Early Morning Ramblings On Economics And The Existence Of God

I once watched a Joel Osteen sermon on television. My takeaway from the sermon was that God wanted for me the blessing of abundance but that the abundance would be delivered on God's schedule, not mine. It was inspiring, to be sure, but its message fades against the fabric of reality.

I look at the United States, one of if not the most abundant countries in the world, and wonder if God might not be hoarding his abundance. I speak from a personal perspective but also from the macro perspective. To be fair, God has always provided me and my family enough but when I look at the imbalance - the distribution of wealth, the wage gap, racism, sexism - I can't reconcile it.

I have heard that somewhere between six and eight families control 80-90% of the wealth in the United States and that the number of families living below the poverty line increases at an alarming rate every year. How can we sustain that? How have we sustained that for so long? I look at modern politics and modern economics and think that some day it all has to reach a critical mass and that day will come sooner than later. I fear that day. I fear that day because the preshocks have already occurred - The Great Depression, the dot com bubble, the housing bubble. Those were bad enough but I fear the tear that is occurring today will swallow us when the big one hits. It's not just the United States that will suffer. The global economy is so intertwined that the collapse of such a major power would destroy so much more than itself.

I am not a biblical scholar by any sense of the word. What I know of scripture is merely bits and pieces and stories. Religion is the source of my morality. My view of the Bible and scripture is more about that sense of right and wrong than of specific words. I thought I might include some bit of scripture here to play off of but I don't know the text well enough to locate anything that might closely express my sentiment.

Here's my point: If God so wants abundance for us all, why does it not seem that His abundance is being dispersed?

Is it because of the love of money in the hearts of those six to eight families? Are they, and not God, hoarding the abundance? How shall they be judged?

Is it because of a lack of faith? I want to believe in God but humanity makes faithfulness difficult. Between terrorist activities, greed, political corruption, broad-spectrum hate speech from religious groups (I'm thinking specifically of Westboro Baptist but there are other groups and other forms), abuse by and morally abhorrent behavior of "men of God," and universal (meaning enacted by the universe, not necessarily widespread) bullshit, there are times I consider atheism as much as agnosticism.

Is it because we have all deviated so far from the word of God? We lend and borrow and spend and acquire so much that we're forced to operate within a system that is inherently corrupt.

Is it because there is no God? The words in the Bible are written by the hands of men. Modern society is so far removed from that time and we have enough inaccuracy and controversy in the recording of our own history, how can we trust a book written so long ago and translated at least twice to present it in a living language? How many "versions" of the Bible are there, anyway? If the words are so divine, shouldn't there only be one? I mean, it's not like there's King James, New International, and modern paraphrased versions of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

Where is the modern savior who will take it upon himself to drive the merchants and money exchangers from the temple? I'm not talking about the second coming or anything but of the person of power and influence who screams, "Enough!" I mean, look what happened in the mortgage collapse. Banks, actually those that run banks, knowingly sold services based on false pretenses and incorrect assumptions. They fleeced the public into believing they could get so much more for so much less. It was only a matter of time before those lies, and the economic repercussions of them, caused the shitstorm that they did. And what were the consequences? Money from the federal government (you and I) to bail them out of the situation they put themselves in and the reward to their leaders of bonuses so large that the average person does not even have a frame of reference for that level of disbursement.

If one person is not enough to effect such change, why are groups of people not rising up? We certainly should but we can't seem to even care enough to overturn our own congress. I think the reason that the last five presidents have served two terms is that it's easier for people to handle. It's not because they are great men but that they are the devil we know.

Where am I going with this? I don't really know. I woke up at 4 am with it rattling around in my head and had to get it out into the universe so I could go back to sleep (maybe).

Sarah Silverman's Mouth

Sarah Silverman has a potty mouth (I'm sure even she will admit that) and it probably gets her in trouble from time to time. For some reason she was a speaker, alongside Al Franken, at the Democratic National Convention on Monday. I'm not entirely sure whether she spoke before or after Sanders made his remarks since I didn't watch much of the coverage and neither she nor Franklin are on the official schedule. My guess is they were introducing a scheduled speaker and were allotted a few minutes to offer their statements.

From a story on The Slot, Silverman spoke of her support for Bernie Sanders, which likely pleased those of similar mind in the crowd, then started saying why she would be supporting Hillary Clinton. This drew jeers and boos from die-hard Bernie fans. She tried to speak over them but they were, apparently, quite vocal. She'd apparently had enough because her next statement was, "To the Bernie or Bust crowd, you're being ridiculous" I saw a video clip of that comment and her attitude seemed to be one of, "You lost. Get over it!"

