If I am gentle with the throttle and shift into neutral on the way down long hills I can get more than 25 miles a gallon from my car. It is a "sports" car, capable of extreme performance, but mileage is not its strong point. It’s far better than my truck, though, and with gas close to $4 a gallon and diesel at $4.50, I think about it.
One friend, a teacher, has a large V-twin motorcycle. He loves it and rides nearly every day. Another, a professional pilot, rides his BMW motorcycle to work. He gets 50 miles per gallon. But his job is about 50 miles away, he has always ridden motorcycles, and he enjoys it, too.
I asked each of them a lot of questions. Then I sat down and thought about whether I should get a motorcycle.
One day, on his way home from work at more than 60 miles per hour, the pilot hit a deer. He was OK after tumbling and skidding down the highway because he always, always wears the full suit that kept him alive, at least not abraded to the bone, leaving flesh on the pavement, seriously and permanently disabled.
He got another bike and still rides. In truth, that deer could have killed him if he was driving his Honda sedan. But he does not ride at night. Period. Can't ride in winter when there is ice and snow on the road. The suit can be hot, or cold, and things get a little dicey, and miserable, in the rain.
But he gets about double the mileage as I do in my car.
Let's see. Ten miles to town and back for the mail. That is actually about a "20 miles-per-gallon" trip because of the stops and starts. So let's say I'd use half a gallon. A couple of bucks. And to be lazy with the math, let's say it is a buck in gas for the motorcycle.
If someone stood in my garage with a crisp dollar bill as I headed for my car and said, "... give you a buck if you take another five minutes to put on your gear, ride extra carefully a half mile down your gravel driveway, into town to the post office, take off your helmet but leave on the rest of your hot Kevlar suit, get the mail, put on your helmet, go to the store, take off your helmet, buy a dozen eggs to fit into the saddle packs, come home, up that gravel drive and take off all your gear."
My answer would be, um, no. Not that much fun.
And one reason I gave up motorcycles years ago is that I nearly killed myself three times on bikes in the 70s. Even if bikes are faster and better now, I am not.
So I have come to the conclusion that for me, at least, a motorcycle is not the answer to $4 per gallon gas. Not even $10 per gallon. Too much hassle, I don't love it enough, and I won't take my daughters on a bike.
As it is, driving less has cut my consumption way down, and kept my fuel cost to about what it was before the recent run up in prices. I make far fewer spontaneous 40 mile round trips to Bend, planning a little better. I don't make unnecessary "boredom runs" into Sisters for a newspaper or a chat with the local editor. And that leads to my reading more books and to less air pollution.
By 2010 I want a small, enclosed cockpit vehicle that will give me 100 miles per tank of compressed air that I can fill with the compressor in my garage or one under the seat. Three wheels would be fine if two are in front, but full crash cage is required, because I don't want to hassle with a suit or helmet, and I want it to seat three, though two of those can be cramped.
The day has arrived in America when our addiction to oil has driven us to choose between fuel or health care, fuel or food, or roads, or schools. But one of the strengths of this nation has been its ability to innovate our way out of crisis and into the future. It was only 20 years ago we gave the world the personal computer.
It will be interesting to see if we have the will and the brains to do something like that again.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Past her shelf life
Yesterday while one of the twins was at violin lesson I ran into the county clerk's office to vote. Moving to the hilltop meant I had to change the address on my registration.
There is something about Hillary at this point that is just a little rancid. Maybe it's the lies (sniper fire), maybe the pandering (gas tax), maybe the do-whatever-it-takes-to-win (the racist card).
But it is hard to look at her now and not have the same sensation that one has in sniffing the carton of milk of expired date in the fridge. You know it's not fresh, you can't tell if it's sour, and wonder if a taste will ruin your day. Or the off-color burger. It doesn't seem too bad, but you know it isn't good.
It's one thing when it is the only food in the house, the temptation to hold your nose and cook it up and serve it up and deal with it. Kinda like the last few presidential elections, in fact. Politics as usual.
But now there is someone fresh, a natural leader, a very smart man who, though beat up a little by the process, doesn't seem tainted. With that available, why would we vote for Clinton?
Obama '08.
