OK. Enough with the freakin' downers, Ditz! So, turning from the economy to Sports.
I am taking on the great endeavor to fix everything wrong that I see with several sports. These range from simple fixes like my proposal for college lacrosse to massive re-works such as my proposal for college football. This should in a perfect world make me the commissioner of all sports and thereby get me free passes to any game I want to see.
So here goes.
College Lacrosse.
Those of you not in Syracuse probably don't give a shit about this one, but those of us who are from Syracuse do. College lacrosse when played correctly is the most exciting sport in the world to watch. What is wrong with the sport is that this year everyone stopped playing it correctly and the rules of the sport allowed them to do so.
What happened this year is that everyone (well, almost everyone -- there were some schools like Denver that actually played us straight up) figured out that they weren't going to beat Syracuse this year unless they literally sat on the ball. And they sat on the ball all freaking game long. Syracuse never had scores of 5-4 or 7-6, but these scores were a regular occurrence this season, as it seemed every week Syracuse's opponent would employ the lacrosse version of the four corners offense. It was ugly to watch and sparked a lot of both criticism and suggestions for changes to rules in the future.
Most of the suggestions involved the introduction of some sort of shot clock. However, I don't think this is necessary. I think the solution is a very simple one, and I am a little surprised that I haven't heard it come from anyone else.
Currently in lacrosse, if the offensive team makes no real effort to score after a certain amount of time they are given a stall warning. The problem with the stall warning is that it really doesn't have any punishment to it. All the stall warning says is that you have to keep the ball in the offensive box and once it leaves the offensive box it is a turnover. What is the most incredible about this is that if you take a shot and miss and you have the shot backed up by one of your players (which you almost certainly will since you are stalling), you get the ball back when it goes out of bounds and simply have to keep playing under the previously called stall warning.
My fix: once the stall warning is in effect, you only get one shot. If you miss and the ball goes out of bounds, it is a turnover and the other team gets the ball. This won't stop a team from stalling, but it will make stalling much less effective and will not allow for stalls that seem to last for an entire quarter or more. The other result: Syracuse wins National Championship after National Championship after National Championship. It sounds like a win-win to me.
College Football
This is the biggie. Probably because college football is the most hideously rigged sport in the world. I know of no other sport where it is decided before any team steps on the field that probably 80% or more of the teams competing will have no chance of winning the national championship.
The BCS system is completely broken and there is no way to fix it other than to completely do away with it entirely. It is ruining not only college football but it is killing every other college sport as conferences go on feeding binges devouring other conferences in an effort to make their conference the strongest in the BCS equation so that they can make the most money possible for their universities. So we end up, for instance, with such basketball powerhouses as South Florida and Texas Christian playing in the Big East because the football conference needs them.
Don't buy any of the garbage that preserving the bowl system is about tradition or not having a playoff which would interfere with exam schedules is for the student athlete's interests. Bull. This is about money. Plain and simple. The NCAA stopped caring about student athletes a long, long time ago. Universities see their student athletes as one thing and one thing only -- a commodity which can be exploited to make the university bundles and bundles of moolah.
So, let's cut the crap. I have come up with a way in which college football can keep being as exciting as it has always been (and even more so) and still keep the greedy bastards in the conferences and administration buildings across the nation happy.
I actually first thought of this idea when I saw European soccer fans celebrating madly over the fact that their team had not won a championship, but had simply qualified to play in the premier league the following year. So, here goes.
The current conference system will be completely disbanded for college football. Instead there will be a Premier League consisting of 64 teams divided into four regional conferences, each with two divisions of 8 teams. Each team will play every other team in their division, plus two or three in the other division of their regional conference. There will also be two to three games played at large, which will most likely be against teams from the non-premier league. At the end of the season the top team from each 8 team division will play against the other top team from their regional conference. The winner of those games will go to the "Final Four" with the winners of those going to the National Championship. This means that there will be no computers, no opinions, no polls, no nothing deciding who is the best team in the country other than the play on the field.
Now, here comes the exciting part. Along with the Premier League of 64 teams, the other Division I teams will be playing full schedules as well. At the end of each year, the 8 last place teams in the 8 divisions will have to compete against the top 8 teams selected from the lower division in double-elimination tournament. The 8 teams that survive will play in the Premier League the next year, and the 8 teams that are eliminated will fall to the second division.
This will never happen of course, because nobody would want to be responsible for their school falling into the second division. However, this would be incredibly exciting for every fan and for every team and would save college football.
Professional Baseball
Tweaks have been made in baseball over the years to try to speed the game up. I still find it incredibly boring. But there you have it.
The only thing that needs to be done in Major League Baseball is to put in a salary cap so that the Pittsburgh Pirates actually have a chance at some point to win another World Series. Seriously. There should not be a system where an entire team's payroll is less than one player's salary on the New York Yankees. Salary caps work. They make the game exciting and level the playing field. Everyone else has one, it is time baseball did too.
Professional Football
Give the players what they want and go back to work! Oh, and overtime should be a 15 minute quarter. No sudden death, no college you get the ball at the 25 yard-line and then the other team gets the ball at the 25 yard line. Play until the final gun and if it is a tie, it is a tie.
Professional Basketball
Anyone whose shooting percentage drops below 35% should be sent to the D-League for remedial training. I can't stand to watch brick after brick after brick after brick. Wow, so and so scored 30 points -- well, yeah, he shot 15 for 50. Go home!
College Basketball
Get rid of the closely-guarded 5 second call. Unless the ball is actually tied up for 5 seconds, get rid of it. I hate this judgment call of how close the defender has to be, and seeing someone called for 5 seconds when they are dribbling just drives me crazy. It is not necessary since we have the 35 second clock. Just get rid of the rule.
The other thing -- flopping should be a foul. If you fall backwards trying to draw a foul, you should be called for a foul and the offensive team should get two free throws. This would insure that Duke never wins another National Championship.
Curling
Yup, I'm going there.
Curling has to be the dumbest sport ever invented. Sports simply shouldn't involve a broom. Ever.
However, this came to me in a dream and I think that with my suggestions, curling could become a rage across all of North America and maybe the world. What I suggest is we combine curling with the best attributes of roller derby and beach volleyball. This means that we have skimpy costumes (you can put some glitter on if you like, it is on ice after all) but along with that, we add the violence. Imagine how much more exciting it will be if the guy with the broom trying to get the big heavy thing into the bullseye looking thing would have to look out for blockers and if he wasn't careful -- BAM! -- he's taken out at the knees collapsing to the ice by a well placed kick to the back of the knees by a bikini-clad blocker. I'm telling you this would work. Sex, violence and sweeping. It can't miss.