Well, Ms. Silverman, it's not that easy. It's obvious from the vocal reactions, emotional tears, and the walkout yesterday that there are some deeply dedicated Bernie fans. And those people need a chance to grieve. They have to come to grips with the reality that a person who they rallied against for so long and has had her share of controversies during the nomination process now represents their party as a presidential candidate. It can't be just put aside.

Don't get me wrong, I get where you were coming from. It's bothersome to be interrupted like that and frustrating that a situation that you've already come to accept is still being bantered about. You could have been less harsh in your comments. You could have given them something like, "I know it's difficult but this is our reality now. Let's work together to accept it and win this election!"

I'm just sayin.

Bernie Goes Bust

If you follow me on Facebook it should be no secret to you that I support Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential election. I guess I should say that I supported Bernie Sanders. Until last night, I held out a minor modicum of hope that he might still seek the Democratic nomination or might run as an independent, despite what he's said over the last few weeks.

Last night, I watched a few minutes of Sanders' speech at the DNC in Philadelphia. I was hit with a sense of finality when he said, "Hillary Clinton must become the next president of the United States. The choice is not even close." Many in attendance were hit with this as well. From the crowd came a mixture of cheers and sounds of dissent. I'm not sure what I will do in November but let's rewind a little.

I supported Bernie Sanders not because he was anti-establishment but because he was true. First, he eschewed corporate money and mounted an incredibly successful supporter-funded campaign. If real people just like me hadn't wanted him to run, his campaign would have fizzled before it really got started. He made it all the way to the convention. If he wanted, he could seriously contend for the nomination.

The second reason is his integrity. I'm not using integrity in the sense that he's scandal-free. Everyone has skeletons in their closet. What I'm saying is that, throughout his political career, his messages and goals have been consistent. He has always been for a fair wage. He has always been for human rights. He has always been in favor of education. He has always been for more equitable distribution of wealth. Okay, maybe you can point to some instance where one or more of these statements do not hold true but, overall, he's been fighting for the same things since he started.

My third reason for supporting him is his message. Do I agree with every goal he wants to attain? No, I don't. Do I agree with every method he wants to use to attain those goals? No, I don't. Do I believe all of his goals are attainable within a four-year term? No, I don't. The thing is, though, that he is the only one really talking about some of these issues. While many of the candidates have been hitting hot buttons of "christian" values, the sanctity of marriage, who should use which bathroom, and discussing hand size in relation to manhood, Sanders has continued to talk about raising the standard of living, bringing back the middle class, improving access to higher education, reforming the student loan system that's structured in heavy favor of the lenders, and no longer considering a business a person.

As Sanders gained momentum and there was a good chance he could win the nomination, Clinton started parroting some of Sanders' rhetoric, presumably to sway some of his supporters to her side: "See, I can do that too." Her inconsistency of message alone caused me to be leery of her but the email scandal is what really made me distrust her. Her use of an external server really doesn't bother me that much. There have been others that have done the same. Was it a wise thing to do? Certainly not! Utilizing a server outside the government network poses a technological security risk at the very least. If even one work-related email passed through that system then it poses a national security risk. That can all be handled internally and might be the catalyst for a formal rule change but that wasn't my primary focus. What caused my distrust was the deletion of a large number of emails from that system after the contents were requested by the congressional committee or the FBI or whomever requested them.

For a long time after Clinton started to gain her lead, Sanders would not entertain the idea that he would not be the nominee. He was asked if he lost the nomination would he support Clinton and his response was that he did not intend to lose the nomination. He was asked if he would run as an independent and he saw no need to. At some point after Clinton "locked up" to nomination, as a result of shenanigans or not, she and Sanders must have had a meeting. I say this because almost overnight he put his support behind her and told the media that he would not run as an independent no matter the outcome. Then, in his speech at the convention, he spoke about student loan debt saying, "During the primary campaign, Secretary Clinton and I both focused on this issue but with different approaches. Recently, however, we have come together on a proposal that will revolutionize higher education in America."

I know why he did it. The Republicans are not putting forth a united front and he wants to ensure that the Democrats do. I applaud him for that and I applaud Hillary Clinton for working with Bernie Sanders to put forth a united platform. I am disappointed that Clinton's choice of running mate was not Sanders nor Elizabeth Warren but I see a high probability that Sanders will be appointed to a position in the Clinton presidency where the two collaborate. At least, that's what I hope. Either that or I see Sanders ending up in a powerful congressional position to the same effect.

