The bankruptcy bill is progressing in Congress, and looks to be on the verge of final passage. Although I have never had to declare bankruptcy, I am certainly vulnerable, given my position as a debtor and a paycheck-to-paycheck person. It has been interesting to watch our honorable representatives in Congress portraying people like me as the lowest form of cheaters and thieves.
According to the pontificators of Congress, banks graciously provide the poor and middle class with credit cards out of the goodness of their hearts, wanting only to offer a little convenience to ease their lives, wanting only to trust them…and what do people do? They go out and spend like crazy, live the high life until the monthly minimum payments start to cramp their high-rolling lifestyle, and then they swindle those poor trusting banks out of their money. O, the injustice! No wonder these poor banks and credit card companies have to spend millions in campaign contributions just to try and get a fair shake.
Our reps in Congress don’t want to hear any excuses. All that stuff about how a third of personal bankruptcies are suffered by families who are already impoverished under federal standards? Balderdash! Or that Harvard study that found that nearly half of personal bankruptcies are the result of illness or medical bills? Nonsense! Those other studies that show divorced women are 300% more likely to end up in bankruptcy than single or married women due to reduced income, loss of health insurance and increased childcare costs? Piffle and twaddle! The study showing that persistent discrimination in mortgage lending is a major factor in Black and Latino homeowners being 500% more likely to end up in bankruptcy court than white homeowners? Give me a break!
It’s obvious to our honorable representatives in Congress that these lowlifes are gaming the system. They don’t want to hear any phony excuses about job loss, divorce or tumors. If card companies are kind enough to flood your mailbox with dozens of pre-approved credit applications each year, then it’s your responsibility to contribute to increasing the $30 billion in profit they made last year. And if you’re ever late with a payment, aren’t the card companies thoughtful enough to give you a little reminder in the form of penalty interest rates of 20-30%? Of course. But do you heed these warnings? No! You have the audacity to be driven even deeper into debt.
What, do these credit card deadbeats think it’s still the 1960s and 1970s, when the average family spent only 56% of its income on fixed expenses like housing, insurance, childcare and transportation, when people dealt with unexpected disruptions to their income by drawing on savings or sending a spouse out to get a second income? Well, welcome to the new millennium, people! Nowadays, fixed expenses eat up 74% of the average family’s income, both spouses already are working to make ends meet, and as for savings…well, since the credit card companies in the past 20 years have pushed to put plastic in the hands of everyone whether they had the income to manage it or not, savings in the United States has zeroed out and household debt has skyrocketed. Hey, babycakes, if you didn’t manage to get rich in the United States during the 80s and 90s, that’s your fault.
The plight of the poor credit card companies is so heartbreaking that I don’t think the bankruptcy bill goes far enough. Financial ruin is too good for these deadbeats. I think we should take a page from the Pentagon and the CIA: rendition. That’s right. When the military and intelligence services need to be able to say with a straight face that the United States doesn’t torture people, they use ‘rendition’ to outsource the torture of detainees to countries where they don’t have any pesky laws to hamstring the hamstringing.
So lets put an end to bankruptcy as an option for the lower and middle classes (the rich, of course, should still be able to conceal their assets and avoid their responsibilities—they’ve earned that right). Instead, let’s ship these deadbeats off to countries where they’ll get what they deserve. Surely some countries must still have debtor prisons. Or we can send them to where they’ll have their hands chopped off for being thieves, or forced to live in a cardboard shanty in some sprawling slum, or have their limbs deformed so as to make a better living as a beggar.
C’mon, Congress. You can do it. Cleanse America of these deadbeats who think that being impoverished and facing financial ruin means they can put something over on the government or big business. It’s not like you ever have to worry about their campaign contributions…
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Thursday, March 03, 2005
I've Heard of Investing in Silicon Valley, But...
Here’s another reason why income over a couple hundred grand should be subject to a 90% tax:
According to a Reuters news report, former stripper Tawny Peaks is auctioning off one of her 69HH breast implants on www.ebay.com. No, you don’t get to remove it yourself. She already had them removed six years ago when she decided to retire and become a soccer mom to her three kids (I’m resisting the obvious soccer ball jokes here). The implants were just gathering dust in her closet until she had the brainstorm to auction one of them off (she’s keeping the other one for sentimental reasons).
The auction ends on Saturday, and as I write this on Thursday evening, there are already dozens of bids, and the price is up to $16,766!!
OK, Tawny is going to autograph it, and there is some historical jurisprudencial value given its involvment in a1998 lawsuit wherein a patron of the strip club where she worked claimed he had suffered whiplash when she swung it and its twin in his face, but still….$16, 766?!
Yes, it’s funny, but it also really angers me. Some people have just too damn much money and too damn little sense. If you’ve got twenty thousand bucks in disposable income lying around, do something good with it. Help your friends, donate it to a worthy cause, even just save it for your retirement. Hell, give it to me…
I don’t even want to imagine the depraved acts this dude has planned for his $16,000 ex-stripper’s used Frankentit. But guess what? He is only an extreme example what seems to be an entire subculture.
When I did a “breast implant” Ebay search to find the particular auction mentioned in the news report, imagine my surprise to find that there are a lot of them going under the gavel. None of them have the heft nor the notoriety of Tawny’s, so they’re only pulling in bids up to fifty dollars.
Says the description for one: “smooth 450cc silicone breast implant. intact and in mint condition. NOT for human or animal insertion. Makes excellent paper weight or novelty.” Oh no…no animal insertions, please.
One other auction at least touts their 300cc model as having more practical uses: “You can stick it in the freezer and it acts like an ice pack or you can use it as a wrist rest for your computer mouse, it also makes a great frisbee as long as someone besides your doggie is there to catch it. Also can be heated and used on sore areas.” Sure, and maybe it’ll even be covered by your medical insurance.
If you want to blow your college tuition, here's the direct link to Tawny's auction, but remember, you only have until Saturday, March 6, 2:32pm Pacific Standard Time.
According to a Reuters news report, former stripper Tawny Peaks is auctioning off one of her 69HH breast implants on www.ebay.com. No, you don’t get to remove it yourself. She already had them removed six years ago when she decided to retire and become a soccer mom to her three kids (I’m resisting the obvious soccer ball jokes here). The implants were just gathering dust in her closet until she had the brainstorm to auction one of them off (she’s keeping the other one for sentimental reasons).
The auction ends on Saturday, and as I write this on Thursday evening, there are already dozens of bids, and the price is up to $16,766!!
OK, Tawny is going to autograph it, and there is some historical jurisprudencial value given its involvment in a1998 lawsuit wherein a patron of the strip club where she worked claimed he had suffered whiplash when she swung it and its twin in his face, but still….$16, 766?!
Yes, it’s funny, but it also really angers me. Some people have just too damn much money and too damn little sense. If you’ve got twenty thousand bucks in disposable income lying around, do something good with it. Help your friends, donate it to a worthy cause, even just save it for your retirement. Hell, give it to me…
I don’t even want to imagine the depraved acts this dude has planned for his $16,000 ex-stripper’s used Frankentit. But guess what? He is only an extreme example what seems to be an entire subculture.
When I did a “breast implant” Ebay search to find the particular auction mentioned in the news report, imagine my surprise to find that there are a lot of them going under the gavel. None of them have the heft nor the notoriety of Tawny’s, so they’re only pulling in bids up to fifty dollars.
Says the description for one: “smooth 450cc silicone breast implant. intact and in mint condition. NOT for human or animal insertion. Makes excellent paper weight or novelty.” Oh no…no animal insertions, please.
One other auction at least touts their 300cc model as having more practical uses: “You can stick it in the freezer and it acts like an ice pack or you can use it as a wrist rest for your computer mouse, it also makes a great frisbee as long as someone besides your doggie is there to catch it. Also can be heated and used on sore areas.” Sure, and maybe it’ll even be covered by your medical insurance.
If you want to blow your college tuition, here's the direct link to Tawny's auction, but remember, you only have until Saturday, March 6, 2:32pm Pacific Standard Time.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
And Baby Makes Me
I see from yesterday’s New York Times that Fairchild Publications will be launching a new magazine for “affluent parents who want sophisticated things for their children.” It will be called Cookie, which to me is quite apropos in that it conjures up images of just the sort of bratty, over-indulged cookie-demanding spawn that affluent, self-absorbed, status-obsessed parents tend to raise.
Its editorial goal will be to “bring you the best—and only the best—of everything you want for bringing up baby.” You can read the word “best” as most expensive or prestigious. Mary Berner, president of Fairchild, makes no effort to hide the fact that this magazine has no reason to exist except as an advertising vehicle for luxury parenting gear: “There’s a lot of product out there that is looking for a sophisticated audience.” She further explains that makers of high-end children’s fashion and accessories don’t like advertising in the existing mass-market parenting magazines—readership of those rags are evidently too unsophisticated, not to mention income-challenged, to appreciate real luxury. Until now, they have been forced to try and reach their affluent target audience by advertising in publications like Vanity Fair, which hasn’t been too effective, since most VF readers are more interested in Leonardo DiCaprio’s love life or the latest scandalous legal trial than they are the in the well-being of their children. But now there will be a magazine specifically tailored for their advertisements.
Editor Pilar Guzman calls the magazine a “mom treat” to help busy but picky women make the best choices (translation: women who want the best for their children as long as they can buy it and not have to be bothered researching or thinking too much or being too involved in the decision, and as long as other parents can tell at a glance how expensive it is so they’ll know that you are a good parent). But if Fairchild thinks it will be just moms reading Cookie, then I suspect they are ignoring a big part of their audience.