I really have to get a grip on my subconscience.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Monday, June 13, 2011
I Give Up!!!!
I was already set to write an angry rant about how both major parties in the U.S. have completely sold out working America and in doing so have completely destroyed both the economy and any remnants we had in this country of the middle class. Then I saw the headline that the president was seeking to repair any damage in his relationship with Wall Street in order to win their money in the form of campaign donations. It was then that I lost all hope.
It's not just that Obama is seeking campaign cash from Wall Street, that is nothing new (his biggest single campaign contributor in the 2008 election was Goldman, Sachs). What got to me most is that he was being so damn up front about it. The fact that the Obama campaign isn't even trying to hide the fact that they are soliciting funds from the biggest financial criminals in the world means that they have determined that nobody cares. Yes, they have decided that nobody cares about the fact that Wall Street banks, together with their friends in power in both parties (many of whom are in Obama's administration), set out on a series of horrific decisions which were designed to line the pockets of CEO's and other bankers and which ended up imploding the economy, eliminating millions of American jobs and bankrupting our society both morally and literally.
When the economy crashed back in 2008 ushering in what has become known as the "Great Recession" (and what will probably be referred to by historians as the Great Depression, Part Deux") many people were pointing fingers at the political party they disliked the most. Democrats were pointing at Ronald Reagan's policies of deregulation, Republicans were pointing at Bill Clinton's policy of expanding home ownership to groups which had traditionally been shut out of home lending. It was a field day of finger pointing. So, who was responsible for the implosion -- Democrats or Republicans? The answer is unequivocally both.
What has happened over the last several decades, as money became more and more necessary to obtain and then retain power through election to Congress or any other political position worth seeking, is that both parties have become both dependent on and enamoured with Wall Street. In doing so, both parties have tried to outdo each other in crafting legislation which would make it easier for Wall Street bankers to make as much money as they could possibly make, without requiring them to play by any rules whatsoever and to screw as many people as they can while doing so. And, by the way, when it all implodes, we'll save you and require nothing in return for the trillions of taxpayer money that you will receive. In so doing, what has been lost is any voice the middle class had in Washington or anywhere else.
When Barack Obama was elected in 2008, I was an enthusiastic and passionate supporter. I really felt that finally we had someone who was going to change the game. I felt that we had someone who was going to set our nation's moral compass on the right path, bring those who were responsible for defrauding our nation's treasury to justice and set us on a course where the world would once again look to our nation with awe and respect.
What I didn't know back then was exactly what had happened to lead to the economic mess in which we found ourselves in 2008 and in which we still find ourselves today. If I had known then what I know now, I would have realized that the jig was up early on. I would have realized that I had been hoodwinked, bamboozled, lead astray as soon as he announced that Timothy Geithner was going to be named Treasury Secretary and Lawrence Summers was Obama's choice as chief financial advisor. What I know now is that Timothy Geithner was the leading force behind what would become known as TARP. What I know now is that it was Geithner, not Hank Paulson, GWB's Treasury Secretary, who pulled the strings on the series of idiotic and unbelievable decisions made in 2007 and 2008 from the bailout of Bear Stearns to the nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the scuttled attempt to bail out Lehman Brothers which resulted in Lehman's collapse to the ultimate bailout of the entire investment banking industry, which allowed the investment banks to carry on their nefarious dealing at the expense of the economy with no ramifications at all.
Both Geithner and Summers were proteges of Robert Rubin, who during Bill Clinton's presidency was the architect of the dismantling of the entire safety net of regulations and laws which had kept our economy on a more or less even keel since World War II. If bankers like Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein are economic terrorists, Rubin was their spiritual advisor.
It was Rubin, who during his time as Treasury Secretary to Bill Clinton, who championed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and the passing of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, both of which were sponsored by arch-conservative Phil ("Stop Whining") Gramm and enthusiastically signed into law by Clinton. You see, in Washington the only time you can truly get bi-partisanship is when you are giving the wealthiest people in the nation the ability to destroy the entire basis of the economy for their own profit.
The repeal of Glass-Steagall was a magnificent little bit of economic terrorism foisted upon the nation by the folks at what would become known as Citigroup and their buddy, the aforementioned Secretary Rubin. Glass-Steagall was a very simple law passed during the Depression which essentially sought to contain risk and protect consumers by simply saying that different types of financial institutions had to be completely seperate from each other. Investment banks had to be investment banks, commercial banks had to be commercial banks, insurance companies had to be insurance companies and never the twain shall meet. This had a two-fold effect on the economy by 1) protecting consumers by making sure that their commercial bank or life insurance company did not take their deposits and bet them in the risky investments that investment banks were known for; and 2) if there was an implosion of a certain sector of the economic marketplace -- let's say derivatives based on risky mortgages that were given to homeless people to buy McMansions -- that the losses suffered in that sector would not be spread throughout the economy since the sectors were completely separate from each other.
In the late 1990s, in complete disregard of this 70 year-old law, Citibank announced that it was merging with the insurance giant Traveler's Group to form the behemoth financial terrorist syndicate known as Citigroup. This, of course, should never have happened since it was in flagrant violation of the law. However, there is no doubt that Citigroup knew that they had the implicit support of the leadership of both parties, not to mention the President and that this would be allowed to happen. The tactic that Citigroup used to force Congress to submit to their demands was that Citigroup took the economy hostage and demanded the repeal of Glass-Steagall as its ransom. Citigroup said that if the merger was not allowed to happen, that both Citibank and Travelers would fail and the ramifications to the economy as a whole would be devastating (this has since been used again and again to overlook the bad actions of banks, hedge funds and other industries deemed too big to fail and bail them out at taxpayer expense). Even without the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the merger was allowed to go through on a limited basis, something that was necessary for Rubin to get all of his ducks in a row in order to have Congress pass and the President sign the ultimate repeal of Glass-Steagall near the end of Clinton's presidency. Rubin, by that time, had left his position as Treasury Secretary and been replaced by Lawrence Summers. Rubin, did all right for himself, since after leaving his position as Treasury Secretary, he went on to be an executive with the newly formed and newly legal (thanks to him) Citigroup and rake in tens of millions of dollars in compensation.
