No More Bailouts

Always unsettling news when Wall Street has a bad day and the Dow Jones Industrial Average index falls by 504 points.

But with the new financial woes surrounding Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, we cannot, CANNOT have another bailout like the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout Sept. 7. Given that

"The rescue package represents an extraordinary federal intervention in private enterprise. It could become one of the most expensive financial bailouts in American history, though it will not involve any immediate taxpayer loans or investments.

The Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., who engineered the plan, would not say how much capital the government might eventually have to provide, or what the ultimate cost to taxpayers might be. Two months ago, the Congressional Budget Office gave a rough estimate of $25 billion. One senior government official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, signaled on Sunday that even that figure was optimistic."

That's $25 billion+ of taxpayer money used to ensure that horrendously mismanaged financial institutions don't go under. The taxpayers are SUBSIDIZING INCOMPETENCE.

When a regular employee screws up, they get fired. When the CEO drives the company into the ground, the taxpayers help pay his/her salary. Am I missing something here?

A Disturbing Story

This story in the 16 Sept. News & Observer is both tragic and deeply disturbing.

I'm expanding a bit on my previous post, as violence seems to be an unsettling addiction for people today. I'd almost go as far to say that if this wasn't a hate crime, the entire story is actually more disturbing, as it is violence without rhyme or reason.


There is no point in spending our lives on meaningless violence. Yes, there are times and places for violence, but we should always try our damnedest to to find another way.

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." - Salvor Hardin, Foundation by Isaac Asimov

Wiser words could not have been said on the matter.

A Sad Revelation

I am now thoroughly convinced that humanity can never create a mostly egalitarian society free from violence, where people needn't worry about the daily aspects of living. Despite the fact that we pay so much lip service to the ideals of equality, fairness, peace, justice and goodwill, it's not a part of who we are...or at least it seems that way.

If there is a God (or some pantheon of deities) out there and he/she/it(/they) want to see all the things that the religions worshipping he/she/it(/them) claim is part of their dogmas, then the only way to do so is to start over.

We are simply too proud and too inclined to focus on superficial in-group/out-group characterizations to ever achieve any sense of the collective good. We are slowly shifting towards an individualistic society, where only individual actions matter; what's actually happening is increased heterogeneity in society and specialization in function. People are more focused on one specific thing -- the scientists are even more narrow in their studies and the true artisan always found one medium in which his/her brilliance could shine through. As a result, we depend on others more than ever because we have so intently focused our actions on the task we are assigned (this is Durkheimian sociology).

Yet we continue to believe in this nonsense called independence. As George Bernard Shaw said in Pygmalion, "Independence? That's middle class blasphemy. We are all dependent on one another, every soul of us on earth." By our genetics, we are a social species. Isolate a person from the rest of humanity and the person will go insane. In our society today, we depend on others more than ever to do the task assigned to them: the farmers provide sustenance, the scientists provide innovation, the construction workers build the shelters and transit infrastructure and so on.

And still we hold so dear this poison called "independence." Yes, there is a certain extent to which we do not need other people and are "self-reliant," and no person should ever be forced under the yoke of another's rule for no reason; we have the idea of democracy to attempt to ensure that everyone's voice is heard and build a consensus to address our differences.

But 99 percent of people are so bloody set in their ways that nothing will convince them. I try not to be that way: if you show me convincing evidence that my belief is wrong, I will adjust my belief. Others...well, not so much.

The only way to see real change is to start over. Until then, I will do what I can, as futile as it may be.

15 Sept. 2008 - Column on Concealed Carry on Campus

Every time I hear the words "concealed carry" and "campus" in the same breath, a part of me wishes I had a stiff drink and some nice earplugs. I cringe when gun control advocates say that gun control laws have reduced gun-related crime.

Why? Because this debate refuses to die, and both sides like to ignore a little something called objective reality.

I have no problem with the Second Amendment or people who would like to carry guns - in fact, I think most gun control laws are ineffective or poorly implemented. And I agree wholeheartedly with N.C. State's campus leader for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus Christie Shilling in that people have every right to self-defense, from both run-of-the-mill muggers and psychopathic mass murderers.

What I have a problem with is the blatant ignorance of gun crime statistics.

The National Research Council of the National Academies conducted an extensive study on gun crime in America - Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review and devoted an entire chapter to concealed carry laws. Through all its statistical analyses, it finds that some studies support the idea that concealed carry laws reduce violent crimes and others do not. Further, the report also found that when concealed carry laws reduced major violent and property crimes, it took at least ten years to have an appreciable effect.

Is concealed carry the answer to our violent crime problems? No. Could it be part of a much more comprehensive solution? Possibly.

At this point, concealed carry advocates like Shilling would point out that responsible, 21-year-old people would be the ones with guns, and that tragedies like Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois and everyday crimes like nighttime muggings could be prevented if the students were armed. That's a wonderful sentiment, and I would agree that responsible people are capable of taking decisive, defensive action to prevent others from slaughtering the innocent or to protect themselves.

But I'd also point out that it's a lot more effective to try to find the root of our violent crimes and put a stop to that. Yes, a student with a concealed weapon might be able to stop a deranged person from shooting up a classroom. Yet we have forgotten that all sorts of things can go wrong with almost anyone's mind, and incapacitating one crazy person with a gun does not stop the rest of them.

As a criminology major, I completely agree with the notion that gun control laws provide a false sense of security. But just allowing people to carry concealed weapons is not the answer - we need to address the various economic, psychological and social factors that influence violent crime, particularly on college campuses. We need to treat the mentally unbalanced before they start taking potshots from the bell tower. We should come up with programs that keep kids from just hanging out on the streets, waiting for trouble to come along.

But most of all, we need to focus on the facts. What we're doing right now isn't working, and I'm starting to have trouble removing my earplugs.

Ah, GOP Cronyism...

How predictable thou are.

(Note: Because blogspot is retarded, I'm going to right-align all quotes from here on out until I figure out a different way.)

Ms. Palin walks the national stage as a small-town foe of “good old boy” politics and a champion of ethics reform. The charismatic 44-year-old governor draws enthusiastic audiences and high approval ratings. And as the Republican vice-presidential nominee, she points to her management experience while deriding her Democratic rivals, Senators Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr., as speechmakers who never have run anything.

But an examination of her swift rise and record as mayor of Wasilla and then governor finds that her visceral style and penchant for attacking critics — she sometimes calls local opponents “haters” — contrasts with her carefully crafted public image.

Throughout her political career, she has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance, according to a review of public records and interviews with 60 Republican and Democratic legislators and local officials.

I would've thought having one president who gave out favors to all sorts of his allies was enough.

Oh well. With our system, we get the government we deserve; in fact, we probably manage to get more than that, which is why we are too stupid to learn from our past mistakes.

The New Facebook

Just a thought: please stop complaining about the new Facebook.

People complained when they allowed non-college students to join. People complained about some of the applications making you send notice to other people before you could add them. People complained about every change we've seen in Facebook.

Please stop. It's like the road expansion in Cary. I hate it, particularly in the morning when they decide to make a road one-lane only in the peak of rush hour, but there's not much I can do about it. And I want the road expanded (though not as much with gas prices as they are), so I can live with a pain in the ass now when it's going to improve things later.

Yeah, I hated the new Facebook layout at first. But after I stopped bitching and just started using it, I stopped noticing the difference.