Dads are hot for status parenting gear too, we see from an article in The Wall Street Journal on February 24: “Dad’s New Wheels are on the Stroller.” It seems strollers are overtaking sports cars in the wheeled virility-enhancing department. Testosterone-drunk dads are roaring down sidewalks and through shopping malls pushing their Sport Utility Ironman strollers from Bob Trailer, Inc.. Yep, pushing your baby in one of these $300 babies, with 16 inch composite polymer wheels, fine-tune tracking adjustment and 3-inch suspension system will “make curbs, uneven sidewalks, supermarket aisles and unpaved trails a breeze to navigate.” Nobody will dare call you ‘Mr. Mom’ when you’re behind the wheels of one of these.
Cookie. Look for it on your newsstands in November.
Its editorial goal will be to “bring you the best—and only the best—of everything you want for bringing up baby.” You can read the word “best” as most expensive or prestigious. Mary Berner, president of Fairchild, makes no effort to hide the fact that this magazine has no reason to exist except as an advertising vehicle for luxury parenting gear: “There’s a lot of product out there that is looking for a sophisticated audience.” She further explains that makers of high-end children’s fashion and accessories don’t like advertising in the existing mass-market parenting magazines—readership of those rags are evidently too unsophisticated, not to mention income-challenged, to appreciate real luxury. Until now, they have been forced to try and reach their affluent target audience by advertising in publications like Vanity Fair, which hasn’t been too effective, since most VF readers are more interested in Leonardo DiCaprio’s love life or the latest scandalous legal trial than they are the in the well-being of their children. But now there will be a magazine specifically tailored for their advertisements.
Editor Pilar Guzman calls the magazine a “mom treat” to help busy but picky women make the best choices (translation: women who want the best for their children as long as they can buy it and not have to be bothered researching or thinking too much or being too involved in the decision, and as long as other parents can tell at a glance how expensive it is so they’ll know that you are a good parent). But if Fairchild thinks it will be just moms reading Cookie, then I suspect they are ignoring a big part of their audience.
Dads are hot for status parenting gear too, we see from an article in The Wall Street Journal on February 24: “Dad’s New Wheels are on the Stroller.” It seems strollers are overtaking sports cars in the wheeled virility-enhancing department. Testosterone-drunk dads are roaring down sidewalks and through shopping malls pushing their Sport Utility Ironman strollers from Bob Trailer, Inc.. Yep, pushing your baby in one of these $300 babies, with 16 inch composite polymer wheels, fine-tune tracking adjustment and 3-inch suspension system will “make curbs, uneven sidewalks, supermarket aisles and unpaved trails a breeze to navigate.” Nobody will dare call you ‘Mr. Mom’ when you’re behind the wheels of one of these.
Cookie. Look for it on your newsstands in November.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Ruminating on Organic Milk
Every penny we spend has multiple and often contradictory real-world repercussions, and it can make you crazy trying to sort out whether your buying habits are screwing up the world or helping to make it a better place.
It was milk that got me thinking the other day. There was an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer about local organic dairy farmers. They work hard to adhere to strict organic guidelines requiring cows to graze on open organic pasture. The official organic guidelines, however, are not so strict: large corporate dairies in the western states get away with calling their milk ‘organic’ just by giving their herd organic feed, even though the cows live a miserable life, penned up in close quarters and rarely if ever actually put to pasture. The local farmers see this as cheating, and as damaging the reputation of the organic label for milk.
Funny thing is, the DebtorsPrison household probably buys less milk than ordinary households. Although Mrs. DebtorsPrison has a glass now and then, I can’t drink the stuff straight—don’t like the taste or texture and it makes me gag. I do use it on the cold cereal I breakfast on a few times each week, use it in cooking, have some hot chocolate occasionally. So far, I have not paid the premium price for organic milk.
Still, I try and take these things into consideration in everything I buy. I do most of my food shopping at Whole Foods Supermarket. It costs somewhat more, but I like knowing that I am minimizing the amount of chemically-enhanced fake food I put into my body, and I like that my buying habits show these ‘Foodenstein’ multinationals that I reject their products.
The milk I buy at Whole Foods is not organic, but it is at least free of recombinant Bovine Growth Hormones (rBGH). Now, the corporate food industry is spending plenty of bucks to convince you that this stuff is harmless—see, for example, the Milk is Milk website put up by the agribusiness-funded Center for Global Food Issues (there’s even a blog!), but don’t you believe it. The European Union bans the import of US meat containing rBGH, given the ample evidence that it is not only highly carcinogenic, but that due to the environmental contamination produced by industrial farming, low levels of rBGH show up in our drinking water and may be a factor in both the increasing early onset of puberty in girls and in the slowly falling sperm level counts in men.
Whole Foods does offer organic milk, but it costs about twice as much as the non-organic stuff, which so far has kept me from buying it. As much as I’d love to buy only the best and the purest, the sad fact is in DebtorsPrison America, shitty food often costs less, and when you have low income and large debts, you have to choose your battles carefully. But perhaps organic milk is one more modest step I can take.
And even there you have to make choices. Is there really a difference between organic milk from cows grazed in open pasture versus penned cows fed organic grain? Here’s the scoop according to Organic Valley Farms: grass-fed, open-pastured cows are healthier, the farming practices are more environmentally sustainable, and the milk is healthier too, richer in such heart-healthy and cancer-fighting compounds as Vitamin E, Beta-Carotene, Omega-3 fats and Conjugated Linoleic Acid (sounds awful, but it’s all good for you).
So maybe the extra buck or two per week for pasture-fed organic milk is a worthwhile addition to my rage-against-the-machine shopping basket. As I said at the outset: every penny we spend has real-world repercussions.
It was milk that got me thinking the other day. There was an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer about local organic dairy farmers. They work hard to adhere to strict organic guidelines requiring cows to graze on open organic pasture. The official organic guidelines, however, are not so strict: large corporate dairies in the western states get away with calling their milk ‘organic’ just by giving their herd organic feed, even though the cows live a miserable life, penned up in close quarters and rarely if ever actually put to pasture. The local farmers see this as cheating, and as damaging the reputation of the organic label for milk.
Funny thing is, the DebtorsPrison household probably buys less milk than ordinary households. Although Mrs. DebtorsPrison has a glass now and then, I can’t drink the stuff straight—don’t like the taste or texture and it makes me gag. I do use it on the cold cereal I breakfast on a few times each week, use it in cooking, have some hot chocolate occasionally. So far, I have not paid the premium price for organic milk.
Still, I try and take these things into consideration in everything I buy. I do most of my food shopping at Whole Foods Supermarket. It costs somewhat more, but I like knowing that I am minimizing the amount of chemically-enhanced fake food I put into my body, and I like that my buying habits show these ‘Foodenstein’ multinationals that I reject their products.
The milk I buy at Whole Foods is not organic, but it is at least free of recombinant Bovine Growth Hormones (rBGH). Now, the corporate food industry is spending plenty of bucks to convince you that this stuff is harmless—see, for example, the Milk is Milk website put up by the agribusiness-funded Center for Global Food Issues (there’s even a blog!), but don’t you believe it. The European Union bans the import of US meat containing rBGH, given the ample evidence that it is not only highly carcinogenic, but that due to the environmental contamination produced by industrial farming, low levels of rBGH show up in our drinking water and may be a factor in both the increasing early onset of puberty in girls and in the slowly falling sperm level counts in men.
Whole Foods does offer organic milk, but it costs about twice as much as the non-organic stuff, which so far has kept me from buying it. As much as I’d love to buy only the best and the purest, the sad fact is in DebtorsPrison America, shitty food often costs less, and when you have low income and large debts, you have to choose your battles carefully. But perhaps organic milk is one more modest step I can take.
And even there you have to make choices. Is there really a difference between organic milk from cows grazed in open pasture versus penned cows fed organic grain? Here’s the scoop according to Organic Valley Farms: grass-fed, open-pastured cows are healthier, the farming practices are more environmentally sustainable, and the milk is healthier too, richer in such heart-healthy and cancer-fighting compounds as Vitamin E, Beta-Carotene, Omega-3 fats and Conjugated Linoleic Acid (sounds awful, but it’s all good for you).
So maybe the extra buck or two per week for pasture-fed organic milk is a worthwhile addition to my rage-against-the-machine shopping basket. As I said at the outset: every penny we spend has real-world repercussions.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
I'm Back to Blogging
I’m back to the blog, and happy to be here. I’ve missed it.
DebtorsPrison started about two years ago, when we had $23,000 in credit card debt. We still have some debt, around $9,000, your basic average US household credit card debt. Of course, we are luckier than a lot of those average debtors, since ours is locked in at 2% special deal interest rates. Things could be a lot worse.
Of course, DebtorsPrison was never really about the debt per se. This blog was more about the social, political and economic forces that make debt so easy a trap to fall into in the United States. The opening entry of this blog two years ago can still serve for its reintroduction today:
I’m sure there are plenty of out-dated news and broken links in the the old posts and archives, and I’ll be cleaning them out from time to time. A few of my favorite essays from the past will still be linked to in the column on the left. But now it is forward, into the renewed, interest-compounded DebtorsPrison…
DebtorsPrison started about two years ago, when we had $23,000 in credit card debt. We still have some debt, around $9,000, your basic average US household credit card debt. Of course, we are luckier than a lot of those average debtors, since ours is locked in at 2% special deal interest rates. Things could be a lot worse.