The other legislative gem to come out of the Clinton-Rubin-Summers-Geithner regime was the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. Another brain child of Phil Gramm and his wife former Commodities Futures Trade Commission commissioner (and Enron board member) Wendy Gramm, made it so that the exotic financial instruments known as derivatives, which would play such a large role in the crisis of 2008, would be traded free from government interference or regulation. The act defined derivatives as being neither futures or securities and thus free from regulation by the CFTC or the SEC. This act left it up to Wall Street to police itself on these inherently complex and unintelligible trading products which had been described as "financial weapons of mass destruction" by none other than Warren Buffet.
The essence of all of this is that the entire financial and political philosophy of these Dems in sheep's clothing is that government should do absolutely everything it can to make life as easy as possible for those with the most money in our society to continue their scorched earth investment policies leaving the economy bare while they suck every last dime from the economy to pay for their vacation homes and Lamborghinis. What it also did was destroy the last remnants of the Democratic Party as the champion of the working class -- a mantle the party had held since the days of FDR.
So, back to Barack Obama. Slick Barry talked a pretty good game back in 2008 and even continued since then, talking about sticking it to the "fat cats" or wondering whose "ass he should kick". But in reality, it was just the sales pitch of another carnival barker looking to rope in his marks. The real Barack Obama has continued the economic policies started under Ronald Reagan, continued under George H.W. Bush, put into overdrive by Bill Clinton, and sent over the edge of the cliff by George W. Bush. The reforms and regulations promised in the campaign have been toothless tigers passed more for show than for implementing real change. Now, Obama is seeking payment for his deeds in semi-secret White House meetings with Wall Street CEO's reminiscent of the energy meetings Dick Cheney fought to keep secret.
So, I give up. There is no chance that things are going to change for the better. The middle class has become the peasant class. There is no end in sight to the economic disaster that our country is in. There will be no candidates in the 2012 election who provide any kind of true alternative to the Plutocrats who have taken control of our nation. Obama will probably succeed in getting Wall Street money to once again flow into his campaign war chest, as they will see in him a kindred spirit -- one who is as soulless and hypocritical as they are. We are lost.
It's not just that Obama is seeking campaign cash from Wall Street, that is nothing new (his biggest single campaign contributor in the 2008 election was Goldman, Sachs). What got to me most is that he was being so damn up front about it. The fact that the Obama campaign isn't even trying to hide the fact that they are soliciting funds from the biggest financial criminals in the world means that they have determined that nobody cares. Yes, they have decided that nobody cares about the fact that Wall Street banks, together with their friends in power in both parties (many of whom are in Obama's administration), set out on a series of horrific decisions which were designed to line the pockets of CEO's and other bankers and which ended up imploding the economy, eliminating millions of American jobs and bankrupting our society both morally and literally.
When the economy crashed back in 2008 ushering in what has become known as the "Great Recession" (and what will probably be referred to by historians as the Great Depression, Part Deux") many people were pointing fingers at the political party they disliked the most. Democrats were pointing at Ronald Reagan's policies of deregulation, Republicans were pointing at Bill Clinton's policy of expanding home ownership to groups which had traditionally been shut out of home lending. It was a field day of finger pointing. So, who was responsible for the implosion -- Democrats or Republicans? The answer is unequivocally both.
What has happened over the last several decades, as money became more and more necessary to obtain and then retain power through election to Congress or any other political position worth seeking, is that both parties have become both dependent on and enamoured with Wall Street. In doing so, both parties have tried to outdo each other in crafting legislation which would make it easier for Wall Street bankers to make as much money as they could possibly make, without requiring them to play by any rules whatsoever and to screw as many people as they can while doing so. And, by the way, when it all implodes, we'll save you and require nothing in return for the trillions of taxpayer money that you will receive. In so doing, what has been lost is any voice the middle class had in Washington or anywhere else.
When Barack Obama was elected in 2008, I was an enthusiastic and passionate supporter. I really felt that finally we had someone who was going to change the game. I felt that we had someone who was going to set our nation's moral compass on the right path, bring those who were responsible for defrauding our nation's treasury to justice and set us on a course where the world would once again look to our nation with awe and respect.
What I didn't know back then was exactly what had happened to lead to the economic mess in which we found ourselves in 2008 and in which we still find ourselves today. If I had known then what I know now, I would have realized that the jig was up early on. I would have realized that I had been hoodwinked, bamboozled, lead astray as soon as he announced that Timothy Geithner was going to be named Treasury Secretary and Lawrence Summers was Obama's choice as chief financial advisor. What I know now is that Timothy Geithner was the leading force behind what would become known as TARP. What I know now is that it was Geithner, not Hank Paulson, GWB's Treasury Secretary, who pulled the strings on the series of idiotic and unbelievable decisions made in 2007 and 2008 from the bailout of Bear Stearns to the nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the scuttled attempt to bail out Lehman Brothers which resulted in Lehman's collapse to the ultimate bailout of the entire investment banking industry, which allowed the investment banks to carry on their nefarious dealing at the expense of the economy with no ramifications at all.
Both Geithner and Summers were proteges of Robert Rubin, who during Bill Clinton's presidency was the architect of the dismantling of the entire safety net of regulations and laws which had kept our economy on a more or less even keel since World War II. If bankers like Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein are economic terrorists, Rubin was their spiritual advisor.
It was Rubin, who during his time as Treasury Secretary to Bill Clinton, who championed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and the passing of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, both of which were sponsored by arch-conservative Phil ("Stop Whining") Gramm and enthusiastically signed into law by Clinton. You see, in Washington the only time you can truly get bi-partisanship is when you are giving the wealthiest people in the nation the ability to destroy the entire basis of the economy for their own profit.
The repeal of Glass-Steagall was a magnificent little bit of economic terrorism foisted upon the nation by the folks at what would become known as Citigroup and their buddy, the aforementioned Secretary Rubin. Glass-Steagall was a very simple law passed during the Depression which essentially sought to contain risk and protect consumers by simply saying that different types of financial institutions had to be completely seperate from each other. Investment banks had to be investment banks, commercial banks had to be commercial banks, insurance companies had to be insurance companies and never the twain shall meet. This had a two-fold effect on the economy by 1) protecting consumers by making sure that their commercial bank or life insurance company did not take their deposits and bet them in the risky investments that investment banks were known for; and 2) if there was an implosion of a certain sector of the economic marketplace -- let's say derivatives based on risky mortgages that were given to homeless people to buy McMansions -- that the losses suffered in that sector would not be spread throughout the economy since the sectors were completely separate from each other.
