have been produced by mysticism; they are a mere drop in the bucket. In the main, and from the beginning of time, mysticism has kept men sane.” It is the mystic who is open to all things, even if they seem at first not to make sense.

And then:

Chesterton comes to his main point. “The thing that has driven them mad was logic.” The poets were less likely to go insane than the scientists—the “mad scientist” is a well-known character, in fact. Tolstoy was deficient in poetry. “The only thing that kept the race of men from the mad extremes of the convent and the pirate-galley, the night-club and the lethal chamber, has been mysticism—the belief that logic is misleading, and that things are not what they seem.”

You've got to read the whole thing. Let it seep into your consciousness through the mystical senses. Maybe it's just me, but this article feels steeped in so much more. You could say it is much more than it seems.

Yin and Yang are both necessary, I think. Mysticism coupled with Logic.

It will take courage for a committed Obama voter to pay attention to this.

Obama voters need to ask themselves if they really believe in the philosophy that they've committed themselves to voting for. The case will take about 6 minutes to make.

4 and 1/4 minutes on Youtube, and probably less than 2 minutes to read. Suggestion: Choose to read, if you've only got time for one or the other.

If a person can't put aside his or her own automatic responses for 6 minutes to look at a philosophy objectively, I'd just have to suggest that maybe that person should do the rest of us a favor by not voting.

If a potential Obama voter can look at the philosophy objectively, find it not to his or her liking, but can't stomach voting for McCain... there are third party candidates out there. Maybe considering voting for one of them would be more palatable.

I guess to a socialist, running the economy into the ground looks good.

I've always questioned the wisdom of counting on the current "rules" to last beyond the government's whim and appetite.

Chilling:

Democrats to kill 401(k)s for … privatized Social Security?

Of course, reading through that and the article linked here:

House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax Breaks

... it becomes very clear that what they're talking about is not "privatizing Social Security" since there is no actual proposal anywhere to do anything with the great ponzi scheme known as Social Security, other than to increase mandatory contributions by another 5%. No, what they're talking about is making a governmental grab at money that is currently tax-deferred, to increase government revenue now, to pretend that they can paper over the fact that the "Social Security Trust Fund" is nothing but a cardboard box filled with IOU's.

Basically, if you've had the foresight to realize that you weren't born soon enough to get anything at all from Social Security, and you knew that your generation is actually going to be the one left without a chair in the generational game of musical chairs... if that's you... and you decided to buy into the promises of government by investing in a 401-k... well, sorry. The rules are going to get changed on you mid-stream, sucker. It's just not fair you know, for you to have all that money where the government can't tax it right now when we need it so badly.

This bit from the second article just makes me sick:

“The savings rate isn’t going up for the investment of $80 billion,” he said. “We have to start to think about ... whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that’s not generating what we now say it should.”

That's the House Education and Labor Committee Chairman, Democrat, George Miller. Talking not about any investment the government has made, mind you, but about the deferred tax payments on individual contributions and company matches to individual 401-k accounts. Individual investments. $80 billion in taxes not collected now, but deferred until the time the withdrawals begin.

The bit on mandatory contribution increases is in the same article, here:

Under Ghilarducci’s plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.

Now, call me cynical, but I'd be willing to bet that the "guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration" is kind of what people thought they were buying into when the monster was created in the first place back in the days of FDR. Fool me once, shame on you. Twice?

Do they really think anyone is going to believe this again? Yeah... I think they do. And they're probably right.

Just makes me want to weep for this country.

I lost my mind last night, but it came back.

It was a tough night for me last night. Sometimes, I just look too far into the mists of time, and the energy "out there" overwhelms me. It's the uncertainty that does it. If I knew exactly where the pivot comes, where the path splits, when it occurs... if I could pinpoint that moment reality will no longer be considered optional, I could stay with the generally relaxed and philosophical position I ordinarily inhabit, as it relates to the vagaries of direction of mass events. (Which is to say that on a personal level, some would not define me as "relaxed" though I certainly handle drama fairly well. I'm not exactly a greatly soothing presence for some people. Others, yes... but... well, this tangent seems to lead to a completely different post, I suppose.)

Usually, I can stand back far enough that looking at the big picture is fairly easy for me. Times like last night undo a lot of centeredness, though, and I feel like I've been tossed by a massive wave of emotion. Then I just can't contain it. It's got to come out somewhere. Unfortunately, it happens so late at night that there isn't much I can do to make it easier. Calling someone is not an option... since waking people up in the middle of the night to have a mini-freakout is usually considered rude.