Of course, DebtorsPrison was never really about the debt per se. This blog was more about the social, political and economic forces that make debt so easy a trap to fall into in the United States. The opening entry of this blog two years ago can still serve for its reintroduction today:
I used to think that responsible behavior like paying your bills on time was the
key to earning good credit. I now realize that what brings you the
whopping high credit limits is irresponsibility, the willingness to surrender
your good judgment to the lure of desire.
I love my credit and am
grateful that it has allowed me to build a happy life for my wife and me, to own
a home, to have traveled to over thirty countries, and to own a hell of a lot of
stuff. Nevertheless, for all the freedom my credit has brought me, the
accumulated debt brings a powerful burden of worry. Even worse, now serves
to constrain my freedom. I have entered a type of debtors’
prison.
This weblog, DebtorsPrison, intends to examine this
peculiar consumer society of ours. Life with easy credit and abundant choice can
be very sweet indeed. And yet we are also living in a kind of madness,
continually tempted and urged to do things which are not necessarily good for
ourselves, for society or for the planet, things we might not have done if we
had the constraints of tight money and fewer choices.
I don’t
intend simply to rant and blame society, corporations, the government or the
media. That would be too easy. It’s true that my politics are
generally left-leaning, pro-conservation, suspicious of big capitalism, and
generally appalled by much of the mindless consumption I see around me.
Nevertheless, it is also true that despite my political beliefs, my good
intentions and my low wages, I too have been lured into the debtors’ prison.
I’m sure there are plenty of out-dated news and broken links in the the old posts and archives, and I’ll be cleaning them out from time to time. A few of my favorite essays from the past will still be linked to in the column on the left. But now it is forward, into the renewed, interest-compounded DebtorsPrison…
Thursday, April 29, 2004
"Perhaps You'd like me to Hold Your Dick for You...?"
That is, of course, a line memorably delivered by Sir John Gielgud playing the butler to Dudley Moore's spoiled rich kid character in the 1970s-era movie 'Arthur.'
It's a line that came to my mind today as Bush and Cheney perform their ventriloquist-and-dummy act before the 9/11 Commission.
What a bind they got themselves into. It had become politically untenable for Bush to continue stone-walling the commission, and yet the administration also knew that Bush is too stupid, ill-informed, transparently dishonest and immature to be trusted to testify by himself. They had no other option but to have Cheney right in the next seat to, if I may, hold Bush's dick for him.
They've trotted out a number of explanations for the joint appearance-- 'it saves time,' 'they were in different places that day so this lets them give the commission a broader picture'--but each of them is laughably inane. No one believes them and they know it.
All they can do is brazen it through, while knowing full well in their hearts that in the eyes of the world, they have all but admitted that Bush is a pretty-boy figurehead who lacks the capacity to be president.
But you're not fooling anyone, boys.
It's a line that came to my mind today as Bush and Cheney perform their ventriloquist-and-dummy act before the 9/11 Commission.
What a bind they got themselves into. It had become politically untenable for Bush to continue stone-walling the commission, and yet the administration also knew that Bush is too stupid, ill-informed, transparently dishonest and immature to be trusted to testify by himself. They had no other option but to have Cheney right in the next seat to, if I may, hold Bush's dick for him.
They've trotted out a number of explanations for the joint appearance-- 'it saves time,' 'they were in different places that day so this lets them give the commission a broader picture'--but each of them is laughably inane. No one believes them and they know it.
All they can do is brazen it through, while knowing full well in their hearts that in the eyes of the world, they have all but admitted that Bush is a pretty-boy figurehead who lacks the capacity to be president.
But you're not fooling anyone, boys.
Saturday, April 24, 2004
No Shame and No Morals
Utterly amoral and utterly shameless. How else to describe the Bush Republican attack machine for trying to smear John Kerry's military record? This, from a president who pulled all the strings available to him to avoid service in Vietnam, and then barely showed up for the stateside duty he landed, along with garnering mediocre reviews from his superiors, losing his flying status, refusing to submit to drug testing (and why would that be, unless you knew you would test positive?).
For a good short side-by-side comparison of the military records of Bush and Kerry, CLICK HERE.
For an administration that's constantly braying about how it values our men and women in uniform, they sure seem to have few qualms about disparaging one when it suits their purposes. Of course, this is also the administration that outed a CIA agent out of political vindictiveness, so why should we be surprised?
For a good short side-by-side comparison of the military records of Bush and Kerry, CLICK HERE.
For an administration that's constantly braying about how it values our men and women in uniform, they sure seem to have few qualms about disparaging one when it suits their purposes. Of course, this is also the administration that outed a CIA agent out of political vindictiveness, so why should we be surprised?
Friday, April 23, 2004
Draped in the Flag
I wonder how many of the soldiers you served turkey to in Baghdad on Thanksgiving are dead now, Mr. Bush? Maybe some of them are even in this picture that you don't want the American people to be able to see:
A policy adopted by the Pentagon during Daddy Bush's first Gulf War in 1991 prohibits news organizations from photographing caskets being returned to the United States. Allowing the public to see row upon row of these flag-draped coffins, they say, would be insensitive to the grieving families.
White House spokesman Trent Duffy confirms Bush's support for this policy: "In all of this, we must pay attention to the privacy and to the sensitivity of the families of the fallen, and that's what the policy is based on and that has to be the utmost concern."
Which is bullshit, of course. The names and faces of the fallen in Iraq are shown in the print and broadcast media every day--real names and actual faces. These images of coffins are completely anonymous. There are no names, no faces, no personal identification of any kind.
No, it's not for anyone's privacy that Bush wants these images suppressed. He wants them suppressed because he knows they are powerful in their stark simplicity. Oddly enough, it is the anonymity itself which helps lend them power, as the hearken back to our long collective visual memory, dating to Vietnam, World War II and beyond, of similar pictures of war. Vital human beings, soldiers, now reduced to silent flag-draped cargo.
This president who so loves draping himself in the flag, does not want us to see these images of flag-draped coffins of those who have died in the service of his ill-advised policies.
Oh, and woe to any who try to cross the Bush administration's censorship. The flag-draped coffin issue originally arose when the Seattle Times published a similar photograph on its front page last Sunday. That photo had originally been taken by Tami Silicio, a 50 year old American working in Kuwait for the Maytag Aircraft Corporation, a government contractor providing ground handling services for military air bases. She since has been fired from her job. For good measure, they fired her husband too.
Silicio says she shared the photo because she hoped it would portray the care and devotion with which civilian and military crews treat the remains of fallen soldiers. In return, she was squashed by the petty vindictiveness of the Bush administration.
A policy adopted by the Pentagon during Daddy Bush's first Gulf War in 1991 prohibits news organizations from photographing caskets being returned to the United States. Allowing the public to see row upon row of these flag-draped coffins, they say, would be insensitive to the grieving families.
White House spokesman Trent Duffy confirms Bush's support for this policy: "In all of this, we must pay attention to the privacy and to the sensitivity of the families of the fallen, and that's what the policy is based on and that has to be the utmost concern."
Which is bullshit, of course. The names and faces of the fallen in Iraq are shown in the print and broadcast media every day--real names and actual faces. These images of coffins are completely anonymous. There are no names, no faces, no personal identification of any kind.
No, it's not for anyone's privacy that Bush wants these images suppressed. He wants them suppressed because he knows they are powerful in their stark simplicity. Oddly enough, it is the anonymity itself which helps lend them power, as the hearken back to our long collective visual memory, dating to Vietnam, World War II and beyond, of similar pictures of war. Vital human beings, soldiers, now reduced to silent flag-draped cargo.
This president who so loves draping himself in the flag, does not want us to see these images of flag-draped coffins of those who have died in the service of his ill-advised policies.
Oh, and woe to any who try to cross the Bush administration's censorship. The flag-draped coffin issue originally arose when the Seattle Times published a similar photograph on its front page last Sunday. That photo had originally been taken by Tami Silicio, a 50 year old American working in Kuwait for the Maytag Aircraft Corporation, a government contractor providing ground handling services for military air bases. She since has been fired from her job. For good measure, they fired her husband too.
Silicio says she shared the photo because she hoped it would portray the care and devotion with which civilian and military crews treat the remains of fallen soldiers. In return, she was squashed by the petty vindictiveness of the Bush administration.
Sunday, April 18, 2004
Cheney Endorses Freedom to Sell Guns to Terrorists
At least that what he seems to be saying in his speech yesterday to the National Rifle Association convention. According to the news reports, Cheney blasted John Kerry for supporting various gun control initiatives over the years, including one that allows random federal inspections of gun dealerships.
OK, I happen to be in favor of strict gun control, but I recognize that there is a middle ground where reasonable people may disagree. To oppose legislation like this, however, seems totally unreasonable. Our entire commercial business code includes as part of its standard operating principles the idea of random unannounced inspections. Agricultural inspectors check out slaughterhouses, health inspectors inspect food production facilities and restaurant kitchens, weights-and-measures inspectors make sure the prices posted and the scales used in retail establishments are accurate, fire marshals and building inspectors make sure that structures are up to code.
