When God Doesn't Make Sense

The subject book by Dr James Dobson is a really good read for someone that either has or seeks a strong Biblical grounding on dealing with tragedy in the life of a believer. Very much UNlike Rabbi Kushner, Dr Dobson believes in a sovereign God that is loving, just and very caring -- just so beyond our human understanding that our attempts to pin him down or indicate what he can and can't do are beyond futile.

Dobson doesn't claim to have all the answers, he tries to illuminate what he can from the Bible and experience he has had. A quote that hit me hard after listening to well meaning people at our nieces funeral was: "I find it irritating when amateur theologians throw around simplistic platitudes, such as "God must have wanted the little flower named Bristol for his heavenly garden". He points out that we will have to wait until we are on the other side of the river until we understand God's plan, and it is foolish to make believe that we can make sense of it here.

A paragraph that I really liked:

I hope you will see that the discomfort is intensified by a misunderstanding of time. Our journey here has the illusion of permanence about it. Billions who went before us thought the same thing. Now they are gone-every one of them. In truth, we're just passing through. If we fully comprehended the brevity of life, the things that frustrate us-including most of those occasions when God doesn't make sense-wouldn't matter so much.

When Bad Things Happen to Good People

The subject book by Rabbi Harold Kushner is a well recognized book on the subject of trying to understand grief in the context of God and faith and loved by many. His son Aaron was diagnosed with progeria ("rapid aging") at 3 and they knew it was terminal at a young age. He died at age 14. Certainly, a tragic event and one that drove Rabbi Kushner to question God, faith, life, etc as it would any father.

I think the book may well be useful to many people, but I have a lot of theological and philosophical concern with it. I found the key words in the book to be:

I can worship a God who hates suffering but cannot eliminate it, more easily than I can worship a God who chooses to make children suffer and die for whatever exalted reason.

So why is it God's responsibility to be the kind of God that one can worship more easily? From the perspective of an infinite God, are those really his only options? What is it that limits his options? How we think and feel?

Rabbi Kushner has a lot of thoughts about how God can and can't be -- in my mind, there isn't much reason to believe in a God that is not SOVEREIGN. I may or may not "agree / understand / be able to explain" a whole host of things about an infinite God, but I believe the least that my lowly person can do is recognize that it is he, not me, that is sovereign.

Kushner argues that we ought not be angry at God because his god is "limited"--god really can't prevent bad things from happening, so he ought not be blamed. While I enjoyed some of his discussion of Job, I disagreed with his conclusions and felt all the way through the book that if one was to believe in a god that was as small as Rabbi Kushners, one may as well be an atheist.

BO Fascism Begins?

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment by Andrew C. McCarthy on National Review Online

Excellent overall article. BO and minions have already begun the fascist process of intimidating free speech.

In St. Louis, local law-enforcement authorities, dominated by Democrat-party activists, were threatening libel prosecutions against Obama’s political opposition. County CircuitAttorney Bob McCulloch and City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, abetted by a local sheriff and encouraged by the Obama campaign, warned that members of the public who dared speak out against Obama during the campaign’s crucial final weeks would face criminal libel charges — if, in the judgment of these conflicted officials, such criticism of their champion was “false.”

"False"? From the POV of BO supporters, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for ANYTHNG about his worshipfulness that isn't an accolade to be anything but "false". One of the hallmarks of free speech used to be that you could yell anything you wanted about a politician without fear of state reprisal. Apparently, "free speech" in a BO state just means you are allowed to say as many nice things about him as you want--if you don't agree, be sure to shut up.

There is a troubling reportthat the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Section, top officials of which are Obama contributors, has suggested criminal prosecutions against those they anticipate will engage in voter “intimidation” or “oppression” in an election involving a black candidate. (Memo to my former DOJ colleagues: In a system that presumes innocence even after crimes have undeniably been committed, responsible prosecutors don’t assume non-suspects will commit future law violations — especially when doing so necessarily undermines the First Amendment freedoms those prosecutors solemnly swear to uphold.)

Now that sounds great. According to Democrats, Saddam Hussein saying on multiple occasions that he would destroy the US and clearly doing everything that he could to obtain WMD wasn't enough to warrant a pre-emptive attack. But one can ANTICIPATE what US citizens will engage in voter "intimidation or oppression"? Gee, I wonder what would constitute "intimidation"? Known Republicans be present at the polls maybe?

The last paragraph is a good one ... but please read it all.

Regardless of the legal landscape, however, it is the political consequences that matter. Day after day, Obama demonstrates that the “change” he represents is a severing of our body politic from the moorings that make us America. If we idly stand by while he and his thugs kill free political debate, we die too.