There is something about Hillary at this point that is just a little rancid. Maybe it's the lies (sniper fire), maybe the pandering (gas tax), maybe the do-whatever-it-takes-to-win (the racist card).
But it is hard to look at her now and not have the same sensation that one has in sniffing the carton of milk of expired date in the fridge. You know it's not fresh, you can't tell if it's sour, and wonder if a taste will ruin your day. Or the off-color burger. It doesn't seem too bad, but you know it isn't good.
It's one thing when it is the only food in the house, the temptation to hold your nose and cook it up and serve it up and deal with it. Kinda like the last few presidential elections, in fact. Politics as usual.
But now there is someone fresh, a natural leader, a very smart man who, though beat up a little by the process, doesn't seem tainted. With that available, why would we vote for Clinton?
Obama '08.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Perfect storms
Yesterday my twin middle school daughters were astounded at the nightly news as the three of us ate dinner. Earthquakes in China, cyclones in Burma, fires in Florida, tornadoes in Oklahoma. "It feels like the world is falling apart," said one.
When all these things threaten us at once, we want to see a larger hand at work, that global warming is ruining our world for human habitation. And it may be.
Or it may just be that many things happen at the same time. Always. Even items that are intertwined can have separate causes, and different solutions.
In a month we have had the home mortgage mess, a banking crisis, recession howling on the horizon, oil price inflation, and the threat of currency collapse.
Bernake said today that the banking system credit crunch, while far from over, may be easing. He may have saved the day, though longer term fixes probably need to be developed that will improve transparency and moderate leverage.
The mortgage mess, while related, is separate in the way it impacts individuals, a resolution may also be working its way through the system. That starts with, "Don't borrow more than you can pay back."
Be wary of quick fixes here from politicians that would reduce the ability of people to aspire to home ownership.
Yes, there is the recession. It is here, and it will be long lasting. The entire baby boom generation has been living beyond their means. The bills will be paid.
But there are many assets lying around, and it is not a bad thing for this group, especially, to learn to live with less. There is a certain joy in finding economies.
And it may be that it is in crisis that empathies sprout, perhaps, for those whose lives have been ravaged by storms beyond their control, those impacted by tectonic shifts in the gloabal economy, those treading water whose standard of living sinks as the price of everything climbs.
When all these things threaten us at once, we want to see a larger hand at work, that global warming is ruining our world for human habitation. And it may be.
Or it may just be that many things happen at the same time. Always. Even items that are intertwined can have separate causes, and different solutions.
In a month we have had the home mortgage mess, a banking crisis, recession howling on the horizon, oil price inflation, and the threat of currency collapse.
Bernake said today that the banking system credit crunch, while far from over, may be easing. He may have saved the day, though longer term fixes probably need to be developed that will improve transparency and moderate leverage.
The mortgage mess, while related, is separate in the way it impacts individuals, a resolution may also be working its way through the system. That starts with, "Don't borrow more than you can pay back."
Be wary of quick fixes here from politicians that would reduce the ability of people to aspire to home ownership.
Yes, there is the recession. It is here, and it will be long lasting. The entire baby boom generation has been living beyond their means. The bills will be paid.
But there are many assets lying around, and it is not a bad thing for this group, especially, to learn to live with less. There is a certain joy in finding economies.
And it may be that it is in crisis that empathies sprout, perhaps, for those whose lives have been ravaged by storms beyond their control, those impacted by tectonic shifts in the gloabal economy, those treading water whose standard of living sinks as the price of everything climbs.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Shut up, Peter
Oregon's Peter DeFazio has always been a loose canon, to be sure, and often off target. But he threatens the interests of those who agree with him when he gets it as wrong as he did yesterday.
Introducing Barak Obama, Defazio said of John McCain: "He says we need less regulation," said DeFazio in his introduction of Obama. "Hello! Wall Street mortgage meltdown, Bear Stearns taxpayer bailout, Enron, but, you know, I guess maybe for a guy who was up to his neck in the Keating Five and savings and loan scandal less regulation is better."
Defazio's ignorance of economics is striking. Especially for a member of congress who was in office during each of these issues, even if in the minority party.
Let's deal with Bear Stearns. The Fed did not "bail out" Bear Stearns, which was sold to another company for what, $10 per share and ceased to exist. Investors and employees of Bear Stearns got creamed. That's not a bail out.