In the late 1990s, in complete disregard of this 70 year-old law, Citibank announced that it was merging with the insurance giant Traveler's Group to form the behemoth financial terrorist syndicate known as Citigroup. This, of course, should never have happened since it was in flagrant violation of the law. However, there is no doubt that Citigroup knew that they had the implicit support of the leadership of both parties, not to mention the President and that this would be allowed to happen. The tactic that Citigroup used to force Congress to submit to their demands was that Citigroup took the economy hostage and demanded the repeal of Glass-Steagall as its ransom. Citigroup said that if the merger was not allowed to happen, that both Citibank and Travelers would fail and the ramifications to the economy as a whole would be devastating (this has since been used again and again to overlook the bad actions of banks, hedge funds and other industries deemed too big to fail and bail them out at taxpayer expense). Even without the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the merger was allowed to go through on a limited basis, something that was necessary for Rubin to get all of his ducks in a row in order to have Congress pass and the President sign the ultimate repeal of Glass-Steagall near the end of Clinton's presidency. Rubin, by that time, had left his position as Treasury Secretary and been replaced by Lawrence Summers. Rubin, did all right for himself, since after leaving his position as Treasury Secretary, he went on to be an executive with the newly formed and newly legal (thanks to him) Citigroup and rake in tens of millions of dollars in compensation.
The other legislative gem to come out of the Clinton-Rubin-Summers-Geithner regime was the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. Another brain child of Phil Gramm and his wife former Commodities Futures Trade Commission commissioner (and Enron board member) Wendy Gramm, made it so that the exotic financial instruments known as derivatives, which would play such a large role in the crisis of 2008, would be traded free from government interference or regulation. The act defined derivatives as being neither futures or securities and thus free from regulation by the CFTC or the SEC. This act left it up to Wall Street to police itself on these inherently complex and unintelligible trading products which had been described as "financial weapons of mass destruction" by none other than Warren Buffet.
The essence of all of this is that the entire financial and political philosophy of these Dems in sheep's clothing is that government should do absolutely everything it can to make life as easy as possible for those with the most money in our society to continue their scorched earth investment policies leaving the economy bare while they suck every last dime from the economy to pay for their vacation homes and Lamborghinis. What it also did was destroy the last remnants of the Democratic Party as the champion of the working class -- a mantle the party had held since the days of FDR.
So, back to Barack Obama. Slick Barry talked a pretty good game back in 2008 and even continued since then, talking about sticking it to the "fat cats" or wondering whose "ass he should kick". But in reality, it was just the sales pitch of another carnival barker looking to rope in his marks. The real Barack Obama has continued the economic policies started under Ronald Reagan, continued under George H.W. Bush, put into overdrive by Bill Clinton, and sent over the edge of the cliff by George W. Bush. The reforms and regulations promised in the campaign have been toothless tigers passed more for show than for implementing real change. Now, Obama is seeking payment for his deeds in semi-secret White House meetings with Wall Street CEO's reminiscent of the energy meetings Dick Cheney fought to keep secret.
So, I give up. There is no chance that things are going to change for the better. The middle class has become the peasant class. There is no end in sight to the economic disaster that our country is in. There will be no candidates in the 2012 election who provide any kind of true alternative to the Plutocrats who have taken control of our nation. Obama will probably succeed in getting Wall Street money to once again flow into his campaign war chest, as they will see in him a kindred spirit -- one who is as soulless and hypocritical as they are. We are lost.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Time Warp
A couple of weeks ago, a former Wake Forest University student appeared on the Today Show detailing both the facts surrounding her rape allegedly by two Wake Forest basketball players and also the disturbing treatment she received from the university when she reported the incident to them.
The student, who was a member of the Wake Forest band, alleges that the two basketball players called her into a room where they told her a party was going on following Wake's loss in the NCAA tournament in Miami. When she arrived in the room, it was empty except for the two players. One of the players then forced her into the room's bathroom and forced her to have oral sex while the other stood guard outside. She reported the incident to Miami police, who based on the lack of any physical evidence or witnesses took no action.
When she returned to Winston-Salem, she reported the incident to university officials. The officials urged her to report the incident to campus security and it was then put through the university's on-campus judicial board. The student described the judicial board as being very insensitive to her plight and actually questioning her actions more than the actions of the players, which were the subject of the complaint that they were deciding.
All of this sounded very familiar to me. It was as if the school at which I attended law school (Wake Forest) had gone back 20 years and morphed into my undergraduate school (Syracuse). It was almost an instant replay of what had transpired on the Syracuse campus two decades earlier and it saddened me to know that so little had changed in that time period that any institution of higher education could be as incompetent at handling issues of rape and sexual assault as Wake Forest appeared to be in this case.
When I arrived at Syracuse University in the Fall of 1989, in the first 5 weeks of class that year, there were 6 rapes and sexual assaults reported to the university. The rash of sexual assaults led to action on the part of the student body. Protests were launched, changes were demanded and eventually some much needed reforms were put into place, albeit reluctantly by the university. I was fortunate enough to be involved with the student run organization Students Concerned About Rape Education (SCARED) which was the main organization spurring such changes. What we learned very quickly in our work at Syracuse is that colleges and universities look at rape and sexual assault as a problem to be covered up and swept under the rug rather than addressed seriously and confronted with open honest policies.
The way Syracuse dealt with these situations in the late 1980s and early 1990s was to first diminish the incidents of rape and sexual assault. It was looked at as a behavioral issue or misunderstanding, usually growing out of the immaturity of young students and fueled by alcohol, hormones and bad judgment. Students were told to report incidents to campus security, which were nothing more than glorified rent-a-cops who had no authority to do anything at all to arrest or file charges and were furthermore under no duty to forward the complaints onto actual law enforcement authorities. Campus security would generally then forward the report through the Office of Student Affairs who would either hush the matter up entirely, or if pushed on it by the student would route the case into the Judicial Board, which was made up of other students with little or no training who would ultimately decide the case and issue a punishment (or not).
What generally happened was that little if anything was done to the offender, even if the judicial board found that something had happened and the student/victim would end up transferring to another school or dropping out entirely.