So, Mike got to be the witness. He had no words, really, but at the end of the freakout he did come out with the one thing I needed to hear. "It's all going to be all right." Then I reached for sleep and Thomas Jefferson. Let his spirit hold me, also murmuring "it's going to be all right."

Taking my comfort where I could get it, I at least was able to sleep. Dreamed interesting dreams of redecorating a house... lovely, really... I wish I could draw... then a good friend moving, and the thought that maybe I should move too, to remain close. The dreams were related to changes of realities, too, but not in a freak-out way.

I think that if I knew for certain that we don't, as a nation, really plan to dive off the cliff before we try to reverse course and decide to go back to accepting that reality is real, I'd feel more confident in our ability to weather the outcome of our follies.

Sometimes I just bite off more despair than I can chew.

I'm on my way back to centeredness, though.

One thing is certain: The financial mess is going to lead to bureaucracy

Depressing stuff. A snippet:

As to what can be done, it may not matter. That is, it's important what we do, but the chance that it will be done sanely and rationally is very small. What will be done must be decided by the most unpopular Administration in nearly a century in connection with the most unpopular Congress in history; and everyone involved in finding a remedy was in one way or another a part of creating the mess. By everyone, I mean everyone: the Administration, the Treasury, the Congress under Carter and Clinton, Congress under Reagan and Bush, Congress controlled by both Democrats and Republicans, the regulatory agencies, and the "experts" now out of jobs who will be hired to manage the new institutions that will be set up to buy bad debts: every one of them. What will be done will be settled by politics, not by economics.

I say this because those who did foresee this disaster tried repeatedly to rein in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but the Fred and Fan lobbyists were easily able to defeat those efforts. Moreover the leaders of Fred and Fan were fired, but left with multi-million dollar bonuses, as did the leaders of various firms ruined in the disaster. The remedies being proposed aren't going to do much more than create a bureaucracy. Once that happens, Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy will take over, and whatever is required to keep that bureaucracy healthy will be done. One thing is certain: the people who must pay for this debacle will largely be those who took out sensible loans and have kept up their mortgage payments; those who did nothing wrong, but will be handed the bill.

Read the whole thing.

A cogent analysis of where the Fed stands now

Welcome to History. Threading this needle is going to be a real trick.

Exactly!

Hear, hear! Hope McCain's people read the Wall Street Journal:

Yes, the Obama campaign is trying to hang the Bush presidency around his neck. Mr. McCain knows -- and should give -- the answer to that: Voter disgust with Washington goes far beyond George W. Bush.

In the 2006 off-year election, voters threw out the Republican bums and turned over control of Congress to the Democrats. In an odd thank-you, the Democratic Congress earned the lowest approval ratings ever recorded in opinion polls.

Explain: Lehman, AIG, Fannie, Freddie and Bear

Yeah, everyone is confused. So it's quite a breath of fresh air to see this explanation, putting things in layman's terms.

Several commenters seem to think that something on this scale only takes 8 years to unravel though.

(via Althouse)

Fannie and Freddie "invest" in lawmakers

A 1989-2008 list is here. I'm disappointed to see both my senators and my representative on the list. They are: Evan Bayh (#28, with $ 41,100), Richard Lugar (lost count, he's down a ways at $ 4,500), and Baron Hill (also down a ways, with $5,000).

Sheesh.

So not only do Obama and Biden think it is a good idea for an incoming administration to scour the decisions of an out-going administration, effectively making policy disagreements into criminal offenses:

Looking to the future but with one eye on the past, Biden also promised that an Obama-Biden government would go through Bush administration data with "a fine-toothed comb" and pursue criminal charges if necessary.

But, also, Obama seems to think it's a good idea for potential office-holders to undermine current office-holders when it comes to decisions that are the direct responsibility of the President.

In a long interview with the pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, Zebari says: "Obama asked me why, in view of the closeness of a change of administration, we were hurrying the signing of this special agreement, and why we did not wait until the coming of the new administration next year and agree on some issues and matters."

Jeez. I'm betting he wouldn't take too kindly to a future Republican opponent undermining him this way, if he should succeed in becoming the next president. Seems to me that if this behavior is now going to be viewed as "ok", there is great potential for creating chaos and hobbling any future president's ability to follow his own advisers and intelligence. Talk about unravelling the fabric of our Constitutional system.

And of course, the so-called "mainstream media" is AWOL. Any guesses on why that might be? Yeah, Dan Calabrese is guessing.

Further illustration

This goes to the point that economically, Presidents can propose, then sign or veto, as well as appointing heads of certain departments... but only have any power if Congress goes along with them.