So, in all likelihood, come November, I will have a megalomaniacal [insert additional negative adjectives here] oligarch on one side, an entrenched politician who even the FBI thinks is shady on the other, and candidates from whatever tangential parties may show up on the ballot. I certainly don't want Trump to be my president. Without getting too opinionated, I do not feel he represents me or my interests in any way, shape, or form and I distrust Clinton to follow through on her promises. I would like to think I would vote for one of the non-major-party candidates but I honestly fear that doing so would tilt the election in Trump's favor - and that scares the hell out of me.

I don't know who, at this point, will get my vote for president in November. The only thing I can say for certain is that I will cast my vote then hope and pray that everything turns out okay.

I Believed It Once

I am generally disinterested in politics. I don't know the difference between the left and the right, conservative and liberal, or many of the labels politicos must use to describe the world of politics in a succinct manner. I skim the sidelines, picking up bits here and there, but overall I feel it is a system I cannot influence so I usually find myself voting (oh, yes, I vote) for what appears to be the lesser of two evils.

When Obama came on the scene he talked a good game. I, and many others, wanted to believe he was the one who could bring about the change we so desperately wanted. From my view, his administration has been one of contradictions.The biggest one I can think of is healthcare reform. His plan was to develop a comprehensive healthcare system in full view of the public. Transparency of the process was one of the ways he sold it to the American people.

How did Obamacare finally get tied up into a neat little package? Behind closed doors. And when it emerged it was a tome of unimaginable proportions that the largest portion of the population of which it would effect had no hope of ever understanding it.

I did not watch the State of the Union address Tuesday night. I don't have an attention span long enough to sit through all of the dramatic pauses and drawn-out applause and still come away understanding more than the first five minutes. I did, however, read the transcript. The rhetoric seems familiar. It all sounds good and wholesome and sensible... well, most of it anyway... but also untenable in our current political climate.

I have culled a few excerpts from the speech that I would like to comment on:

"Think about the America within our reach:... An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded."
- I don't know how many companies I have worked for that have spouted this type of sunshine in their value statements but greed has a tendency to win out in the end. I would like to see that happen and it may still. It is at least a good goal to shoot for.

"We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules."
- It's that last part that really gets me. The same set of rules for everyone. All men are created equal. Unless you work for congress where you get guaranteed retirement benefits, incredible, cheap healthcare, and can vote a raise for yourself. I guess some are more equal than others. Many people have made this point and have called for an end to it but it's the golden rule. Those that have the gold make the rules. As long as they make the rules why on earth would they make a rule that lessens their standard of living?


"It is time to turn our unemployment system into a reemployment system that puts people to work."

- Right there with you, Mr. President. I hope you have an idea how to accomplish this because I don't.

"Higher education can’t be a luxury -- it is an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford."

- Amen! Unfortunately, in my lifetime, I have only seen it become harder and harder for people to afford education. If you're dirt poor you have a shot at a grant. If you're a 4.0 student, an even better shot. If you can play a sport universities fight over you. But if you're an decent student from a household with average income, your only option is to go into debt and with that debt comes no guarantees.

"...I’m sending this Congress a plan that gives every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage, by refinancing at historically low rates.  (Applause.)  No more red tape.  No more runaround from the banks.  A small fee on the largest financial institutions will ensure that it won’t add to the deficit and will give those banks that were rescued by taxpayers a chance to repay a deficit of trust."

- I hope this works better than your last plan. 

When I bought my house I could easily afford it. I did not get sucked (suckered?) into an ARM. Due to an illness, we suddenly became a single-income residence and have been for the past five years but the payments we were given when we signed the papers were still manageable with some sacrifices. Then, my mortgage company underestimated our insurance payments and decided to increase our payment. 

They increased our payment not by the $100 or so dollars a month that would have covered the shortfall, that we paid for ourselves by the way, but by nearly $300 per month. We scraped by and the payment settled down the next year. We just got notice that they did it again and this year my mortgage payment is nearly $500 more per month than it was when I bought the house.

During all of this we applied THREE TIMES for the relief program. Three times we were denied. Do you want to know what else we got in the envelope with the notice that our payment was increasing? We got an application for the relief program.

Where is my bailout, Mr. President?

"...we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes."

- That's a start but please feel free to refer to my earlier comments about everyone playing by the same rules.

"I’ve talked tonight about the deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street.  But the divide between this city and the rest of the country is at least as bad -- and it seems to get worse every year."