By facilitating the sale for pennies on the dollar, the fed did make sure that those who had dealt with Bear Stearns were able to have contracts honored. This in turn helped others know that contracts would be honored. This probably kept the entire banking system from freezing up at a time when there were some serious concerns.
That's the problem with liberals Like DeFazio who are ignorant of economics: They are willing to destroy a system and ruin lives for the sake of their ideology.
Enron? A company run amuck. But as any cop or District Attorney will tell you, sometimes you can't prevent crime, you have to punish it. Especially true when the laws are gray, the economy is changing. There will always be bad guys willing to scam the system.
The American people voted in a president and especially a vice president willing to collude with Enron. Enron too, blew up, evaporated, died. The company got caught, ceased to exist (corporate capial punishment?) accounting standards improved, federal laws were passed.
Pre-regulation may have helped, but it may also have come at a cost even greater than that finally paid. It would have been even worse if great minds in economics like Peter Defazio were in charge.
The mortgage mess? Mr. Defazio, we need transcripts of all the speeches you made identifying the problems with mortgage backed securities and other derivatives when the asset bubble began in real estate. Thank you.
In the mean time, others will be analyzing the actual issues and crafting the minimum laws, probably reserve requirements for investment banks and greater disclosure, needed to deal with it.
Defazio helps no one when he shoots off his mouth, and his tendency toward self-righteousness makes him one of the less effective members of Congress. But right now, it could hurt the best candidate for president the left has had in a generation.
Shut up, Peter.
Obama in '08.
Introducing Barak Obama, Defazio said of John McCain: "He says we need less regulation," said DeFazio in his introduction of Obama. "Hello! Wall Street mortgage meltdown, Bear Stearns taxpayer bailout, Enron, but, you know, I guess maybe for a guy who was up to his neck in the Keating Five and savings and loan scandal less regulation is better."
Defazio's ignorance of economics is striking. Especially for a member of congress who was in office during each of these issues, even if in the minority party.
Let's deal with Bear Stearns. The Fed did not "bail out" Bear Stearns, which was sold to another company for what, $10 per share and ceased to exist. Investors and employees of Bear Stearns got creamed. That's not a bail out.
By facilitating the sale for pennies on the dollar, the fed did make sure that those who had dealt with Bear Stearns were able to have contracts honored. This in turn helped others know that contracts would be honored. This probably kept the entire banking system from freezing up at a time when there were some serious concerns.
That's the problem with liberals Like DeFazio who are ignorant of economics: They are willing to destroy a system and ruin lives for the sake of their ideology.
Enron? A company run amuck. But as any cop or District Attorney will tell you, sometimes you can't prevent crime, you have to punish it. Especially true when the laws are gray, the economy is changing. There will always be bad guys willing to scam the system.
The American people voted in a president and especially a vice president willing to collude with Enron. Enron too, blew up, evaporated, died. The company got caught, ceased to exist (corporate capial punishment?) accounting standards improved, federal laws were passed.
Pre-regulation may have helped, but it may also have come at a cost even greater than that finally paid. It would have been even worse if great minds in economics like Peter Defazio were in charge.
The mortgage mess? Mr. Defazio, we need transcripts of all the speeches you made identifying the problems with mortgage backed securities and other derivatives when the asset bubble began in real estate. Thank you.
In the mean time, others will be analyzing the actual issues and crafting the minimum laws, probably reserve requirements for investment banks and greater disclosure, needed to deal with it.
Defazio helps no one when he shoots off his mouth, and his tendency toward self-righteousness makes him one of the less effective members of Congress. But right now, it could hurt the best candidate for president the left has had in a generation.
Shut up, Peter.
Obama in '08.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Hillary -- Go home
Hillary Clinton committed two more significant misrepresentations and panderings in the last week. Let's not forget sniper fire.
Recently, she fibbed about a company called Magnaquench, indicating that George Bush was responsible for the loss of those jobs, that industry. Actually, Magnaquench was sold to the Chinese under the watch of her husband, Bill Clinton.
The other foolishness has to do with the repeal of the gas tax. It is bad economics, and it is pandering, and finally we have a significant enough difference between Clinton and Obama so that it is obvious on a policy basis that he deserves the vote and she does not.