BO Book Author for VP Debate Moderator?

Power Line: A shocking conflict of interest

Shocking? I can't imagine being shocked by any sort of MSM conflict or bias. How in the world could they be more in the tank for BO? The only thing that "shocks" me is when they ask him any question tougher than "Is there anything you would like us to do for you Mr Obama"?

People Acting Like Government (George Will)

RealClearPolitics - Articles - A Vote Against Rashness

The financial crisis points out that the US as a country over the past 50 years or so followed a path in both government and personal finance of getting what we want today, planning to (maybe) pay for it tomorrow. Food, shelter, clothing, education, retirement, medical care and respect have moved from things that needed to be earned to "rights" that ought be "freely available".

Of course, in the real world, there is very little that is "free". Both government and private individuals have enjoyed the separation of "buying" from "paying", but in so doing they have believed that the buying part can continue without much significant needing to happen on the payment side until "later".

So we arrive at today. It appears that at least home ownership really isn't an affordable "right", it has to drop back to being a privilege. How about retirement without saving for it? How long can the Social Security Ponzi scheme continue to provide some Americans with the short term reality, while certainly providing most of us with only the long-term fantasy? How likely is it that this or one of the other "pseudo rights" that liberal thinking has foisted on us will take down those of us that have worked, saved, and paid the taxes over a long period right along with those that have just pointed the finger of blame at "big business", "CEOs", "Wall Street", or some other supposed agent of evil?

Depression Time?

Power Line: The Bailout mess, where is Barack Obama?

Both the far left and the far right seem to be ready to let the house burn and "blame Bush". I guess that is an option, but once it is burned, we just have a burned house, some number of bodies, and then what? Certainly the Democrats managed to make Hoover into a goat and FDR into a saint, but in real historical terms, what did that net us? Rather than a couple years of downturn, FDR managed to give us a decade, and without WWII it is hard to tell how much longer it would have gone.

So let's assume for the moment that our leadership continues to fiddle while Rome burns, BO gets elected, and we have a good rip-snorting deep recession or depression that gets blamed on Bush. Who gets hurt? I'm sure in absolute dollar losses, the rich get hurt the "worst", but that is sort of like in a famine, the big fat guy loses 50% of his body weight and feels better, while the skinny guy loses 30% and dies.

The far left and the far right are both mad as hell, and in general, they have both decided to direct their anger at Bush. It appears that they are angry enough to see their own 401K accounts drop a ton, lose their jobs and who knows what else. I lived through the '70s, and heard enough about the 30's to be sick of it forever, but it looks to me like there are a whole lot of folks that don't understand the risk being taken. I suspect that a lot of the oldsters think that Social Security will carry them through to the grave in fine form, so maybe it is good to let the young folks suffer a bit -- give them some "character". I also think that a lot of folks believe that they "can't be hurt much" or "the rich guys will get hurt more". The media helps them think that, but it is unfortunately wrong. The price of sheephood is often too high.

Comparing BO to McCain

Power Line: McCain leads, Obama follows

The post does a good job. Don't expect the MSM to tell you that McCain worked to get Fannie/Freddie regulated better and BO voted against it!

Long Detail on Bailout With Context

America's bail-out plan | The doctors' bill | The Economist

This is a long article, but worth the read for those that want to get beyond the MSM / political sparring over the "bailout". The chart above is useful because it shows that bailouts aren't new or unusual, and if one puts this one in the context of the size of the US economy, it isn't nearly as large as the MSM would like us to believe.

My contention is that they have decided "crisis is good for BO, so let's make the crisis as big as we can". As I've said before, if you were told that you would have to invest 1/13th of your salary in your company in order to continue to get the full 13/13ths next year, and have an excellent chance of getting the whole 1/13th back in 5 years or so, I doubt it would take long to decide. When the MSM keeps throwing around the figure $700 Billion though, it just sounds "too big to believe" the US Budget is over $3,000 Billion ($3 Trillion) EVERY YEAR!!!

Here are a couple of especially good excerpts from the article:

The consequences will probably not be so far-reaching. The true cost to taxpayers is unlikely to be anywhere near $700 billion, because many of the acquired mortgages will be repaid. The expansion of the Fed’s balance sheet reflects a fear-induced demand for cash, which drove the federal funds rate above the 2% target.

Yet predictions of a sea change towards more invasive government are premature. The Depression witnessed a pervasive expansion of the federal government into numerous walks of life, from trucking and railways to farming, out of a broadly shared belief that capitalism had failed utterly. If Mr Paulson and Mr Bernanke have prevented a Depression-like collapse in economic output with their actions these past two weeks, then they may also have prevented a Depression-like backlash against the free market.