- Yeah, that's the point I'm trying to get at. Stop working for yourselves and start working for US - the people you represent.

"Send me a bill that bans insider trading by members of Congress; I will sign it tomorrow."

EXCUSE ME!!?? Since when are members of congress allowed to engage in insider trading? You bet your ASS I want to see that law come about.

----------------------------------------

Overall it was a good speech that said, "Yes, we're upside down on a lot of things but we're going to fix it." I've heard it before. I've heard the call for change. I believed in the possibility of change. But really, at my level, I haven't seen a lot of change happening. I'll believe it when I see it... but even that will probably be screwed up after congress mutilates it.

Not Just No But HELL NO! To SOPA And PIPA

You may not have heard of this but with all the publicity you probably have. Congress is working on a new bill called the Stop Online Priacy Act or SOPA. It has been introduced and championed by none other than those who refuse to change their business models to meet popular demand and attempt to punish their customers as a means of survival: The Entertainment Industry.

Here's a snippet from Wikipedia:

The originally proposed bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as copyright holders, to seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Depending on who makes the request, the court order could include barring online advertising networks and payment facilitators from doing business with the allegedly infringing website, barring search engines from linking to such sites, and requiring Internet service providers to block access to such sites. The bill would make unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content a crime, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison for ten such infringements within six months. The bill also gives immunity to Internet services that voluntarily take action against websites dedicated to infringement, while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement.^[4]

Proponents of the bill say it protects the intellectual property market and corresponding industry, jobs and revenue, and is necessary to bolster enforcement of copyright laws, especially against foreign websites.^[5] They cite examples such as Google's $500 million settlement with the Department of Justice for its role in a scheme to target U.S. consumers with ads to illegally import prescription drugs from Canadian pharmacies.^[6]

Opponents say that it violates the First Amendment,^[7] is Internet censorship,^[8] will cripple the Internet,^[9] and will threaten whistle-blowing and other free speech actions.^[7][10] Opponents have initiated a number of protest actions, including petition drives, boycotts of companies that support the legislation, and planned service blackouts by English Wikipedia and major Internet companies scheduled to coincide with the next Congressional hearing on the matter.

Here's the part that concerns me.  It requires "Internet service providers to block access to [infringing websites]." ISPs are a utility, not an enforcement agency. It's like asking the gas company to patrol the streets and turn off the gas to the homes of suspected drug dealers. It's an impossible task.

Okay, maybe ISPs won't have to patrol for the sites but simply block them when they are informed about them. Well, that currently requires a court order and sounds a lot like DMCA takedown notices and we all know how well those have worked out.

Boil it down and it's censorship without due process. I am all for copyright owners protecting their works but this is not the way. It blatantly ignores the concept of fair use which includes criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

How You Can Take Action: (many taken from the EFF website)

1. Via Google: https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/
2. Call your Senators and Representative and tell them to oppose Protect-IP and SOPA, respectively.  Click here for some suggested talking points.
3. Contact Congress through EFF’s action center.  Customize your letter to explain who you are and why you are worried about this bill.
4. Do you administer a website? Then put a banner on your site protesting censorship or link to EFF’s action center. I put a banner on my wav site.

Don't be silent or you may be silenced.

Fear Of The Unknown

I am really scared that decisions are being made that will significantly impact my future and not necessarily for the better. I cannot speak out for or against health care reform, financial reform, military actions and the like because I just don't have the necessary information. The information is hard enough to find and gather and understand but I simply can't spend time thinking about these things.

I'm having enough trouble keeping my sanity balanced just trying to move through the day from when I wake up to when I go to sleep. Now on top of all that I have a president and a group of "leaders" who are making decisions on my behalf that live in their ivory towers where the rules don't apply to them and who have no clue what it's like to live like the people they represent. It scares me that they will make those decisions and there ain't a damn thing I can do about it. I cast my vote (and will continue to do so) but it just seems to get deeper and deeper.

I must stop now or my fear will turn to insanity.

Time Has Little To Do With Infinity And Jelly Doughnuts

I have been watching a few short segments about the election results and have had one or two interesting conversations in the past couple of days about it. I think my sister is right, there is a lot of ignorance (and misunderstanding and confusion and...) about this whole thing.

I was talking to someone this afternoon who was very obviously a staunch republican and doesn't care who knows it. She was proud that every county in Oklahoma voted in favor of McCain AND that Oklahoma overall had the highest percentage of votes for McCain of any state in the nation. I believe they called Oklahoma at 7:01pm central.