These inspections are done to help ensure that our food is unadulterated, our buildings are sound, and that we are not being cheated. Believe it or not, businesses have been known on occasion to cut corners in ways that make their products less healthy, less safe and more dangerous. They may do it innocently, not having the time, resources or workforce to make sure things are done to a certain standard, or they may do it for unscrupulous reasons, a greed for more profits.
You know this is true.
Gun dealers are no different than anyone else. The vast majority are honest and diligent in their business practices. But there may be a few who are lax in making sure that the rules and regulations concerning the sale of guns are followed, and there may be a greedy, corrupt few who are tempted by the money to be made selling guns outside the regulatory system.
All the law says is that gun dealers should be in the same position as virtually every other business in the United States: to be aware that on occasion, someone will check to see that you are fulfilling the requirements to which you agreed when you received the license to operate your trade, to make sure that you are not selling to people with criminal records, and to ensure that all the weapons you have procured are accounted for either in stock or in sales records.
In short, to help ensure that you are not acting, either through laxity or design, as a conduit for criminals and terrorists to obtain weapons.
This is a well-established feature of our commercial code, Mr. Cheney. Perhaps you have not had to deal with it so much in heading such crony-capitalist companies as Halliburton, but for most businesses in the United States it is accepted, and our society enjoys safer food, buildings, transportation and fairer services because of it. There is no reason gun dealers should have a special exemption from having their businesses subject to inspection.
If you had your way with the Patriot Act, even the book buying habits of every American would be open to government inspection. Yet you want the vendors of weapons to be free from inspection!
And we're supposed to believe you take the 'war on terror' seriously?
OK, I happen to be in favor of strict gun control, but I recognize that there is a middle ground where reasonable people may disagree. To oppose legislation like this, however, seems totally unreasonable. Our entire commercial business code includes as part of its standard operating principles the idea of random unannounced inspections. Agricultural inspectors check out slaughterhouses, health inspectors inspect food production facilities and restaurant kitchens, weights-and-measures inspectors make sure the prices posted and the scales used in retail establishments are accurate, fire marshals and building inspectors make sure that structures are up to code.
These inspections are done to help ensure that our food is unadulterated, our buildings are sound, and that we are not being cheated. Believe it or not, businesses have been known on occasion to cut corners in ways that make their products less healthy, less safe and more dangerous. They may do it innocently, not having the time, resources or workforce to make sure things are done to a certain standard, or they may do it for unscrupulous reasons, a greed for more profits.
You know this is true.
Gun dealers are no different than anyone else. The vast majority are honest and diligent in their business practices. But there may be a few who are lax in making sure that the rules and regulations concerning the sale of guns are followed, and there may be a greedy, corrupt few who are tempted by the money to be made selling guns outside the regulatory system.
All the law says is that gun dealers should be in the same position as virtually every other business in the United States: to be aware that on occasion, someone will check to see that you are fulfilling the requirements to which you agreed when you received the license to operate your trade, to make sure that you are not selling to people with criminal records, and to ensure that all the weapons you have procured are accounted for either in stock or in sales records.
In short, to help ensure that you are not acting, either through laxity or design, as a conduit for criminals and terrorists to obtain weapons.
This is a well-established feature of our commercial code, Mr. Cheney. Perhaps you have not had to deal with it so much in heading such crony-capitalist companies as Halliburton, but for most businesses in the United States it is accepted, and our society enjoys safer food, buildings, transportation and fairer services because of it. There is no reason gun dealers should have a special exemption from having their businesses subject to inspection.
If you had your way with the Patriot Act, even the book buying habits of every American would be open to government inspection. Yet you want the vendors of weapons to be free from inspection!
And we're supposed to believe you take the 'war on terror' seriously?
Tuesday, April 13, 2004
Where's the Money, George?
Here's one question I wish some reporter had asked of President George W. "I never make mistakes" Bush at his press conference this evening:
"Mr. President: Given your stated determination to 'stay the course' and do whatever necessary to follow through on your policy in Iraq, and given both the increasing costs of our Iraqi operations and of the burgeoning budget deficits here at home, would you be willing to raise taxes, or even to consider forgoing any of the new tax cuts you seek, in order to finance our military operations?"
I wonder how he would answer that. Somehow, I don't think his determination to do whatever has to be done to "achieve victory" in Iraq would include cutting back any of the goodies he's passing out to the wealthy. No, let the little people pay for his war, both with their lives and with the economic well-being of the future generations who will be forced to foot the bill for our economic recklessness today. Let no cost fall on the wealthy and the powerful.
"Mr. President: Given your stated determination to 'stay the course' and do whatever necessary to follow through on your policy in Iraq, and given both the increasing costs of our Iraqi operations and of the burgeoning budget deficits here at home, would you be willing to raise taxes, or even to consider forgoing any of the new tax cuts you seek, in order to finance our military operations?"
I wonder how he would answer that. Somehow, I don't think his determination to do whatever has to be done to "achieve victory" in Iraq would include cutting back any of the goodies he's passing out to the wealthy. No, let the little people pay for his war, both with their lives and with the economic well-being of the future generations who will be forced to foot the bill for our economic recklessness today. Let no cost fall on the wealthy and the powerful.
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
THIS is the interview the Bushes claim show Richard Clarke is a liar?!
The Bush administration is in a real panic over former counter-terrorism official Richard Clarke's revelation of how clueless they have been in dealing with terrorism. As part of their flailing, desperate attempts to smear and discredit him, they gave permission to Fox News and other media outlets to disclose Clarke as the 'anonymous administration official' who gave a background briefing in 2002.
They claim that in that interview, Clarke praised the Bush administrations anti-terror policies.
Well, I've read the transcript of that backgrounder, and I certainly wouldn't call it a ringing defense, even though at the time he was still working for Bush and dutifully trying to put the best face on things. As you read it, you can sense his struggling, complete with umms and uhhhs, to make it sound like the Bushies were actually doing something.
Helpful hint to the Bush crowd: you may hope people will see Clarke's words back in 2002 as praise, but in truth, any intelligent person can see that they are in fact damning with faint praise.
Of course, the most laughable part of the Bush smear campaign is still their decision to send Vice Presdient Cheney to sit in on Rush Limbaugh's show to badmouth Clarke. (Read that transcript HERE) Rush Limbaugh? Sheesh! What next? Condi Rice appearing on The Simpsons?
They claim that in that interview, Clarke praised the Bush administrations anti-terror policies.
Well, I've read the transcript of that backgrounder, and I certainly wouldn't call it a ringing defense, even though at the time he was still working for Bush and dutifully trying to put the best face on things. As you read it, you can sense his struggling, complete with umms and uhhhs, to make it sound like the Bushies were actually doing something.
Helpful hint to the Bush crowd: you may hope people will see Clarke's words back in 2002 as praise, but in truth, any intelligent person can see that they are in fact damning with faint praise.
Of course, the most laughable part of the Bush smear campaign is still their decision to send Vice Presdient Cheney to sit in on Rush Limbaugh's show to badmouth Clarke. (Read that transcript HERE) Rush Limbaugh? Sheesh! What next? Condi Rice appearing on The Simpsons?
Sunday, March 21, 2004
A Little Too Truthful
The Philadelphia Inquirer last Thursday started out an article about the continuing attacks in Iraq with a sentence that perhaps conveyed a bit more truth than intended:
Oops. Usually we're told that we're fighting for just plain old democracy in Iraq, but here someone forgot to delete the modifier 'pro-U.S.' It seems that some democracies are more equal that others. Should Iraq dare to ever democratically elect an Islamist government that isn't sufficiently "pro-U.S.," I guess it will be regime change time all over again.
In the meantime, we've probably got a division of troops readying an invasion of Spain now that their voters have democratically turned out their pro-U.S. prime minister.
Let's make this clear to the world: democracy doesn't mean you get to vote for what YOU want; it means you get to vote in favor of what the United States says you can have.
"As military analysts see it, yesterday's car bombing of a downtown Baghdad hotel is the latest in a surge of attacks on "soft targets" - poorly protected civilians - in the shadowy war to disrupt Iraq's march toward pro-U.S. democracy."
Oops. Usually we're told that we're fighting for just plain old democracy in Iraq, but here someone forgot to delete the modifier 'pro-U.S.' It seems that some democracies are more equal that others. Should Iraq dare to ever democratically elect an Islamist government that isn't sufficiently "pro-U.S.," I guess it will be regime change time all over again.
In the meantime, we've probably got a division of troops readying an invasion of Spain now that their voters have democratically turned out their pro-U.S. prime minister.
Let's make this clear to the world: democracy doesn't mean you get to vote for what YOU want; it means you get to vote in favor of what the United States says you can have.
Friday, March 19, 2004
Why Do They Keep Saying 'Re-Elect?'
I don't know why they keep talking about the re-election campaign of George W. Bush, since he was never elected in the first place.
I know, I know, get over it already, you're probably thinking. And I have gotten over it, for the most part. I don't call it a stolen election anymore, but rather accept that it was an unusual situation in which the party most willing to use lies and deceit won the day. I occasionally will write the words President Bush, rather than 'President' Bush or President* Bush or President (sic) Bush or White House Resident Bush.
No, I've mostly gotten over the stolen election (oops), even though his White House Residency has been much worse than I ever envisioned. All I care about now is semantics, about accuracy, about a pure and simple love for the English language. I hate to see the word "re-elect" used improperly.
Now if you're talking about the nine Supreme Court justices, you may validly use the term "re-elect." Strictly speaking, the vote of those nine people was the only election that George W. Bush actually won in 2000. Next time Vice President Cheney goes duck hunting with Justice Scalia, he can feel free to urge the re-election of Bush, should circumstances once again lead to that situation this year.