When confronted about the fact that not a single significant economist thought the idea a good one, she said she didn't listen to economists. How stupid.
Frankly, we are sick of the excuse "that's just politics." (Better said here). And we are sick of her claim to competence based upon the fact that her husband was president. That qualifies Laura Bush. And if Clinton does want to claim that mantle, then she does not get to avoid credit for the failures.
Go home, Hillary. Your lust for power has twisted your judgment, clouded your bright mind. You have told too many lies, you have tried to become too many people. Get off the stage, and let the others get on with some important business.
Obama in 08.
Recently, she fibbed about a company called Magnaquench, indicating that George Bush was responsible for the loss of those jobs, that industry. Actually, Magnaquench was sold to the Chinese under the watch of her husband, Bill Clinton.
The other foolishness has to do with the repeal of the gas tax. It is bad economics, and it is pandering, and finally we have a significant enough difference between Clinton and Obama so that it is obvious on a policy basis that he deserves the vote and she does not.
When confronted about the fact that not a single significant economist thought the idea a good one, she said she didn't listen to economists. How stupid.
Frankly, we are sick of the excuse "that's just politics." (Better said here). And we are sick of her claim to competence based upon the fact that her husband was president. That qualifies Laura Bush. And if Clinton does want to claim that mantle, then she does not get to avoid credit for the failures.
Go home, Hillary. Your lust for power has twisted your judgment, clouded your bright mind. You have told too many lies, you have tried to become too many people. Get off the stage, and let the others get on with some important business.
Obama in 08.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Financial wisdom
For those of you looking above the trench line, we wrote something last August (read it here) that still applies.
Not that we are all that prescient. This morning, we read something from Todd Harrison that really struck home:
"...There are few opportunities in our lives to literally watch history tick before our eyes. These are the times our grandchildren will study, like we study the Great Depression, puzzling over the bizarre circumstances that came together to form this perfect storm.
"What is most misunderstood is that this not only a financial crossroads, but a societal one as well. The repercussions of government policy and our individual actions will echo loudly throughout future generations.
"We have a choice to make. We can face our mistakes with bravery, accepting consequences as they come, confident we can meet the challenge while rebuilding a more sustainable structure; or we can continue to let fear and greed drag us along the road to ruin.
"The former, while more challenging, is the path of perseverance. It is the only noble road, one that accepts responsibility for our actions and paves the way to better days.
"They say admitting you have a problem is the first step towards solving it. It’s about time that we, the people, practice what we preach."
(Click here for full article).
Not that we are all that prescient. This morning, we read something from Todd Harrison that really struck home:
"...There are few opportunities in our lives to literally watch history tick before our eyes. These are the times our grandchildren will study, like we study the Great Depression, puzzling over the bizarre circumstances that came together to form this perfect storm.
"What is most misunderstood is that this not only a financial crossroads, but a societal one as well. The repercussions of government policy and our individual actions will echo loudly throughout future generations.
"We have a choice to make. We can face our mistakes with bravery, accepting consequences as they come, confident we can meet the challenge while rebuilding a more sustainable structure; or we can continue to let fear and greed drag us along the road to ruin.
"The former, while more challenging, is the path of perseverance. It is the only noble road, one that accepts responsibility for our actions and paves the way to better days.
"They say admitting you have a problem is the first step towards solving it. It’s about time that we, the people, practice what we preach."
(Click here for full article).
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Hillary is a liar
Oh, crap.
Really didn't intend to get into this, don't want to, but this was ugly, and it's necessary. Silence is what earned us 8 years of George Bush.
Hillary Clinton is a liar who will say whatever it takes to achieve her ambition.
"In a speech in Washington on March 17 Clinton said of the Bosnia trip: 'I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.' " Clinton was quoted by Reuters. (Read it here)
It didn't happen. From the same story:
"Several news outlets disputed the claim, and a video of the trip showed Clinton walking from the plane, accompanied by her daughter. They were greeted by a young girl in a small ceremony on the tarmac and there was no sign of tension or any danger."
In other words, Hillary lied to make herself look like she had experience under fire.
She said she "misspoke." That her memory was different. That she was human.
No, she lied.