The credit crisis and the lack of oversight over government-subsidized lenders like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac occurred on the watch of George Bush, and many blame his economic team for their lack of oversight in the collapse. Barack Obama has made this point one of his major campaign themes, arguing that John McCain would provide more of the same failures that Bush did. However, what many do not recall is that Bush wanted to tighten oversight with a new regulatory board for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other government recipients for the express purpose of addressing bad loan practices — and Democrats blocked it.

Read the whole thing.

This is why it is so critically important to have a president who can communicate clearly to the American people. President Bush's greatest failing, in my view, is that he has never been convincing enough, or articulate enough, to actually explain what he has been trying to accomplish in any field. He has left it to the media to explain for him. And the mainstream press hasn't been interested in actually doing their jobs, but have preferred to be advocates for their own agendas.

I think Ronald Reagan's greatest strength was his ability to do an end-run around the media to talk directly to the American people. When we knew what he was trying to do, it was really easy to harass Congress to get with the program.

Voting the congressional bums out... all of them... and having a President who talks directly to the people to get his agenda accomplished, by specifically spelling it out and naming names, is critical.

I wish one of the candidates would address the issue of congressional corruption rather than harping on Wall Street. If anyone can really be fingered with the "greed" label, I'd say it's congress.

But I'm not hearing that from either McCain or Obama. Obama wants to keep the Dems in power so he can get all his massive programs enacted easily. McCain... who knows what his problem is?... I don't know why he thinks Wall Street is the big culprit here. Maybe he's afraid to piss off Congress too much, figuring he's going to have to try to work with them, either way, after the election.

Disappointing.

Partial Correction

In my ranting mood yesterday, I didn't take into consideration that the heads of Freddie and Fannie and the Fed are political appointees.

Guess who brought in the politicos responsible for this huge meltdown, though. Yeah. Clinton. My point about Congress holding the purse strings still stands. It's just that with the cronyism involved the whole "checks and balances" thing has really taken a back seat to the fun of lining congressional pockets and being bought off to look the other way. And clearly President Bush has not been much help to the taxpayers when it comes to cleaning house. I somehow doubt Obama would be any better at reforming this crap either, given his connections and the fact that he's been second in line for the payouts.

I'm sorry for the rant yesterday. The basic point is true. The president has very little control over the economy. But he does have some ability to put decent people in charge of some important agencies.

Mea culpa.

UPDATE: Adding this link to my previous post, and this link to the post that references comment moderation.

Will Someone Please TELL Them

That in this country, spending is controlled by the Congress. You know those guys... the SENATORS and House Members who write the budgets for the President to either sign or veto!

I am so sick of seeing things like this in the news, and coming from candidates who really should know better, given that three quarters of the ones running for the offices of President and Vice President happen to be current Senators.

Maybe Obama has got an excuse, since he's hardly ever there, doing his job and doesn't know what he'd actually be responsible for if he wins... but what about McCain and Biden? (Biden should educate Obama on this matter in a hurry, since he (Biden) won't actually be responsible for anything much if he gets elected.) Shouldn't they know that all the President will get to do financially, after winning election and being sworn in, is propose programs and hopeful budgets, and possibly, maybe, if Congress is feeling friendly, get them enacted? Congress is responsible for writing the budgets, the new programs, the bailouts and the laws.

Or the President can Veto until the CongressCritturs come back with a more reasonable budget, program, bailout, or law.

That's it. That is the scope of Presidential power where the economy is concerned. Propose, Sign or Veto. Not a lot there.

So, if the media or the candidates or the voters are unhappy with spending, let them look at Congress. Vote those bums out. Which financial problems do you want to address? Look at Congress for the answer to the question of where the problem lies. Bailouts of the big guys? Thank Congress. (Many members also happen to be the Big Guys getting bailed out.) Taxes? Wasteful spending? Thank Congress. Earmarks? Thank Congress.

The only thing anyone can blame Bush for financially is that he didn't Veto any of the ridiculous and wasteful stupid-ass programs that Congress put on his desk. Yes, he proposed some of them. They wouldn't have happened without Congressional assent. No Child Left Behind? President Bush would have been singing alone on that one, with no power to enact it if Congress had never presented the bill for him to sign.

The state of education in this country is sorely lacking still. Especially education about the functions of the branches of the American Government, apparently.

The bums that really need to be thrown out reside in Congress. Oh, wait. We did that two years ago on one side of the aisle. Did it help? Nope... it got worse. No surprise there. Now the congressional approval ratings are lower than President Bush's.

What we need is a president who will Veto spending... Left, Right and Center... until the rats in Congress get a clue and pass a budget that doesn't hand out favors to everyone's brother.

Ok. I'm done ranting for now.