But Bush lost the election in popular votes--there is no disagreement that more votes were cast for Gore. And after reading many analyses both for and against Bush of the Florida voting irregularities, it seems convincing to me that had the ballots been properly counted, Gore would have won the electoral vote count as well.
So lets honor the proper use of the English language and stop using the term 're-elect.' You can work to elect George W. Bush for the first time. You can work to bestow legitimacy on his future time in office after four years of illegitimate rule. But it is not possible to work for his 're-election.'
I know, I know, get over it already, you're probably thinking. And I have gotten over it, for the most part. I don't call it a stolen election anymore, but rather accept that it was an unusual situation in which the party most willing to use lies and deceit won the day. I occasionally will write the words President Bush, rather than 'President' Bush or President* Bush or President (sic) Bush or White House Resident Bush.
No, I've mostly gotten over the stolen election (oops), even though his White House Residency has been much worse than I ever envisioned. All I care about now is semantics, about accuracy, about a pure and simple love for the English language. I hate to see the word "re-elect" used improperly.
Now if you're talking about the nine Supreme Court justices, you may validly use the term "re-elect." Strictly speaking, the vote of those nine people was the only election that George W. Bush actually won in 2000. Next time Vice President Cheney goes duck hunting with Justice Scalia, he can feel free to urge the re-election of Bush, should circumstances once again lead to that situation this year.
But Bush lost the election in popular votes--there is no disagreement that more votes were cast for Gore. And after reading many analyses both for and against Bush of the Florida voting irregularities, it seems convincing to me that had the ballots been properly counted, Gore would have won the electoral vote count as well.
So lets honor the proper use of the English language and stop using the term 're-elect.' You can work to elect George W. Bush for the first time. You can work to bestow legitimacy on his future time in office after four years of illegitimate rule. But it is not possible to work for his 're-election.'
Friday, January 02, 2004
Put Away Those Almanacs!
Happy New Year to all from DebtorsPrison. One of America’s most beloved annual publications has been in the news at this start of 2004: The World Almanac and Book of Facts.
Yes, the annually updated World Almanac has been the bestselling reference book for millions of Americans since it was first published in 1868, and has played a supporting role in our nation’s history as well. During World War II, the US government commissioned a special print run of over 100,000 copies each year for distribution to our fighting men and women. In White House photographs, the Almanac can be seen close at hand on the desks of presidents Kennedy and Clinton.
You might want to hide that Almanac of yours for the time being, however. According to the Associated Press, the FBI has put out an alert to 18,000 police departments warning that terrorists might be using World Almanacs to assist them in their nefarious plans.
They urged police to be on the lookout for anyone carrying almanacs, especially if they seemed to be loitering or writing in them, for that "may point to possible terrorist planning."
Wow!
Now it’s true that the World Almanac and Book of Facts does have a lot of information. It lists the airports, rail lines, port facilities and truck cargo stations for the 100 largest US cities. It names the highest buildings, notable bridges, longest tunnels, biggest dams and reservoirs. It lists the Most Widely Known Americans of the Present.
Of course, it also lists the most commonly confused words in the English language. Who won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. Who had the highest batting average in the National League.
But you can never be too careful. Who knows what evil plots these bastards could be hatching?
The Associated Press story goes on to quote publisher John Pierce of the Old Farmers’ Almanac as saying that his publication is of little use to terrorists, unlike the book put out by those traitors over at the World Almanac. Nevertheless, he vows that "while we doubt that our editorial content would be of particular interest to people who would wish to do us harm, we will certainly cooperate to the fullest with national authorities at any level they deem appropriate."
We’re still waiting for other publishers of reference guides to say whether they are on the side of America or of the terrorists. Will Zagats exhort us to be suspicious any under-nourished persons of a certain nationality checking out what eateries are most likely to be packed? Is Spa Finder watching out for those who would soil our favorite mudbaths? Are the Kelly Blue Book people making sure that no one uses their books to make sure that their potential car bomb isn’t a lemon? Is The Ultimate Hollywood Tour Book making sure that those people prowling Beverly Hills for glimpses of movie stars’ homes are only fantasizing about kidnapping their favorite sex god or goddess?
Perhaps the safest course is to not publish any reference books at all. Yes! Add the slogan to the Department of Homeland Security website: “Ignorance is the Best Prevention!”
Yes, the annually updated World Almanac has been the bestselling reference book for millions of Americans since it was first published in 1868, and has played a supporting role in our nation’s history as well. During World War II, the US government commissioned a special print run of over 100,000 copies each year for distribution to our fighting men and women. In White House photographs, the Almanac can be seen close at hand on the desks of presidents Kennedy and Clinton.
You might want to hide that Almanac of yours for the time being, however. According to the Associated Press, the FBI has put out an alert to 18,000 police departments warning that terrorists might be using World Almanacs to assist them in their nefarious plans.
They urged police to be on the lookout for anyone carrying almanacs, especially if they seemed to be loitering or writing in them, for that "may point to possible terrorist planning."
Wow!
Now it’s true that the World Almanac and Book of Facts does have a lot of information. It lists the airports, rail lines, port facilities and truck cargo stations for the 100 largest US cities. It names the highest buildings, notable bridges, longest tunnels, biggest dams and reservoirs. It lists the Most Widely Known Americans of the Present.
Of course, it also lists the most commonly confused words in the English language. Who won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. Who had the highest batting average in the National League.
But you can never be too careful. Who knows what evil plots these bastards could be hatching?
The Associated Press story goes on to quote publisher John Pierce of the Old Farmers’ Almanac as saying that his publication is of little use to terrorists, unlike the book put out by those traitors over at the World Almanac. Nevertheless, he vows that "while we doubt that our editorial content would be of particular interest to people who would wish to do us harm, we will certainly cooperate to the fullest with national authorities at any level they deem appropriate."
We’re still waiting for other publishers of reference guides to say whether they are on the side of America or of the terrorists. Will Zagats exhort us to be suspicious any under-nourished persons of a certain nationality checking out what eateries are most likely to be packed? Is Spa Finder watching out for those who would soil our favorite mudbaths? Are the Kelly Blue Book people making sure that no one uses their books to make sure that their potential car bomb isn’t a lemon? Is The Ultimate Hollywood Tour Book making sure that those people prowling Beverly Hills for glimpses of movie stars’ homes are only fantasizing about kidnapping their favorite sex god or goddess?
Perhaps the safest course is to not publish any reference books at all. Yes! Add the slogan to the Department of Homeland Security website: “Ignorance is the Best Prevention!”
Sunday, December 28, 2003
The On-Off Economic 'Recovery'
I don’t know why economists and pundits seem so puzzled by the merry-go-round of good news-bad news economic statistics that are announced each week.
You know, one day in the news they’ll be trumpeting that the economy is back, that the Gross Domestic Product rose at an 8.2% clip in the third quarter, that personal income rose 0.5% in November, that company inventories are dropping which means consumers are buying which means that any day now companies are going to start hiring…
And then the next day there will be a report that orders for durable goods dropped unexpectedly in November or that new housing starts dropped in November, and the story of the day will express surprise at such weakness in the economy because damn, didn’t yesterday’s statistics show promise of everything starting to boom?
I don’t think there’s any mystery to it at all.
The economy rose because Bush gave Americans tax rebates and tax cuts early in the year, and people spent them. But the economy continues to stall because Bush gave most of the tax cuts to the rich, who don’t need the money.
I said it BEFORE and I'll say it again: the rich have no pent-up demand, because they can already buy anything that their greedy little hearts desire. Non-wealthy Americans, on the other hand, have been scrimping for years as their wages stagnate, their expenses rise, their jobs are ‘downsized.’ They’ve been making do with old clothes so they can save for their children’s education, nursing along their failing automobiles and appliances because they can’t afford to buy new ones.
Give them a little windfall of a tax cut or a tax rebate, and they’ll give a boost to the economy by spending it. Problem is, now it’s spent, and they’re financially strapped again, though perhaps with a new suit or new washing machine to show for it. Even worse, since their pent-up demand exceeded their tiny tax rebate, they probably spent more than Bush had handed them. After all, credit card debt is still rising, personal bankruptcies are still rising, and our savings rate remains abysmal.
Two-thirds of the US economy is built on consumer purchases, and it is consumers who have managed to keep the economy afloat. They’ve done it through refinancing their houses (as we here at DebtorsPrison did) and by going into credit card debt. All Bush’s tax cut did for the average consumer was to give them a couple months of financial reprieve and tempt them into going a little further in debt to make some of the purchases they had been deferring for so long.
Bush dazzled average consumers with a few hundred dollars in their pockets and a whole lot of talk about how his tax cuts benefited the average person, but it’s all lies. The Bush tax cuts were all about giving more money and power to the rich and doing nothing for the economy. It is even a lie to say that taxes have been cut for the average person, because the under-financing of the federal government has meant all sorts of increases in government service fees, as well as in state, local and property taxes. These increases usually hurt the average person with a tiny tax rebate more than they do the wealthy person with a windfall tax cut.
Bush is hoping that the buying boomlet stimulated by his tiny tax cut to the average person will carry the economy at least to the next election, so he can get away with his deceitful lies about his massive give-aways to the rich.
Lets make sure he doesn’t get away with it.