This finishes her campaign. Hillary just told one of those despicable lies spouted in bars by guys who claim to be Green Berets or Navy Seals or another branch of a special service when all they did was push paper at Fort Bragg if they served at all.
By claiming she faced a threat to her person, one that did not exist, she earns the disdain of all who did face a threat and paid dearly with arms and legs, forever maimed, the disdain of those who lost comrades, and of course, the disdain of families of men and women who died serving this country, 4,000 so far in Iraq, 58,148 in Viet Nam, the disdain of 170,000 troops facing IEDS and snipers in Iraq, the disdain of soldiers everywhere, in all nations.
She tried to steal the warrior's honor, and use it for political gain.
Even if in the unlikely event she were to beat Obama, Clinton would be finished against John McCain, a true war hero who spent years in a prison camp.
In an effort to change the subject, Clinton is trying to smear Obama with words spoken by the pastor of Obama's church. Terrible words, words that Obama has repudiated.
Her perspective twisted by power lust, Clinton ignores the fact that Obama never spoke the offensive words.
Clinton did. She lied about war zone experience in a claim she was qualified to be Commander in Chief. Thereby proving she is not.
Hillary: Get off the stage. Your time is done.
Really didn't intend to get into this, don't want to, but this was ugly, and it's necessary. Silence is what earned us 8 years of George Bush.
Hillary Clinton is a liar who will say whatever it takes to achieve her ambition.
"In a speech in Washington on March 17 Clinton said of the Bosnia trip: 'I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.' " Clinton was quoted by Reuters. (Read it here)
It didn't happen. From the same story:
"Several news outlets disputed the claim, and a video of the trip showed Clinton walking from the plane, accompanied by her daughter. They were greeted by a young girl in a small ceremony on the tarmac and there was no sign of tension or any danger."
In other words, Hillary lied to make herself look like she had experience under fire.
She said she "misspoke." That her memory was different. That she was human.
No, she lied.
This finishes her campaign. Hillary just told one of those despicable lies spouted in bars by guys who claim to be Green Berets or Navy Seals or another branch of a special service when all they did was push paper at Fort Bragg if they served at all.
By claiming she faced a threat to her person, one that did not exist, she earns the disdain of all who did face a threat and paid dearly with arms and legs, forever maimed, the disdain of those who lost comrades, and of course, the disdain of families of men and women who died serving this country, 4,000 so far in Iraq, 58,148 in Viet Nam, the disdain of 170,000 troops facing IEDS and snipers in Iraq, the disdain of soldiers everywhere, in all nations.
She tried to steal the warrior's honor, and use it for political gain.
Even if in the unlikely event she were to beat Obama, Clinton would be finished against John McCain, a true war hero who spent years in a prison camp.
In an effort to change the subject, Clinton is trying to smear Obama with words spoken by the pastor of Obama's church. Terrible words, words that Obama has repudiated.
Her perspective twisted by power lust, Clinton ignores the fact that Obama never spoke the offensive words.
Clinton did. She lied about war zone experience in a claim she was qualified to be Commander in Chief. Thereby proving she is not.
Hillary: Get off the stage. Your time is done.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
“No Country for Old Men”
There are many characters in “No Country for Old Men.” Among the most potent is the State of Texas.
This is an intense movie about evil. It is unrelenting. It grinds away at the viewer as evil grinds away at good men. It is a story of struggle, much death, and no reward.
The Devil himself may walk the streets, obeying a code of morality that finds no value in humanity, that finds threads of causation leading to death as meaningful as those leading to any individual.
The angels are tired, and ready to retire. The world has changed, Texas has changed, there are too many drugs and there is too much money and there a man’s courage, even his goodness, is simply not enough. There is no salvation.
No one could have made this film from the Cormack McCarthy book besides the Cohn brothers, Joel and Ethan. Think “Fargo.” But worse. Or better, depending on how you feel about their work.
There are many outstanding performances in this film. The weariness of Tommy Lee Jones as Sheriff Tom Bell makes your bones ache. Javier Bardhem is soulless as Anton Chigurh, a satanic figure who, under McCarthy’s pen and the Cohn brother’s craft, refutes the idea that evil is randomly uncaring but actually targets the good.