Anyway, I was trying to point out to her that I found it interesting that Wednesday morning saw almost every news outlet saying the United States had elected its first African-American president and this morning (Thursday) several of them had changed to referring to the first black president. I didn't even get through the first half of my observation before she started in on "If McCain had won, would they be saying we'd elected another white president?" I don't know... maybe... I think they'd be more focused on the first female vice president. But do you think maybe she's a little bitter that Obama won?

But I see it all differently. It really isn't about race, even though that's the catalyst of it all. I grew up attending magnet schools. What that means is that the Middle/Junior High school and High school I attended pulled students from all districts across the city and from a WIDE variety of racial backgrounds. I have an understanding, weak as it may be from my middle-class white perspective, that it isn't that Barack Obama is black. It is that black peolpe, as a race, have been persecuted, prosecuted, and beat down for so long in this country that the election of an African-American to the position of President of the United States is a symbol that some of those wounds are starting to heal. Barack Obama is a symbol that we can put aside our prejudices, that we can come together to support a person for who he is and not for what he looks like, and that we can remember the past but move beyond it.

This election was destined to be bigger than any one man or any one woman no matter who won the election. As Barack Obama was introduced for his victory speech, I could see in his eyes that he knew this. Not that he merely realized it but that he knew in his soul the basic truth of it.

I have high hopes for our new president-elect. I think it is time for our country to be led by someone who has a different view that looks beyond the way it has always been done and sees the way it should be done. No, he's not perfect. I am 100% positive that I will not agree with 100% of his policies and politics. But I welcome his perspective.

As another blogger put it, "I'm energized. I'm excited. And I'm terrified. So much can go right and so much can go wrong. But finally there is a new direction."

The Prophet, Arthur

I told you I might pop in a bit. I just read something... eerie?, disturbing?, bizarre?... and wanted to chronicle it so I thought it best to put it here.

Several months ago, I read, finally, Rendezvous With Rama by Arthur C. Clarke. I enjoyed it very much and recently came across a copy of Rama II, its sequel. Rama II was published in 1989 so maybe this wasn't as prophetic as I first thought... maybe it was a warning. Here is what I read:

The surge of unabashed self-indulgence on a global scale was easy to understand. Something fundamental in the human psyche had changed as a result of the encounter with Rama I.... Thus it was easy to comprehend why the life patterns of most human beings suddenly veered toward self-gratification....

An unrestrained burst of conspicuous consumption and global greed lasted for just under two years. Frantic acquisitions of everything the human mind could create was superimposed on a weak economic infrastructure that had already been poised for a downturn in early 2130, when the first Raman spaceship flew through the inner solar system. The looming recession was first postponed throughout 2130 and 2131 by the combined manipulative efforts of governments and financial institutions, even though the fundamental economic weaknesses were never addressed. With the renewed burst of buying in early 2132, the world jumped directly into another period of rapid growth. Production capabilities expanded, stock markets exploded, and both consumer confidence and total employment hit all-time highs. There was unprecedented prosperity and the net result was a short-term but significant improvement in the standard of living for almost all humans.

By the end of the year in 2133, it had become obvious to some of the more experienced observers of human history that the "Raman Boom" was leading mankind toward disaster. Dire warnings of impending economic doom started being heard above the euphoric shouts of the millions who had recently vaulted into the middle and upper classes. Suggestions to balance budgets and limit credit at all levels of the economy were ignored. Instead, creative effort was expended to come up with one way after another of putting more spending power in the hands of a populace that had forgotten how to say wait, much less no, to itself.

The global stock market began to sputter... and there were predictions of a coming crash. But to most humans... the concept of such a crash was beyond comprehension. After all, the world economy had been expanding for over nine years, the last two years at a rate unparalleled in the previous two centuries. World leaders insisted that they had finally found the mechanisms that could truly inhibit the downturns of the capitalistic cycles. And the people believed them....

Terrestrial affairs were dominated by the emerging world economic crisis. On May 1, 2134, three of the largest international banks announced that they were insolvent because of bad loans. Within two days a panic had spread around the world. The more than one billion home terminals with access to the global financial markets were used to dump individual portfolios of stocks and bonds....

By the end of the week two things were apparent - that over half of the world's stock value had been obliterated and that many individuals, large and small investors alike, who had used their credit options to the maximum, were now virtually penniless. The supporting data bases that kept track of personal bank accounts and automatically transferred money to cover margin calls were flashing disaster messages in almost twenty percent of the houses in the world.