What was always most appalling about handling cases this way, is not only did it allow the university to under-report the serious violent offenses that were happening to their students, more often than not at the hands of other students, but it allowed a group of students to handle a case from beginning to end, and ultimately pass judgment on that was in fact a serious violent felony which should have been handled by law enforcement and state prosecutors. Often the judicial board would make their judgment based on facts that were not relevant to the facts of the case, and would not have been admissible in court, such as the student/victim's sexual past, her clothing, whether or not she had been drinking, or whether or not she had consented to some sexual activity such as kissing or more prior to her saying no. On at least one occasion of which I know a judicial board decision on a case actually derailed a criminal prosecution that was in progress when they issued a determination that no offense had occurred complete with a headline in the student newspaper "Student Found Not Guilty In Rape Case."
Student judicial boards are simply not capable of handling such issues and should not be determining these types of cases. The treatment that the student at Wake Forest described receiving from the judicial board there was very reminiscent of the stories I heard from students at Syracuse who had been through the same process.
I almost had to chuckle to myself when the Wake student said that she was advised to contact campus security to file a complaint. We generally referred to campus security at Wake as the "Parking Nazis" (they even wore brown shirts). I can't even imagine even considering advising someone to report a serious crime to these group of incompetent law enforcement wannabes who seemed to get their jollies by making life as difficult as possible for anyone with whom they came into contact, much less going to them myself. However, this as it did at Syracuse, allows the university to keep the problem "in-house" and control the issue, allowing them to avoid the publicity that such a situation would create for the school.
Fortunately, at Syracuse, many real reforms did come about. But they came about only after constant and belligerent calls for reform by the students. An on-campus rape counseling center was established. The university begrudgingly became one of the first universities to openly publish the number of incidents reported both on and off campus and ended up being a leader among such reporting in the nation. The campus security eventually received the status of peace officers, allowing them to actually make arrests and making them responsible for reporting crimes to the legal and judicial authorities. Student education programs were implemented educating both men and women about rape and sexual assault, bringing the matter out from the shadows and making the campus more aware of what was going on and what needed to be done to deal with it.
Syracuse is far from perfect. There were still incidents that were being hushed up as I was leaving campus and after, and I am sure that there is still a good deal of that going on now. The judicial board still handles cases such as this, and based upon what I have read is still as incompetent to do so as they were when I was a student. However, it did get better because of the commitment that students, faculty and even some administrators had to simply not accepting the status quo and demanding that real systemic changes occur.
That is what makes me so distressed about the Wake Forest incident. It appears that the changes that we fought for two decades ago at Syracuse, which spread throughout the country due to the publicity that our actions received, had no effect at Wake. The response of the Wake Forest administration sounded as tone-deaf as what we heard initially from Syracuse. It appears to me that Wake Forest had no comprehensive program to deal with reports of sexual assault by their students or to education their students, or attempt to prevent such incidents from occurring.
Hopefully there are some bold educated students at Wake (and any other campus) that are willing to stand up and demand changes occur there. The administration of Wake Forest must be made to understand that the treatment that this one student received (and many countless voiceless others certainly did as well) is not acceptable and does not live up to the principles and goals of the university. I'm interested to see what, if anything, comes of this and what, if any, changes the university implements either on their own or after being shamed into doing so.
The student, who was a member of the Wake Forest band, alleges that the two basketball players called her into a room where they told her a party was going on following Wake's loss in the NCAA tournament in Miami. When she arrived in the room, it was empty except for the two players. One of the players then forced her into the room's bathroom and forced her to have oral sex while the other stood guard outside. She reported the incident to Miami police, who based on the lack of any physical evidence or witnesses took no action.
When she returned to Winston-Salem, she reported the incident to university officials. The officials urged her to report the incident to campus security and it was then put through the university's on-campus judicial board. The student described the judicial board as being very insensitive to her plight and actually questioning her actions more than the actions of the players, which were the subject of the complaint that they were deciding.
All of this sounded very familiar to me. It was as if the school at which I attended law school (Wake Forest) had gone back 20 years and morphed into my undergraduate school (Syracuse). It was almost an instant replay of what had transpired on the Syracuse campus two decades earlier and it saddened me to know that so little had changed in that time period that any institution of higher education could be as incompetent at handling issues of rape and sexual assault as Wake Forest appeared to be in this case.
When I arrived at Syracuse University in the Fall of 1989, in the first 5 weeks of class that year, there were 6 rapes and sexual assaults reported to the university. The rash of sexual assaults led to action on the part of the student body. Protests were launched, changes were demanded and eventually some much needed reforms were put into place, albeit reluctantly by the university. I was fortunate enough to be involved with the student run organization Students Concerned About Rape Education (SCARED) which was the main organization spurring such changes. What we learned very quickly in our work at Syracuse is that colleges and universities look at rape and sexual assault as a problem to be covered up and swept under the rug rather than addressed seriously and confronted with open honest policies.
The way Syracuse dealt with these situations in the late 1980s and early 1990s was to first diminish the incidents of rape and sexual assault. It was looked at as a behavioral issue or misunderstanding, usually growing out of the immaturity of young students and fueled by alcohol, hormones and bad judgment. Students were told to report incidents to campus security, which were nothing more than glorified rent-a-cops who had no authority to do anything at all to arrest or file charges and were furthermore under no duty to forward the complaints onto actual law enforcement authorities. Campus security would generally then forward the report through the Office of Student Affairs who would either hush the matter up entirely, or if pushed on it by the student would route the case into the Judicial Board, which was made up of other students with little or no training who would ultimately decide the case and issue a punishment (or not).
What generally happened was that little if anything was done to the offender, even if the judicial board found that something had happened and the student/victim would end up transferring to another school or dropping out entirely.
What was always most appalling about handling cases this way, is not only did it allow the university to under-report the serious violent offenses that were happening to their students, more often than not at the hands of other students, but it allowed a group of students to handle a case from beginning to end, and ultimately pass judgment on that was in fact a serious violent felony which should have been handled by law enforcement and state prosecutors. Often the judicial board would make their judgment based on facts that were not relevant to the facts of the case, and would not have been admissible in court, such as the student/victim's sexual past, her clothing, whether or not she had been drinking, or whether or not she had consented to some sexual activity such as kissing or more prior to her saying no. On at least one occasion of which I know a judicial board decision on a case actually derailed a criminal prosecution that was in progress when they issued a determination that no offense had occurred complete with a headline in the student newspaper "Student Found Not Guilty In Rape Case."