Josh Brolin, as protagonist Llewelyn Moss (hero is the wrong word, wrong concept) gives much false hope for an ending in which we could find comfort. Woody Harrelson does his typical work as a bad man we could like, but is insufficient, both in the role and as the character he plays.
There is randomness in this film, call it heads or tails, but within that there is the intent to destroy and there are no scales to bring balance between a good act and an evil one.
Listen to the dialogue. Listen to McCarthy’s words spoken by Jones, by Ellis (Barry Corbin). Those words tell a tale of desperation, of futility, of nobility ground into dust by the Devil himself acting on a people who have lost both the ability to believe and reason to fear.
And look at Texas. It is the stage for this malevolent drama, and no place could have provided a better backdrop. Empty highways, cheap motels, sour coffee in dirty diners.
This is a film, like “The Departed,” that makes no apology, pulls no punch. It is harsh. It is also outstanding art. It is a phenomenally good movie at a time when we need good films.
When the lights came up in the theater, the woman in the row in front of me was incredulous, unsettled. “That’s it?” she asked.
“You wanted more?” I replied, exhausted after slightly more than two hours of mayhem and death. “I actually had quite enough.”
“But I wanted a different ending. I want some closure,” she lamented.
It’s not there. Not in the film, and not in the script, maybe not for any of us.
Go see “No country for Old Men.” Expect to be moved, not entertained.
This is an intense movie about evil. It is unrelenting. It grinds away at the viewer as evil grinds away at good men. It is a story of struggle, much death, and no reward.
The Devil himself may walk the streets, obeying a code of morality that finds no value in humanity, that finds threads of causation leading to death as meaningful as those leading to any individual.
The angels are tired, and ready to retire. The world has changed, Texas has changed, there are too many drugs and there is too much money and there a man’s courage, even his goodness, is simply not enough. There is no salvation.
No one could have made this film from the Cormack McCarthy book besides the Cohn brothers, Joel and Ethan. Think “Fargo.” But worse. Or better, depending on how you feel about their work.
There are many outstanding performances in this film. The weariness of Tommy Lee Jones as Sheriff Tom Bell makes your bones ache. Javier Bardhem is soulless as Anton Chigurh, a satanic figure who, under McCarthy’s pen and the Cohn brother’s craft, refutes the idea that evil is randomly uncaring but actually targets the good.
Josh Brolin, as protagonist Llewelyn Moss (hero is the wrong word, wrong concept) gives much false hope for an ending in which we could find comfort. Woody Harrelson does his typical work as a bad man we could like, but is insufficient, both in the role and as the character he plays.
There is randomness in this film, call it heads or tails, but within that there is the intent to destroy and there are no scales to bring balance between a good act and an evil one.
Listen to the dialogue. Listen to McCarthy’s words spoken by Jones, by Ellis (Barry Corbin). Those words tell a tale of desperation, of futility, of nobility ground into dust by the Devil himself acting on a people who have lost both the ability to believe and reason to fear.
And look at Texas. It is the stage for this malevolent drama, and no place could have provided a better backdrop. Empty highways, cheap motels, sour coffee in dirty diners.
This is a film, like “The Departed,” that makes no apology, pulls no punch. It is harsh. It is also outstanding art. It is a phenomenally good movie at a time when we need good films.
When the lights came up in the theater, the woman in the row in front of me was incredulous, unsettled. “That’s it?” she asked.
“You wanted more?” I replied, exhausted after slightly more than two hours of mayhem and death. “I actually had quite enough.”
“But I wanted a different ending. I want some closure,” she lamented.
It’s not there. Not in the film, and not in the script, maybe not for any of us.
Go see “No country for Old Men.” Expect to be moved, not entertained.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
The banking windmills
Bank of America sent me a wonderful offer the other day. I am sure you've gotten one too.
A low rate loan (9.99%) to CleanSweep® my debt. No collateral. No application fee. No annual fee. Up to $50 grand.
Oh, there's some fine print, of course. The rate is actually between 9.99% and 22.99%. I may be prohibited from using the loan to pay down debt if their company is profiting from my overdue balances. And that low, low rate that they say is "not a variable rate tied to an index..." is actually a rate they can vary "at our discretion."
Makes me want to just bend over and say "please."