You know, one day in the news they’ll be trumpeting that the economy is back, that the Gross Domestic Product rose at an 8.2% clip in the third quarter, that personal income rose 0.5% in November, that company inventories are dropping which means consumers are buying which means that any day now companies are going to start hiring…
And then the next day there will be a report that orders for durable goods dropped unexpectedly in November or that new housing starts dropped in November, and the story of the day will express surprise at such weakness in the economy because damn, didn’t yesterday’s statistics show promise of everything starting to boom?
I don’t think there’s any mystery to it at all.
The economy rose because Bush gave Americans tax rebates and tax cuts early in the year, and people spent them. But the economy continues to stall because Bush gave most of the tax cuts to the rich, who don’t need the money.
I said it BEFORE and I'll say it again: the rich have no pent-up demand, because they can already buy anything that their greedy little hearts desire. Non-wealthy Americans, on the other hand, have been scrimping for years as their wages stagnate, their expenses rise, their jobs are ‘downsized.’ They’ve been making do with old clothes so they can save for their children’s education, nursing along their failing automobiles and appliances because they can’t afford to buy new ones.
Give them a little windfall of a tax cut or a tax rebate, and they’ll give a boost to the economy by spending it. Problem is, now it’s spent, and they’re financially strapped again, though perhaps with a new suit or new washing machine to show for it. Even worse, since their pent-up demand exceeded their tiny tax rebate, they probably spent more than Bush had handed them. After all, credit card debt is still rising, personal bankruptcies are still rising, and our savings rate remains abysmal.
Two-thirds of the US economy is built on consumer purchases, and it is consumers who have managed to keep the economy afloat. They’ve done it through refinancing their houses (as we here at DebtorsPrison did) and by going into credit card debt. All Bush’s tax cut did for the average consumer was to give them a couple months of financial reprieve and tempt them into going a little further in debt to make some of the purchases they had been deferring for so long.
Bush dazzled average consumers with a few hundred dollars in their pockets and a whole lot of talk about how his tax cuts benefited the average person, but it’s all lies. The Bush tax cuts were all about giving more money and power to the rich and doing nothing for the economy. It is even a lie to say that taxes have been cut for the average person, because the under-financing of the federal government has meant all sorts of increases in government service fees, as well as in state, local and property taxes. These increases usually hurt the average person with a tiny tax rebate more than they do the wealthy person with a windfall tax cut.
Bush is hoping that the buying boomlet stimulated by his tiny tax cut to the average person will carry the economy at least to the next election, so he can get away with his deceitful lies about his massive give-aways to the rich.
Lets make sure he doesn’t get away with it.
Thursday, December 25, 2003
Happy Holidays from DebtorsPrison
Happy Holidays to all from DebtorsPrison. It’s been a lean Christmas in the DebtorsPrison household, with Mrs. DebtorsPrison having had only sporadic employment over the past six months. We exchanged modest gifts, and took care of gifts to others by baking lots of goodies. All in all, Christmas cost us well under one hundred dollars. I realize everything is relative, that many people in the United States were unable to afford even that much, and that for many people around the world, one hundred dollars represents months of earnings.
Still, Christmas would have been a lot leaner had we not gotten rid of the $23,000 credit card debt that was the original inspiration for this blog. You can read those early entries about the debt HERE. Or you can just read on, as I’m in the mood to recap the story.
We are a liberal and fairly non-materialistic couple who nonetheless slowly found ourselves drowning in credit card debt. Indeed, the debt is only part of the story…Mrs. DebtorsPrison had gotten a legal settlement of around $30,000 in 1995, so the actual turnaround of our finances—running through the 30 grand and building up the debt—is actually more like a $50,000 hole.
Some of the money went towards the down payment for our house. Some of it went towards a ‘new’ used car, since deceased and never replaced—we’ve been car-less for going on two years now. Much of it went towards our stubbornly striving to live our lives the way we want to. In that period, we took three two-month trips, one to Kenya and two to India, Nepal and Tibet, as well as shorter trips to the US southwest and to Peru. Immersing ourselves in other cultures and seeking to become more global citizens is important to us. These trips were financed partly from savings, but also partly from the settlement money and in smaller part on credit. Another chunk of the debt came from both of us voluntarily giving up stressful jobs for less-stressful ones, despite pay cuts in each instance. Some of the money went towards Mrs. DebtorsPrison’s efforts to develop a consulting business in which her considerable experience with comedy improvisation could be used both for corporate training and for wellness workshops for those suffering from chronic and/or terminal medical conditions, a venture which so far has brought us a minor stream of income.
Very little of the debt came from the accumulation of ‘stuff,’ per se. Nevertheless, the money we devoted towards the pursuit of our life goals meant that ever-so-gradually even our day-to-day expenses eroded our financial position.
Last Spring, thanks to rising real estate values, we refinanced our house, taking out enough additional debt to pay off the credit cards. The debt didn’t actually get paid off, in other words; it just got folded into a new, higher mortgage, and we gave up whatever equity we’d built up in our house over the previous five years. We didn’t really save much in interest costs, since the entire credit card debt was at very favorable 6% and 7% rates. Nevertheless, the ‘nut’ we had to come up with every month for minimum payments decreased dramatically.
It is those reduced monthly payments that have allowed us to stay afloat and virtually debt-free these past seven months despite our greatly reduced income. In fact, thanks to my fistful of credit cards no longer tied up with debt, I’ve even managed to make some money back off of them.
With the accumulated ‘points’ on one card, I had enough to cash in for $175.00 worth of gift certificates at various retailers. In addition, I took advantage of a couple limited-time, no-interest, no fee deals that two cards offered me. I borrowed $13,000 on the cards and used that money to open up accounts at two internet banks. Both banks offered $50.00 bonuses for opening new accounts, so that alone earned me one hundred bucks.
In addition, the accounts paid 2% interest, so over the time I was able to keep the large sums in the accounts, I earned an additional $65.00 in interest. I simply paid the minimum payments out of the borrowed money itself, and when the no-interest period expired, paid the debt off. No interest paid, $165.00 in interest and bonuses earned, and I’ve managed to keep both accounts open with smaller sums, continuing to earn interest.
Finally, two cards offered me limited-time 5% cash back on purchases up to two thousand dollars. I took each of the cards up on the deal and have been charging everything, including groceries, and paying off the balance each month. I already hit the two thousand dollars on one card, thus earning the maximum $100.00 back, and am well on my way to doing the same on the second card.
In short, over the past six months, I’ve made about $540.00 off of my credit cards. Sure, they’ve made more off of me over the years in interest, and yes, a truly daring person might have taken that limited-time, no-fee interest-free thirteen grand and swung a real estate deal to make more money, but I’m happy. Unfortunately, now that my credit profile no longer shows me as a home-owner with a large yet manageable credit card debt, the best deals are no longer coming in the mail so often. But I remain alert for ways to earn more money off these cards, and we are resolute in never getting back into those huge debt problems.
Anyway, it has been a wonderful Christmas, despite our strained finances and all the craziness in the world. We feel refreshed, focused and ready to continue trying to make the world a better place. I hope all who read this have had a wonderful holiday as well.
Still, Christmas would have been a lot leaner had we not gotten rid of the $23,000 credit card debt that was the original inspiration for this blog. You can read those early entries about the debt HERE. Or you can just read on, as I’m in the mood to recap the story.
We are a liberal and fairly non-materialistic couple who nonetheless slowly found ourselves drowning in credit card debt. Indeed, the debt is only part of the story…Mrs. DebtorsPrison had gotten a legal settlement of around $30,000 in 1995, so the actual turnaround of our finances—running through the 30 grand and building up the debt—is actually more like a $50,000 hole.
Some of the money went towards the down payment for our house. Some of it went towards a ‘new’ used car, since deceased and never replaced—we’ve been car-less for going on two years now. Much of it went towards our stubbornly striving to live our lives the way we want to. In that period, we took three two-month trips, one to Kenya and two to India, Nepal and Tibet, as well as shorter trips to the US southwest and to Peru. Immersing ourselves in other cultures and seeking to become more global citizens is important to us. These trips were financed partly from savings, but also partly from the settlement money and in smaller part on credit. Another chunk of the debt came from both of us voluntarily giving up stressful jobs for less-stressful ones, despite pay cuts in each instance. Some of the money went towards Mrs. DebtorsPrison’s efforts to develop a consulting business in which her considerable experience with comedy improvisation could be used both for corporate training and for wellness workshops for those suffering from chronic and/or terminal medical conditions, a venture which so far has brought us a minor stream of income.
Very little of the debt came from the accumulation of ‘stuff,’ per se. Nevertheless, the money we devoted towards the pursuit of our life goals meant that ever-so-gradually even our day-to-day expenses eroded our financial position.
Last Spring, thanks to rising real estate values, we refinanced our house, taking out enough additional debt to pay off the credit cards. The debt didn’t actually get paid off, in other words; it just got folded into a new, higher mortgage, and we gave up whatever equity we’d built up in our house over the previous five years. We didn’t really save much in interest costs, since the entire credit card debt was at very favorable 6% and 7% rates. Nevertheless, the ‘nut’ we had to come up with every month for minimum payments decreased dramatically.
It is those reduced monthly payments that have allowed us to stay afloat and virtually debt-free these past seven months despite our greatly reduced income. In fact, thanks to my fistful of credit cards no longer tied up with debt, I’ve even managed to make some money back off of them.