Student judicial boards are simply not capable of handling such issues and should not be determining these types of cases. The treatment that the student at Wake Forest described receiving from the judicial board there was very reminiscent of the stories I heard from students at Syracuse who had been through the same process.
I almost had to chuckle to myself when the Wake student said that she was advised to contact campus security to file a complaint. We generally referred to campus security at Wake as the "Parking Nazis" (they even wore brown shirts). I can't even imagine even considering advising someone to report a serious crime to these group of incompetent law enforcement wannabes who seemed to get their jollies by making life as difficult as possible for anyone with whom they came into contact, much less going to them myself. However, this as it did at Syracuse, allows the university to keep the problem "in-house" and control the issue, allowing them to avoid the publicity that such a situation would create for the school.
Fortunately, at Syracuse, many real reforms did come about. But they came about only after constant and belligerent calls for reform by the students. An on-campus rape counseling center was established. The university begrudgingly became one of the first universities to openly publish the number of incidents reported both on and off campus and ended up being a leader among such reporting in the nation. The campus security eventually received the status of peace officers, allowing them to actually make arrests and making them responsible for reporting crimes to the legal and judicial authorities. Student education programs were implemented educating both men and women about rape and sexual assault, bringing the matter out from the shadows and making the campus more aware of what was going on and what needed to be done to deal with it.
Syracuse is far from perfect. There were still incidents that were being hushed up as I was leaving campus and after, and I am sure that there is still a good deal of that going on now. The judicial board still handles cases such as this, and based upon what I have read is still as incompetent to do so as they were when I was a student. However, it did get better because of the commitment that students, faculty and even some administrators had to simply not accepting the status quo and demanding that real systemic changes occur.
That is what makes me so distressed about the Wake Forest incident. It appears that the changes that we fought for two decades ago at Syracuse, which spread throughout the country due to the publicity that our actions received, had no effect at Wake. The response of the Wake Forest administration sounded as tone-deaf as what we heard initially from Syracuse. It appears to me that Wake Forest had no comprehensive program to deal with reports of sexual assault by their students or to education their students, or attempt to prevent such incidents from occurring.
Hopefully there are some bold educated students at Wake (and any other campus) that are willing to stand up and demand changes occur there. The administration of Wake Forest must be made to understand that the treatment that this one student received (and many countless voiceless others certainly did as well) is not acceptable and does not live up to the principles and goals of the university. I'm interested to see what, if anything, comes of this and what, if any, changes the university implements either on their own or after being shamed into doing so.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Why I Won't Vote for Tim Pawlenty (and Why You Shouldn't Either)
OK, let's face it. There are probably a million and one reasons why I won't vote for Tim Pawlenty. But the number one reason rises above politics and above personality. That reason is Jeremy Giefer.
Jeremy Giefer was convicted in Minnesota of statutory rape. When Giefer was 19 he impregnated his 14 year-old girlfriend. Now, I know there are a lot of you who will say that this is not the type of crime that deserves the type of shame and lifelong stigma that comes with a child sex conviction (actually I'm hoping that there are more of you who think that this is the type of crime that deserves this), especially since he ended up marrying the "victim" of this crime and they went on to have a family together and are still married.
Certainly Tim Pawlenty thought that this was not the sort of crime that deserved this type of punishment under these circumstances. That's because Tim Pawlenty pardoned Jeremy Giefer. Now, the fact that Pawlenty made such a decision alone may not persuade you that he is not fit for the highest office in the land. Governors pardon people all the time and usually these go without any negative repercussions down the road.
However, in this case, there are serious repurcussions. You see, recently Jeremy Giefer was indicted on charges that he repeatedly raped his daughter, the daughter who was "State's Exhibit Number One" in the statutory rape case for which Giefer was convicted. He raped her starting when she was age 9 and continued to rape her until she was 16. Giefer has yet to face trial on these charges. Of course when he is tried, evidence of the prior rape will not come in because he was pardoned for it. Oh, and of course if he is convicted he will receive a lighter sentence having officially never been convicted of a previous child sex crime.
Still, you say, how could Governor Pawlenty have foreseen this? I mean, it's not like he has a crystal ball. And even if he could have foreseen it, the Governor's action didn't let Giefer out of jail. Nothing in the pardon would have prevented Giefer from committing these heinous acts against his daughter. This, anyway, was the line of defense coming from Pawlenty's camp when news of the charges against Giefer hit the press.
But, there is one other part of the story that is the real reason that I feel this incident shows that Pawlenty simply doesn't have the decision making capability necessary to be President. You see, when Giefer made his application to the Board of Pardons, he listed as a reason for needing the pardon that he and his wife wanted to open a day care in their home and the fact that Giefer was a registered child sex offender prevented them from being able to do this. Apparently, this didn't raise any red flags in Pawlenty's mind, nor in the mind of the rest of the board.
Child rape is a crime of opportunity. This is why we don't let convicted sex offenders live near schools, or playgrounds, or be teachers, or drive school buses, or have day cares in their home. Giefer is a perfect example of this. He initially fed his evil by befriending and raping a girl too young to give consent, legally or otherwise. He got away with this crime until he impregnated the girl and was thus charged with a crime. The criminal justice system gave him his next opportunity by giving him a paltry jail sentence of 45 days. Society gave him his next opportunity by allowing him to marry his victim, thereby giving him the opportunity to raise and groom his next victim, his own daughter.
But Pawlenty gave him an opportunity that is beyond belief. Because Pawlenty's pardon of Giefer gave him the opportunity to have parents from around his neighborhood send their children into the lion's den of their home. Of course, responsible parents would never send their children to be cared for by someone who is a registered child sex offender. But, they never would know this thanks to the pardon that Pawlenty gave Giefer so that he could have the witless parents send their children to his home.
To date, there have been no reports of Giefer raping or otherwise molesting the children that were in his and his wife/victim's care. Hopefully there weren't any. However, experience and logic would both argue against this hope, as child sex offenders don't get better and they don't give up opportunities to re-offend -- don't believe me, just ask Giefer's daughter.