He goes on to explain a situation of electronic gridlock that causes delays in transaction processing that I don't feel is possible given the ruggedness of the internet and automatic safeguards that have been put in place to halt trading.

My point is that much of this sounds very familiar. Some of it has already happened. Some of it in the same order, some of it in a different order. Some of it hasn't happened yet. Some of it probably won't happen. I think the key to avoiding a total disaster is in the very first part of this passage. We must address the fundamental economic weaknesses or nothing we do is going to solve the issue, merely, perhaps, postpone it.

For a good breakdown of how we got to where we are now and exactly how long this has been brewing, check out this article by the daughter of one of my coworkers.
http://ultimate-resumes.blogspot.com/2008/10/end-of-world-is-not-near-tips-for.html

Puh-lease

I hate politicians.

I'm watching the debates again. Obviously. I think the questions are simple enough so why can't they seem to answer them? I understand that the answers are far from simple but the format seems to be repeat your sound bites, blow your own horn, touch -briefly- on the subject of the actual question, attack your opponent, blow your own horn again, then go overtime.

JUST ANSWER THE F-ING QUESTION!!

I mean, when you're asked how you would prioritize three items, why does it take longer than 1 minute to answer?

I will say that I prefer the town meeting format but I've already stopped listening because, honestly, I heard most of it in the first 15 minutes. The funny thing is that None of the debates have served to solidify my choice - which is tenuous at best anyway. The first pres debate was filled with just as much B.S. as this one. The V.P. debate wasn't much better. I don't care for either of the running mates and the debate didn't give me reason to like either any better.

Whatever.

WIIFM*

The bailout bill failed. Shot down. I don't know whether that's good or bad. I honestly don't. The time is past for finger pointing. We must take action. But what action?

Okay, so the government buys a bunch of this bad debt and that bolsters the lending institutions by removing that from their books. I see how that would be advantageous. But this is going to be bought with my tax money (and yours, by the way). I keep hearing that it will come back to us but nobody is saying when. Nobody is saying how. There's no exit strategy. Sound familiar?

What I really want to know is where is my bailout? My financial status sucks right now. My credit score is rapidly approaching the minimum if it's not already there. I know that one way to ease my burden would be to drive a less expensive car and move into a smaller house. But you know what? I can't do that. I'm trapped in these things.

Think about it. Who's going to loan me money for a house? Nobody. So, I either cling to my house with every ounce of strength in my fingertips or I rent. The car? changing the car is not a problem. Funny thing is, because of my credit rating I would have to work with the "special financing" department and end up paying an astronomical interest rate and either driving a car that would be unsafe or unreliable or end up paying even more per month than I am now. How does that help?

Don't even get me started on bankruptcy.

That's what it all boils down to. *What's In It For Me? That's why I don't know whether to panic because it didn't pass or panic when it does pass.

God help us.

Master Debaters

I watched the presidential candidate debate on Friday. It's the first one I think I've ever watched. I'm just not too firm in my selection of a candidate because I don't know that much about either of them.

I only watched the first hour before my mind started to wander and I had to switch. What I saw though seemed to be going Obama's way. At least, he appeared to be answering the questions that were asked and was actually addressing McCain directly, like Lehrer was trying to get them to do, but McCain wouldn't even look at Obama. I thought McCain kept dragging the questions way off subject or giving an answer related to the question but not answering the question itself. Everything they had to say was interesting, I just thought Obama did a better job of debating.

I will probably watch the VP debate as well. This debate did little to solidify my decision (although it helped some) and I'd like to see what the running mates are like.

Quick Update

• Aware that I haven't been around much
• Settling in at the new job
• Still not exactly sure about the extent of my responsibilities
• Have written several blog posts recently
• They leaked out of my head before I could get to the keyboard
• Eager to see the debate on Friday
• Will be pissed if it gets canceled/postponed
• Freaked about the economic situation
• Heard something this morning about each household having to shoulder $10K of extra debt?
• I'm having enough difficulties, thank you, I don't need any help in that area from the entire country/government
• Gonna have to check out that $10K thing
  
• McCain is making too many bold statements that he's having to backpedal on
• He doesn't backpedal well
• Obama is being too quiet
• But what do I know from politics?
• SURVIVOR STARTS TONIGHT!!!
• Glad to see some of my favorites of the new shows that got sidelined due to the writers strike will be back this fall (among them, Life)
  
• The jury is out on Fringe
• Only saw the one episode so far but that's what they get for programming it opposite Eureka
• Too many shows to watch - I need one of those DVRs that will record 4 programs @ once