With the accumulated ‘points’ on one card, I had enough to cash in for $175.00 worth of gift certificates at various retailers. In addition, I took advantage of a couple limited-time, no-interest, no fee deals that two cards offered me. I borrowed $13,000 on the cards and used that money to open up accounts at two internet banks. Both banks offered $50.00 bonuses for opening new accounts, so that alone earned me one hundred bucks.
In addition, the accounts paid 2% interest, so over the time I was able to keep the large sums in the accounts, I earned an additional $65.00 in interest. I simply paid the minimum payments out of the borrowed money itself, and when the no-interest period expired, paid the debt off. No interest paid, $165.00 in interest and bonuses earned, and I’ve managed to keep both accounts open with smaller sums, continuing to earn interest.
Finally, two cards offered me limited-time 5% cash back on purchases up to two thousand dollars. I took each of the cards up on the deal and have been charging everything, including groceries, and paying off the balance each month. I already hit the two thousand dollars on one card, thus earning the maximum $100.00 back, and am well on my way to doing the same on the second card.
In short, over the past six months, I’ve made about $540.00 off of my credit cards. Sure, they’ve made more off of me over the years in interest, and yes, a truly daring person might have taken that limited-time, no-fee interest-free thirteen grand and swung a real estate deal to make more money, but I’m happy. Unfortunately, now that my credit profile no longer shows me as a home-owner with a large yet manageable credit card debt, the best deals are no longer coming in the mail so often. But I remain alert for ways to earn more money off these cards, and we are resolute in never getting back into those huge debt problems.
Anyway, it has been a wonderful Christmas, despite our strained finances and all the craziness in the world. We feel refreshed, focused and ready to continue trying to make the world a better place. I hope all who read this have had a wonderful holiday as well.
Thursday, December 18, 2003
Roast Turkey in Baghdad, Cooked Goose in Tikrit
George Bush has had a very good few weeks in the photo op department. First, there was his surprise Thanksgiving drop-in on the troops in Baghdad, and then there was the capture of Saddam Hussein.
I’m certainly no fan of this unelected president currently residing in the White House, but I’ll confess to feeling a rush of happy gratitude and admiration when I saw those pictures of Bush serving turkey to the troops. What a surprise, what a thrill to the men and women in that mess hall, what a daring and magnanimous gesture.
But also…what a stunt. Because in the end, that’s all it was: a stunt. I truly believe that Bush went to Baghdad in part out of a true goodness, a desire to show his support and appreciation to those soldiers he has asked such sacrifice from. But I also feel that an even stronger motivation was pure political calculation…his political team was looking for visuals that would really wow the voters, razzle-dazzle ‘em and make them forget their increasing discontent. After all, the video footage of his prior stunt, flying onto that aircraft carrier in his flight suit and addressing a crowd of cheering sailors before a huge banner announcing “Mission Accomplished” after the fall of Baghdad, had become largely unusable, what with the hundreds of slain and wounded soldiers and the continuing chaos and violence in Iraq showing that, well, maybe that ‘mission accomplished’ had been a little premature. (And will the flight-suited George W. Bush action figure inspired by that stunt now be joined by a second, this time in army fatigues with a roast turkey in his arms?)
Yes, Mr. Bush. It was very nice of you to spend Thanksgiving in Baghdad (foolhardy too, perhaps…I have to question the judgment of a President who flies to a war zone for a publicity stunt.) But I can’t help thinking that those soldiers you dined with would not have rather been home enjoying Thanksgiving with their own families. And I can’t help thinking that the families of the soldiers who have died in your little war would not have rather had their sons and daughters at the dining table rather than in a casket.
Nor can this stunt obscure the fact that this war in Iraq is bad policy, a forfeit of hundreds of young lives and a waste of hundreds of billions of dollars in pursuit of a policy that has little to do with justice or with lessening the threat of terror, and much more to do with oil money, defense contracts, and the worldview of a few rightwing zealots who believe that America’s greatest destiny lies in bullying the world and ignoring global cooperation.
And finally, (because Americans love to dwell on gossip more than issues of substance), what kind of son invites his parents and children to the ranch for Thanksgiving dinner, but then at the last minute flies off to have turkey with the guys instead, without even telling anyone? Sheesh. My parents woulda killed me….
Bush’s other great publicity coup is, of course, the capture of Saddam Hussein. Here again, I feel some gratitude in seeing one of the world’s tyrants having his goose cooked. This does not mean, however, that I agree with the way it was done.
Removing Saddam Hussein from power was not the job of the United States nor should it in any way have been a priority of our foreign policy. Iraq was not an immediate and direct threat to the United States. He had no connection to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. His weapons of mass destruction program was largely contained by UN sanctions and inspections. This was still an unnecessary war undertaken for ill-considered if not corrupt reasons. Hundreds of US soldiers have died, thousands have been wounded, thousands of families have been disrupted, hundreds of billions of dollars squandered. The Bush administration flat-out lied to the American people about its reasons for waging war. We have alienated our allies, lost the respect of much of the world. And we have, through arrogance and poor planning, fostered a chaotic situation in post-war Iraq that may very well give rise to a worse nightmare than Saddam.
To the American audience, seeing the humbled, humiliated and cowardly Saddam crawl out of his hole was a cinematic moment worthy of Hollywood. His haggard appearance was shocking (the jokes have already begun…Santa Claus goes Goth, he had a suitcase full of $750,000 and he couldn’t afford a haircut….) Seeing his head checked for lice and his mouth checked for sores was humiliating. Yes, the good guys had won and the bad guy had gotten his due.
But those same visuals that play so well to the American cowboy mentality don’t play so well in the Arab world. There, they see an Arab leader being humiliated by the United States, and that just feeds into the simmering resentment and suspicion. Anti-Western sentiment in the Arab world found voice in two major political philosophies in the 20th Century. One was the secular nationalists who came to power in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, people like Gamal Abdul-Nasser of Egypt and Saddam Hussein. The second political philosophy was the fundamentalist Islam that has steadily increased power since the 1980s. The fall of Saddam represents the fall of the last of the powerful secular Arab nationalists, and thus increases radical Islamic fundamentalism as a home for those who seek an outlet for their resentments.
After all, that is why the United States supported Saddam Hussein throughout the Reagan administration. Yes, it’s true: Saddam was our boy, and many of the very acts that Bush has cited as justification for overthrowing him were, in fact, done with US complicity in the 1980s. Sure, we knew he was a devil, but when the choice was between him and the other devil as represented by the Islamic fundamentalists in Iran under Ayatollah Khomeini, we threw in with Saddam. We sold him weapons, sold him technology which could be used in his nuclear weapons program, offered him intelligence which he in turn used to gas his own people, and we even sold him anthrax, bubonic plague and other biological horrors. I’m sure all this will come out when Saddam goes on trial, a trial I suspect will bring more embarrassment than satisfaction to our government. But until then, you can read up on it all at the following links:
From the National Security Archive comes the tale of US support for Saddam in the 1980s, and from testimony in the Congressional Record by Senator Robert Byrd (D-Va) comes the story of our furnishing Saddam with all he needed to make those biological weapons
And finally, there is that wonderful picture of our current Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld making nice with Saddam in Baghdad back in 1983…
I’m certainly no fan of this unelected president currently residing in the White House, but I’ll confess to feeling a rush of happy gratitude and admiration when I saw those pictures of Bush serving turkey to the troops. What a surprise, what a thrill to the men and women in that mess hall, what a daring and magnanimous gesture.
But also…what a stunt. Because in the end, that’s all it was: a stunt. I truly believe that Bush went to Baghdad in part out of a true goodness, a desire to show his support and appreciation to those soldiers he has asked such sacrifice from. But I also feel that an even stronger motivation was pure political calculation…his political team was looking for visuals that would really wow the voters, razzle-dazzle ‘em and make them forget their increasing discontent. After all, the video footage of his prior stunt, flying onto that aircraft carrier in his flight suit and addressing a crowd of cheering sailors before a huge banner announcing “Mission Accomplished” after the fall of Baghdad, had become largely unusable, what with the hundreds of slain and wounded soldiers and the continuing chaos and violence in Iraq showing that, well, maybe that ‘mission accomplished’ had been a little premature. (And will the flight-suited George W. Bush action figure inspired by that stunt now be joined by a second, this time in army fatigues with a roast turkey in his arms?)
Yes, Mr. Bush. It was very nice of you to spend Thanksgiving in Baghdad (foolhardy too, perhaps…I have to question the judgment of a President who flies to a war zone for a publicity stunt.) But I can’t help thinking that those soldiers you dined with would not have rather been home enjoying Thanksgiving with their own families. And I can’t help thinking that the families of the soldiers who have died in your little war would not have rather had their sons and daughters at the dining table rather than in a casket.
Nor can this stunt obscure the fact that this war in Iraq is bad policy, a forfeit of hundreds of young lives and a waste of hundreds of billions of dollars in pursuit of a policy that has little to do with justice or with lessening the threat of terror, and much more to do with oil money, defense contracts, and the worldview of a few rightwing zealots who believe that America’s greatest destiny lies in bullying the world and ignoring global cooperation.
And finally, (because Americans love to dwell on gossip more than issues of substance), what kind of son invites his parents and children to the ranch for Thanksgiving dinner, but then at the last minute flies off to have turkey with the guys instead, without even telling anyone? Sheesh. My parents woulda killed me….