Right vs Privledge

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Bailout Blues

The whole thing is very well worth reading, but the bottom line here, as it is in so many things is that those that EARN IT have the PRIVILEGE of home ownership. When you try to make something that is NOT a "right" into one, you risk your economy learning that nature provides very few rights, and those are the ONLY rights that are guaranteed.

Any reader who has followed me for some time will guess that I am
appalled by the (purported) $700 billion bailout that U.S. President George W. Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson have organized, yet cannot reasonably oppose it at a moment when the markets are close to a true meltdown. I am further appalled by the spectacle of the Democrats in the U.S. Congress, exploiting the emergency to affix massive quantities of poorly disguised pork to the blunderbuss bill.

And finally, appalled by the media and chattering heads calling the whole mess a "crisis of capitalism" when the plain facts show the opposite. The whole "subprime mortgage" instrument was invented by bankers specifically to assuage heavy-handed Congressional demands to swell the number of minority and low-income homeowners, 20 years ago. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were already bloated quasi-government
bureaucracies, dangerously freed from many conventional market disciplines. And among the chief beneficiaries of the current bailout are the most extravagant contributors to the Democrat Party.

As one of my more knowing correspondents put it: "Wall Street loves money but hates free markets, because free markets distribute economic benefits to those who earn them, rather than to those best able to seize them."

The capitalist investment bankers stand accused, rightly, of having invented brilliant kiting schemes -- ultimately to deliver credit to customers who hadn't earned it. Their "greed" is irrelevant -- everyone is trying to make money. The point is that the schemes themselves were basically unsound. The lesson is that when home ownership is considered a "right" instead of a privilege, it is not only the housing market that goes bottom up.

This is a lesson no one wants to learn, so it will take time to sink
in. But any attentive reader of the Wall Street Journal can know today,what his neighbors may never even hear tomorrow: that this marketcrack-up, like every other, came not from observing the basicprinciples of capitalism, but from trying to deny them in the face ofnature.

Way Way Back in 2003, Freddie and Fannie

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - New York Times

Nobody in the MSM needs to look of course, but WAY back in 2003, that bastion of conservative thought, the NYT ran this column pointing out how WRONG Bush was about the need for more Freddie and Fannie regulation, and how RIGHT brilliant Democrats like Barney Frank were in opposition to any more control, because there were NO PROBLEMS!

'These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

See, it is GREAT to be a Democrat. You take a position AGAINST more regulation when the administration and the Republicans propose it, and THEN, when it is clear that you were WRONG, the MSM forgets that and let's you blather about Bush failing to regulate. Note also how it is clear even in 2003 that the Democrats understand that if these agencys are regulated like they should be, it will mean "less bargaining power for poorer families". That is regrettable, but it isn't like taking out high risk loans turns out to be FREE is it!!! If you want to do that, why not try to vote a federal subsidy through in the open rather than sink the credit markets and then blame them for the sinking!!

This is the same kind of brilliance as BO saying "The surge will make things worse"!!! Of course, we have a press that does equal treatment -- the fact that Bush thought there were WMD (along with EVERYONE else) and we never found it is something they ignore just as much as they ignore BO being wrong about the surge.

Killing the Goose?

The government seems to be pretty happy taking $3 Trillion PER YEAR out of a $13 Trillion dollar PER YEAR Economy. Even if getting out of the sub-prime debacle actually cost a Trillion, how many folks would spend 1/13th of their income to make the best effort they could to keep making the other 12/13ths? It doesn't seem to be a hard decision at all when one looks at it that way.

I'm waiting to find an article or politician that explains it as clearly as Paulson did during the Senate Testimony. The GOVERNMENT strongly pushed Freddie and Fannie to take more sub-prime loans in order to keep housing starts moving and lower and lower income people getting homes. Then, after Enron, they passed Sarbannes Oxley that put LEGAL restrictions on the rating of the financial instruments that a business could keep on their balance sheet. Sounded good at the time.

When Bear went down, Moody's and Std and Poors started looking at the "mortgage backed securities" and discovered that sub-prime was everywhere. They downgraded the rating. Once they did that, the Financial Officers and the CEOs HAD to sell the mortgage backed securities--they were ILLEGAL to keep on their balance sheet. Selling them was and is stupid, but they had no choice--the law says sell or GO TO JAIL!! Wham, credit instruments that were 97% secure and had maybe dropped to 95% secure at the worst now had to be DUMPED, and none of the businesses that would normally buy them could make any use of them. Even though on the long term their value is almost certainly secure, they are no longer LIQUID--nobody will buy them TODAY. Meltdown caused by an unintended side-effect of well intentioned government regulation.