It is my hope that Pawlenty is faced with the picture of Jeremy Giefer, pardoned child rapist, over and over throughout his campaign for President. I hope that his Republican opponents don't miss an opportunity to make all of America become very familiar with Jeremy Giefer. If, for some reason Pawlenty ends up getting the GOP nomination, I hope that the DNC, the Obama campaign and any other wealthy citizen with money to blow on issue-oriented television commercials goes all Willie Horton on Pawlenty's ass, repeatedly showing Jeremy Giefer welcoming children into his lair.
Look, Tim Pawlenty wants a job that has responsibilities that dwarf any other job in the world. If he is too stupid or too careless to see that pardoning a convicted child rapist so he can open a day care is a bad idea, then I sure as hell don't want him in a position to decide whether to send in bombers or not.
Jeremy Giefer was convicted in Minnesota of statutory rape. When Giefer was 19 he impregnated his 14 year-old girlfriend. Now, I know there are a lot of you who will say that this is not the type of crime that deserves the type of shame and lifelong stigma that comes with a child sex conviction (actually I'm hoping that there are more of you who think that this is the type of crime that deserves this), especially since he ended up marrying the "victim" of this crime and they went on to have a family together and are still married.
Certainly Tim Pawlenty thought that this was not the sort of crime that deserved this type of punishment under these circumstances. That's because Tim Pawlenty pardoned Jeremy Giefer. Now, the fact that Pawlenty made such a decision alone may not persuade you that he is not fit for the highest office in the land. Governors pardon people all the time and usually these go without any negative repercussions down the road.
However, in this case, there are serious repurcussions. You see, recently Jeremy Giefer was indicted on charges that he repeatedly raped his daughter, the daughter who was "State's Exhibit Number One" in the statutory rape case for which Giefer was convicted. He raped her starting when she was age 9 and continued to rape her until she was 16. Giefer has yet to face trial on these charges. Of course when he is tried, evidence of the prior rape will not come in because he was pardoned for it. Oh, and of course if he is convicted he will receive a lighter sentence having officially never been convicted of a previous child sex crime.
Still, you say, how could Governor Pawlenty have foreseen this? I mean, it's not like he has a crystal ball. And even if he could have foreseen it, the Governor's action didn't let Giefer out of jail. Nothing in the pardon would have prevented Giefer from committing these heinous acts against his daughter. This, anyway, was the line of defense coming from Pawlenty's camp when news of the charges against Giefer hit the press.
But, there is one other part of the story that is the real reason that I feel this incident shows that Pawlenty simply doesn't have the decision making capability necessary to be President. You see, when Giefer made his application to the Board of Pardons, he listed as a reason for needing the pardon that he and his wife wanted to open a day care in their home and the fact that Giefer was a registered child sex offender prevented them from being able to do this. Apparently, this didn't raise any red flags in Pawlenty's mind, nor in the mind of the rest of the board.
Child rape is a crime of opportunity. This is why we don't let convicted sex offenders live near schools, or playgrounds, or be teachers, or drive school buses, or have day cares in their home. Giefer is a perfect example of this. He initially fed his evil by befriending and raping a girl too young to give consent, legally or otherwise. He got away with this crime until he impregnated the girl and was thus charged with a crime. The criminal justice system gave him his next opportunity by giving him a paltry jail sentence of 45 days. Society gave him his next opportunity by allowing him to marry his victim, thereby giving him the opportunity to raise and groom his next victim, his own daughter.
But Pawlenty gave him an opportunity that is beyond belief. Because Pawlenty's pardon of Giefer gave him the opportunity to have parents from around his neighborhood send their children into the lion's den of their home. Of course, responsible parents would never send their children to be cared for by someone who is a registered child sex offender. But, they never would know this thanks to the pardon that Pawlenty gave Giefer so that he could have the witless parents send their children to his home.
To date, there have been no reports of Giefer raping or otherwise molesting the children that were in his and his wife/victim's care. Hopefully there weren't any. However, experience and logic would both argue against this hope, as child sex offenders don't get better and they don't give up opportunities to re-offend -- don't believe me, just ask Giefer's daughter.
It is my hope that Pawlenty is faced with the picture of Jeremy Giefer, pardoned child rapist, over and over throughout his campaign for President. I hope that his Republican opponents don't miss an opportunity to make all of America become very familiar with Jeremy Giefer. If, for some reason Pawlenty ends up getting the GOP nomination, I hope that the DNC, the Obama campaign and any other wealthy citizen with money to blow on issue-oriented television commercials goes all Willie Horton on Pawlenty's ass, repeatedly showing Jeremy Giefer welcoming children into his lair.
Look, Tim Pawlenty wants a job that has responsibilities that dwarf any other job in the world. If he is too stupid or too careless to see that pardoning a convicted child rapist so he can open a day care is a bad idea, then I sure as hell don't want him in a position to decide whether to send in bombers or not.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Perfect Songs
Many of you reading this probably do not know that I fancy myself a songwriter. Or at least I used to. I have written hundreds of songs over the years, most of which are lost to the sands of time. However, I haven't written any (or at least completed any) in probably about 7 or 8 years.
When I was young, songs would come to me completed in my mind. As I wrote them down, it was more that I was taking dictation from some other force than making up words and lyrics from my mind. Anything I did, any experience I had, any issue that concerned me, was quickly translated into a song. As I grew older, the songs came less frequently and usually involved more work on my part -- working out chord changes, coming up with lyrics in a more fashioned way. Sometimes this would take hours, sometimes it would take days or weeks. But the songs still came.
The last complete song that I wrote came to me almost in the same way that songs used to. I remember going through the song and writing down the lyrics as I watched the movie "American Splendor". Not only was it the last song that I wrote, but it also was probably the best.
As I have grown older, my experiences translated less and less into music. Perhaps this is due to me becoming more mature. Perhaps it is just the pressures of life and work taking a toll on creativity. Perhaps my feelings as a middle aged man simply don't lend themselves to song lyrics as my feelings as a teenager or young adult did. In any event, the music doesn't flow any longer and I have come to accept this as time marched on.
However, as someone who has experienced the creativity and power of songwriting, I have come to greatly admire those who write songs for a living. There are many songs I have heard that inspire a feeling of tremendous admiration and just a little bit of envy as I listen to them and think to myself, "Man, I wish I had written that song." These are not necessarily my favorite songs in all instances, but they are songs that for some reason have touched me somehow in a deeply personal way. I refer to them as "Perfect Songs." Many of them you probably have never heard. Many of them are extremely popular. But in every instance, for one reason or another, I consider these songs to be a step above all others I have heard.