Bush’s other great publicity coup is, of course, the capture of Saddam Hussein. Here again, I feel some gratitude in seeing one of the world’s tyrants having his goose cooked. This does not mean, however, that I agree with the way it was done.
Removing Saddam Hussein from power was not the job of the United States nor should it in any way have been a priority of our foreign policy. Iraq was not an immediate and direct threat to the United States. He had no connection to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. His weapons of mass destruction program was largely contained by UN sanctions and inspections. This was still an unnecessary war undertaken for ill-considered if not corrupt reasons. Hundreds of US soldiers have died, thousands have been wounded, thousands of families have been disrupted, hundreds of billions of dollars squandered. The Bush administration flat-out lied to the American people about its reasons for waging war. We have alienated our allies, lost the respect of much of the world. And we have, through arrogance and poor planning, fostered a chaotic situation in post-war Iraq that may very well give rise to a worse nightmare than Saddam.
To the American audience, seeing the humbled, humiliated and cowardly Saddam crawl out of his hole was a cinematic moment worthy of Hollywood. His haggard appearance was shocking (the jokes have already begun…Santa Claus goes Goth, he had a suitcase full of $750,000 and he couldn’t afford a haircut….) Seeing his head checked for lice and his mouth checked for sores was humiliating. Yes, the good guys had won and the bad guy had gotten his due.
But those same visuals that play so well to the American cowboy mentality don’t play so well in the Arab world. There, they see an Arab leader being humiliated by the United States, and that just feeds into the simmering resentment and suspicion. Anti-Western sentiment in the Arab world found voice in two major political philosophies in the 20th Century. One was the secular nationalists who came to power in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, people like Gamal Abdul-Nasser of Egypt and Saddam Hussein. The second political philosophy was the fundamentalist Islam that has steadily increased power since the 1980s. The fall of Saddam represents the fall of the last of the powerful secular Arab nationalists, and thus increases radical Islamic fundamentalism as a home for those who seek an outlet for their resentments.
After all, that is why the United States supported Saddam Hussein throughout the Reagan administration. Yes, it’s true: Saddam was our boy, and many of the very acts that Bush has cited as justification for overthrowing him were, in fact, done with US complicity in the 1980s. Sure, we knew he was a devil, but when the choice was between him and the other devil as represented by the Islamic fundamentalists in Iran under Ayatollah Khomeini, we threw in with Saddam. We sold him weapons, sold him technology which could be used in his nuclear weapons program, offered him intelligence which he in turn used to gas his own people, and we even sold him anthrax, bubonic plague and other biological horrors. I’m sure all this will come out when Saddam goes on trial, a trial I suspect will bring more embarrassment than satisfaction to our government. But until then, you can read up on it all at the following links:
From the National Security Archive comes the tale of US support for Saddam in the 1980s, and from testimony in the Congressional Record by Senator Robert Byrd (D-Va) comes the story of our furnishing Saddam with all he needed to make those biological weapons
And finally, there is that wonderful picture of our current Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld making nice with Saddam in Baghdad back in 1983…
Saturday, December 13, 2003
...Or Maybe It's Worth A Comment After All
Last week I offered without comment a story about a woman being trampled in a Wal-Mart by a horde of shoppers racing for a bargain DVD player.
At least I thought then it needed no comment: it seemed to perfectly illustrate the self-absorbed greed which people can exhibit. But it turns out that this tale has several different levels of greed involved. Here is a follow-up news story:
Well. It certainly takes blind greed to stomp over someone in order to get a good price on a DVD player. But what sort of greed does it take to understand so well how greedy people are, to know that if you stumble there in front of them they will trample you, and to use this knowledge for your own gain. I mean, the dozens of people who trampled over her only wanted to gain a few dozen dollars in savings on a DVD player, but this woman seems to have been out for both the DVD player and swindling Wal-Mart out of thousands of dollars. Now, if she can only sell the rights to her story to the National Enquirer on top of that....
At least I thought then it needed no comment: it seemed to perfectly illustrate the self-absorbed greed which people can exhibit. But it turns out that this tale has several different levels of greed involved. Here is a follow-up news story:
Associated Press
ORANGE CITY, Fla. - A woman who was reported trampled by Wal-Mart shoppers during a holiday sale on DVD players has filed numerous injury claims against stores since 1987, including nine against the huge retailer.
Patricia VanLester, 41, a former Wal-Mart employee, has received thousands of dollars in injury and workers' compensation settlements from Wal-Mart, records show.
Paramedics reported finding VanLester unconscious atop a DVD player Nov. 28 amid a frenzy of shoppers during an early-bird holiday sale. She was airlifted to a hospital, where she spent two days.
Orange City Police Cmdr. Peter Thomas said yesterday that his department had found no evidence of a crime and had closed its investigation.
Wal-Mart spokesman Dan Fogleman said he had no details about the past settlements, including one filed by VanLester's sister. "We're going to investigate this claim as thoroughly as we have investigated the other 10 claims that this woman and her sister have brought against us in the past," he said.
The sister, Linda Ellzey, said VanLester had suffered a seizure and other injuries caused by shoppers who trampled her "like a herd of elephants." A case manager for VanLester's attorney said VanLester had not filed a formal injury claim against Wal-Mart from last week's incident.
VanLester collected more than $1,800 in workers' compensation claims for slip-and-fall incidents at a Publix supermarket and another Wal-Mart store in 1995 and 1996.
Well. It certainly takes blind greed to stomp over someone in order to get a good price on a DVD player. But what sort of greed does it take to understand so well how greedy people are, to know that if you stumble there in front of them they will trample you, and to use this knowledge for your own gain. I mean, the dozens of people who trampled over her only wanted to gain a few dozen dollars in savings on a DVD player, but this woman seems to have been out for both the DVD player and swindling Wal-Mart out of thousands of dollars. Now, if she can only sell the rights to her story to the National Enquirer on top of that....
Thursday, December 04, 2003
Maybe Now They'll Do Something About Global Warming...
Climate change seen as threat to ski resorts
By Andrew Dampf
Associated Press
TURIN, Italy - Global warming is threatening the world's ski resorts, with melting at lower altitudes forcing the sport to move higher and higher up mountains, a U.N. study says.
Downhill skiing could disappear altogether at some resorts, according to the report, issued Tuesday by the U.N. Environment Program. At others, a retreating snow line may cut off base villages from their ski runs as soon as 2030.
"Climate change is happening now. We can measure it," said Klaus Toepfer, executive director of the U.N. program. "This study shows that it is not just the developing world that will suffer."
Wow! I mean, when it's just a question of worrying about suffering in the developing world, of devastated agriculture and flooded coastal cities, who really cares? But how dare they let anything happen to our ski resorts?
Climate change seen as threat to ski resorts
By Andrew Dampf
Associated Press
TURIN, Italy - Global warming is threatening the world's ski resorts, with melting at lower altitudes forcing the sport to move higher and higher up mountains, a U.N. study says.
Downhill skiing could disappear altogether at some resorts, according to the report, issued Tuesday by the U.N. Environment Program. At others, a retreating snow line may cut off base villages from their ski runs as soon as 2030.
"Climate change is happening now. We can measure it," said Klaus Toepfer, executive director of the U.N. program. "This study shows that it is not just the developing world that will suffer."
Wow! I mean, when it's just a question of worrying about suffering in the developing world, of devastated agriculture and flooded coastal cities, who really cares? But how dare they let anything happen to our ski resorts?
.
What Exactly Do You Mean, Santa, "If I'm A 'Good' Girl or Boy?"
A bit of seasonal news...
Santa's Knee Off-Limits For Some Children
AFP, Dec. 3, 2003
A small town in New Zealand has banned children from sitting on Santa's knee because organizers fear liability if anything goes wrong, organizers said.
Instead, children in the South Island village of Mosgiel would be asked to sit next to him, on specially decorated "elf chairs", as they discuss their Christmas wish list.
Organizer Gail Thompson, secretary of the Mosgiel Business Association, which is organizing the event, said the precaution was "ridiculous" but necessary. She feared children coming back in at a later date with allegations about Santa's behavior.
"None of us really wants the risk of someone saying in 15 years' time 'When we sat on Santa's knee at market day ...', so they are sitting on elves' chairs."
Graham Glass, who will be Santa, was less than impressed. "It's bloody ridiculous — I can't believe we have become so politically correct."
The town has also declared that scrambling for lollipops in a free-for-all would be too dangerous for the children, who will instead be handed sweets from a basket.
What Exactly Do You Mean, Santa, "If I'm A 'Good' Girl or Boy?"
A bit of seasonal news...
Santa's Knee Off-Limits For Some Children
AFP, Dec. 3, 2003
A small town in New Zealand has banned children from sitting on Santa's knee because organizers fear liability if anything goes wrong, organizers said.
Instead, children in the South Island village of Mosgiel would be asked to sit next to him, on specially decorated "elf chairs", as they discuss their Christmas wish list.
Organizer Gail Thompson, secretary of the Mosgiel Business Association, which is organizing the event, said the precaution was "ridiculous" but necessary. She feared children coming back in at a later date with allegations about Santa's behavior.
"None of us really wants the risk of someone saying in 15 years' time 'When we sat on Santa's knee at market day ...', so they are sitting on elves' chairs."
Graham Glass, who will be Santa, was less than impressed. "It's bloody ridiculous — I can't believe we have become so politically correct."
The town has also declared that scrambling for lollipops in a free-for-all would be too dangerous for the children, who will instead be handed sweets from a basket.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)