BUT, SOX was "Bi-Partisan" BOTH guys like Dodd and McCain voted for it--because they thought it was good. I'm sure there is plenty of blame to go around, Wall Street is certainly not blameless, but Washington is FAR from blameless, and it isn't for the reasons that they seem willing to admit. So they are playing "chicken" with the $13 Trillion US Economy that could take the whole world into a depression. Why?

Well, hey, BOs poll numbers bumped up on the crisis, so crisis must be good! I'm convinced that the MSM and the Democrats could care less if they drive the country to 70% of the population starving and the other 30% killed by terrorists. As long as they can blame Bush and get power it will be more that fine with them!

Unless our elected idiots choose to continue to playing politics rather than fixing an unforseen problem that they had a very large role in creating, there is no way that anything over 10-15% of those mortgages are going to default. The $700-$1Trillion "exposure" is very likely to turn them a PROFIT, just like the Chrysler bailout (that was MUCH less of a good idea) and actually the S&L bailout even eventually turned a profit.

I think the people that make the $13 Trillion a year are perfectly willing to be demonized if that is the price to keep the economy running. Better to have a bunch of prima donas that have never produced anything but hot air in their life going "shame, shame, I told you so" when a big hunk of the problem is actually of their creation than to actually let the credit markets dry up and destroy the business "goose" that keeps turning out that $13 Trillion every year. Do Dodd and BO understand that? I really wonder to sit and listen to them, but I believe they must. They simply don't care about ANYTHING but raw political power, no matter what the level of damage caused!

I Can't Believe BO Would "Miss"

Commentary: McCain's Latino ad hits target, Obama's misses - CNN.com

Patriotic for the Other Guy to Pay More

Biden calls paying higher taxes a patriotic act - Yahoo! News

We just saw Biden's tax returns. Funny how it is ALWAYS "patriotic" for the guy that makes just more than you to pay a lot more in taxes. Gee, if THAT is so "patriotic" wouldn't it be UNpatriotic for the 4 out of 5 to get tax CUTS?

Are taxes "patriotic" or aren't they? Did our founding fathers mention $250K, or was that a random number "patriotism" cutoff that just HAPPENED to be basically at Biden's income?

Maybe he copied the figure from somewhere ... in his case, that is something that I would certainly believe.

Time Explains Financial Markets

How Financial Madness Overtook Wall Street - TIME

In general I think this is a pretty good article. I'll summarize and add my spin:

• Markets, like any somewhat natural phenomenon have cycles
• We all want to "control / regulate / moderate" the markets to some extent. Like natural phenomenon (flooding, disease, storms, etc) this is sometimes possible to SOME extent, but at the absolute, out of our control.
  
• Since markets are human created, the psychology of humans has a lot to do with their movements. Greed and fear are two operative feelings that drive fluctuations.
  
• We layer "technology" until nobody completely understands what we built. Financial technology is the same -- we aggregate, derive, hedge, etc until it SEEMS that we have a way to "control the risk", and even "gain from the risk". For some durations of time, maybe we do--but again, the induction problem. We will never KNOW that. Tomorrow ALWAYS has the potential to be "completely new", in both good and bad ways. We doubt that it WILL be--in either the good or bad ways, but it certainly can surprise any of us.
  
• People overreact--in all directions. Too high, too low, too much, too little, too fast, too slow, etc. It is part of human nature. In government, in business, in families--it goes with the flawed nature of humanity.
  

So, where does that all leave us. Bottom line, we don't know, but PROBABLYThe "crisis" isn't as big as the MSM would like us to believe.  We better HOPE that McCain and Bush are right when they say that the economy is "fundamentally sound". It is hard to see how they would NOT be right given the standard of living, corporate profits, etc, but since a lot of it can come down to psychology, it may be that enough of the public has been scared enough by some of the mis-reporting that we may yet get a huge general crash that will be to nobody's benefit.

My favorite piece of that mis-reporting is the CONSTANT statement (repeated in this article) that the Freddy/Fanny bailout is $6 TRILLION. That would be if ALL the mortgages in the US defaulted. How likely do you think THAT is??? The CBO said it was likely a $25 BILLION exposure. That is a LONG way from $6 TRILLION. Do these folks have a death wish? It IS possible to get large masses of people to do really stupid things -- HG Wells War of World radio broadcast if you aren't a believer.

"News" from AP or BO Campaign Material

Power Line: If You've Opposed One Bridge, You've Opposed Them All


PL does a great job here. AP is trying to get you to think that Palin is doing some "special favor" for her town. PL makes it extremely clear that there isn't any truth in that at all, this is simply an attempt to get the uninformed to dislike Palin.