The Oregon legislature regulated "payday" loan companies last session. And there are many noises coming from Congress and politicos that something has to be done to "fix" the mortgage crisis. But folks, if they really wanted to address the credit mess, they would start right there, with that little piece of plastic in your wallet.
Default rates of 27.99% used to be the province of crime lord vigorish. "Important account information enclosed" is printed on envelopes when what they are trying to do is help you dig yourself deeper into debt, get a little behind, so they can milk you like a cash cow. They flood your mailbox with these, so when the bill does actually does arrive, it gets tossed with the other junk it so looks like.
Now that the banks issuing these cards have had their puppets in Congress make bankruptcy so difficult, we need a crusader from the left, or the right, it does not matter since this is a bipartisan issue with plenty of moral authority from anyone's ideology, to get these blood suckers off our back. At least get their teeth out of our neck.
Give people a reasonable interest rate. Regulate bank card communications, how they represent their products. Allow people a chance to address their debt without incurring more debt at a higher rate.
We have laws that govern our banks, and we are going to have a few more that govern our mortgages. Misleading representations are prohibited in other banking.
It is time that we regulate in some way what has become the fuzzy concept of our money.
A low rate loan (9.99%) to CleanSweep® my debt. No collateral. No application fee. No annual fee. Up to $50 grand.
Oh, there's some fine print, of course. The rate is actually between 9.99% and 22.99%. I may be prohibited from using the loan to pay down debt if their company is profiting from my overdue balances. And that low, low rate that they say is "not a variable rate tied to an index..." is actually a rate they can vary "at our discretion."
Makes me want to just bend over and say "please."
The Oregon legislature regulated "payday" loan companies last session. And there are many noises coming from Congress and politicos that something has to be done to "fix" the mortgage crisis. But folks, if they really wanted to address the credit mess, they would start right there, with that little piece of plastic in your wallet.
Default rates of 27.99% used to be the province of crime lord vigorish. "Important account information enclosed" is printed on envelopes when what they are trying to do is help you dig yourself deeper into debt, get a little behind, so they can milk you like a cash cow. They flood your mailbox with these, so when the bill does actually does arrive, it gets tossed with the other junk it so looks like.
Now that the banks issuing these cards have had their puppets in Congress make bankruptcy so difficult, we need a crusader from the left, or the right, it does not matter since this is a bipartisan issue with plenty of moral authority from anyone's ideology, to get these blood suckers off our back. At least get their teeth out of our neck.
Give people a reasonable interest rate. Regulate bank card communications, how they represent their products. Allow people a chance to address their debt without incurring more debt at a higher rate.
We have laws that govern our banks, and we are going to have a few more that govern our mortgages. Misleading representations are prohibited in other banking.
It is time that we regulate in some way what has become the fuzzy concept of our money.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Charlie Wilson’s War
In our world, unintended consequences often define the course of history, yet good intentions can still prevail. “Charlie Wilson’s War” is about this world.
It’s a fine film, in many ways an important film, based on the true and unlikely story of how we “won” the war in Afghanistan.
Charlie Wilson was a hard drinking, womanizing congressman from Texas who may have been more important to the defeat of the Soviet Empire than Ronald Reagan. Wilson funded weapons for tribesmen of Afghanistan who were then able to defeat the mighty Soviet army, causing the Soviet retreat and possibly leading to the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Director Mike Nichols’ resumé goes back to “Who’s afraid of Virginia Wolf” and “The Graduate” of the 1960s and extends to the more recent “The Birdcage” and the disturbing “Closer” of 2004.
Nichols shapes the film brilliantly. He urges the movie right along, propelled by the series of unlikely events it describes. And the events are true, chronicled in the book “Charlie Wilson’s War” by George Crile that describes the remarkable story of how “Charlie did it,” defeating the Soviets from his chair in an appropriations committee and meetings in Israel, Egypt and Pakistan.
The primary cast delivers well, with Julia Roberts, Tom Hanks and Philip Seymour Hoffman comfortable in roles that are true in feel to the book.
The profane script was written by Aaron Sorkin, writer of “West Wing” and “Sports Night.” If you follow Sorkin, you will recognize his work: smart, fast and funny.
One review warns potential viewers that the movie contains drug use, drinking, smoking, nudity and strong profanity. True. All true. It was the 80s.
The film also captures why the war in Afghanistan was probably a battle, not a war, for democracy. The war for democracy is never over, and we are fighting other battles today because we failed to see that one through.
When we left Afghanistan, after filling the country with guns and after training its already ferocious people as fighters, we just left.
We left behind guns, we left behind a country torn by war, we left behind poor teenagers expected to fight like men, we left behind mines masked as toys designed to maim children, we left behind tribes with centuries of hatred and no means to resolve conflict, we left behind Muslims who had come from around the world to fight, including Osama bin Laden.
We did not build schools or hospitals or power plants or sewage plants or roads, or courts or democracy. We just left. Possibly nothing would have prevented the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan. But we did not try, we were done, we just left. This may have been amoral, it was definitely shortsighted.
But that is our history in the region, our “can do, mission accomplished,” history. Unfortunately, history has a longer point of view, and will return again and again the phrase, “We’ll see,” when the obvious conclusion is also too easy, a Zen parable, “We’ll see.”
Caveat: This writer is biased: having traveled in Afghanistan and Pakistan five years before the Soviets invaded in 1979, I closely followed the war in whatever news media offered coverage at the time. Yet not until I read Criles’ book did I understand the essential story of how the war played at the highest level of our government, and that of Pakistan.
“Charlie Wilson’s War” is a wonderful film, if you are interested. And you should be. It is important, because it describes why we have today soldiers dying in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It’s a fine film, in many ways an important film, based on the true and unlikely story of how we “won” the war in Afghanistan.
Charlie Wilson was a hard drinking, womanizing congressman from Texas who may have been more important to the defeat of the Soviet Empire than Ronald Reagan. Wilson funded weapons for tribesmen of Afghanistan who were then able to defeat the mighty Soviet army, causing the Soviet retreat and possibly leading to the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Director Mike Nichols’ resumé goes back to “Who’s afraid of Virginia Wolf” and “The Graduate” of the 1960s and extends to the more recent “The Birdcage” and the disturbing “Closer” of 2004.
Nichols shapes the film brilliantly. He urges the movie right along, propelled by the series of unlikely events it describes. And the events are true, chronicled in the book “Charlie Wilson’s War” by George Crile that describes the remarkable story of how “Charlie did it,” defeating the Soviets from his chair in an appropriations committee and meetings in Israel, Egypt and Pakistan.
The primary cast delivers well, with Julia Roberts, Tom Hanks and Philip Seymour Hoffman comfortable in roles that are true in feel to the book.
The profane script was written by Aaron Sorkin, writer of “West Wing” and “Sports Night.” If you follow Sorkin, you will recognize his work: smart, fast and funny.
One review warns potential viewers that the movie contains drug use, drinking, smoking, nudity and strong profanity. True. All true. It was the 80s.
The film also captures why the war in Afghanistan was probably a battle, not a war, for democracy. The war for democracy is never over, and we are fighting other battles today because we failed to see that one through.
When we left Afghanistan, after filling the country with guns and after training its already ferocious people as fighters, we just left.
We left behind guns, we left behind a country torn by war, we left behind poor teenagers expected to fight like men, we left behind mines masked as toys designed to maim children, we left behind tribes with centuries of hatred and no means to resolve conflict, we left behind Muslims who had come from around the world to fight, including Osama bin Laden.
We did not build schools or hospitals or power plants or sewage plants or roads, or courts or democracy. We just left. Possibly nothing would have prevented the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan. But we did not try, we were done, we just left. This may have been amoral, it was definitely shortsighted.
But that is our history in the region, our “can do, mission accomplished,” history. Unfortunately, history has a longer point of view, and will return again and again the phrase, “We’ll see,” when the obvious conclusion is also too easy, a Zen parable, “We’ll see.”
Caveat: This writer is biased: having traveled in Afghanistan and Pakistan five years before the Soviets invaded in 1979, I closely followed the war in whatever news media offered coverage at the time. Yet not until I read Criles’ book did I understand the essential story of how the war played at the highest level of our government, and that of Pakistan.
“Charlie Wilson’s War” is a wonderful film, if you are interested. And you should be. It is important, because it describes why we have today soldiers dying in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)