Here is a list of some of them in no particular order:
"I Need Love" by Sam Phillips. Sam Phillips has one of the most magical and intriguing voices of any female singer/songwriter I've heard. Her mature lyrics and unique voice transfix listeners as they are drawn into her songs. Her album "Martinis and Bikinis" holds the greatest treasure of Phillips's work. Her single "I Need Love" catches your attention immediately with the first line of the song "I left my conscience like a crying child". The lyrics speak of almost a desperate longing that comes only from years of experiencing life's repeated disappointments. This is definitely a love song but much deeper than your ordinary Top 40 pop fare. Phillips transitions to the chorus describing herself as "broken like a window, I see my blindness now." She then triumphantly proclaims "I need love, not some sentimental prison/I need God, not the political church/I need fire, to melt this frozen sea inside me/I need love."
"Will the Wolf Survive" by Los Lobos. Los Lobos is most famous for their covers of Richie Valens's hits in the movie La Bamba. But, they are a whole lot more than that. Los Lobos is one of the deepest and most creative bands in popular music still to this day. Their music draws deeply on their Mexican-American heritage, but also owes much to traditional folk music, blues, rockabilly and good plain old rock and roll. "Will the Wolf Survive" was their second single off of their first major label release "How Will the Wolf Survive." This deeply emotional song tells the tale of young working class Mexicans in Los Angeles, unable to reach their dreams and desires. Although the members of the band at the time of its release were all in their early 20s this song shows a maturity well beyond their years that still continues to carry this great band through today.
"When Doves Cry" by Prince and the Revolution. This is probably the best known song in my list. In fact, it was the number one selling song of 1984. From the soundtrack to his loosely biographical movie "Purple Rain" Prince goes beyond the usual dirty sexy songwriting that formed the basis of his early career (and much since -- hey, Prince sings better about sex than any person I've ever heard, so if you're good at something do it). When this song and album were released, I really couldn't comprehend the dark beauty of the song, or its incredibly detailed musicality. Only as I grew older did I comprehend that this song tells a tale of deep pain very rare in popular music. The heaviness of the song is more akin songs of bluesmen like Robert Johnson rather than what was on the charts in the early 80s. I now see Prince as rightfully among the best songwriters of his generation. He has penned many great songs, this being the best of them.
"Hold On, Hold On" by Neko Case. It is no secret that Neko Case is my favorite singer. Her rich, expressive voice moves me like no other in existence. This song from her incredible release from a few years back "Fox Confessor Brings the Flood" was one of the first of her songs that I heard. It is also still my favorite. "Fox Confessor" diverged from her earlier more country tinged releases to create a dark, ethereal, foreboding collection of songs. "Hold On, Hold On" fits perfectly into this collection with its darkly comical and deeply self-critical lyrics ("I leave the party at 3 a.m., alone thank God, with a Valium from the bride, it's the devil I love") combined with a pulsating, building guitar line that drives the song from its soft beginning "The most tender place in my heart is for a stranger," quickly into the more confessional "Compared to some I've been around/But I've really tried so hard/That echo chorus lied to me with its hold on hold on hold on hold on" to its emotional climax "And its the devil I love, and it's as funny as real love, and it's as real as true love." Written with the Canadian alt-country band The Sadies, this song still inspires me every time I hear it.
"Bad Reputation" by Freedy Johnston. Freedy Johnston had one hell of a bad breakup. Fortunately because of this he also had one hell of a great album. "This Perfect World" is chock full of pain as Johnston details the end of a relationship that was emotionally crushing. "Bad Reputation" is the greatest song on this great album. It starts out with his confession "I know I've got a bad reputation, and it isn't just talk, talk, talk". He then goes through to describe the torment that has plagued him for seven years since the loss of his relationship. His lyrics are obsessive as he sees his lost love everywhere "Suddenly I'm on the street/Seven years disappear below my feet/Been breaking down/Do you want me now? Do you want me now?" Although the raw emotion of the song tends to border on the psychotic, the emotions are easily understood by anyone who has ever gone through a painful breakup that leaves your heart so shattered that you think you can never put it back together again.
"Heroes" by Jill Sobule. OK, now for something a little lighter. Jill Sobule is best known for her quirky hit "I Kissed a Girl" from the mid 1990s (unlike Katy Perry's song of the same name, Jill meant it and kept doing it). Sobule has continued writing songs ever since continually turning out some of the funniest and most inventive lyrics in modern popular music, although never reaching the commercial success of her first single. "Heroes" is seriously one of the funniest songs I've ever heard, as Sobule lists her heroes foibles and imperfections. "Why are all our heroes so imperfect/Why do they always let us down". Among those listed "William Faulkner drunk and depressed, Dorothy Parker mean, drunk and depressed." Also "T.S. Eliot hated the Jews, FDR couldn't save the Jews, All the French joined the resistance after the war," and "Paul McCartney jealous of John, even more so now that he's gone, and Bob Dylan was so mean to Donovan in that movie." This gem is a three minute laugh riot that ends with Sobule listing several more of her heroes who were "drunk and depressed," causing her to conclude "why don't I just get drunk and depressed."
"England 2, Colombia 0" by Kirsty MacColl. "Tropical Brainstorm" was such a thoroughly enjoyable and inventive album, that it would no doubt be on my list of cd's to have on a deserted island. Posthumously released following her tragic death in a boating collision, this album drew heavily on the English singer's infatuation and immersion in Latin music, especially that of Cuba. It also showed MacColl to be almost as good at writing unabashedly about sex as Prince. This song, one of the many great ones on the collection, tells the story of MacColl being propositioned at a bar by a man who she later learns is married, all of this while watching a soccer game on television between England and Columbia. The soccer game serves as the structure around which the song is built. "You shouldn't have kissed me, you started a fire, but I soon found out you're a serial liar." Driven by Latin horns and rhythms the song continues to build as the flirty conversation builds to more and then is dashed when the man passes out and his friend tells the storyteller that he is married, all while continuing to return to its base of the soccer game. "You lied about your status, you lied about your life, You never mentioned your three children, or the fact you have a wife, and it's England 2, Colombia nil and I know just how those Colombians feel."
"Side of the Road" by Lucinda Williams. I would be proud to have written anything half as good as anything that Lucinda Williams has put out during her entire career. Her album "Car Wheels on a Gravel Road" may very well be as close to a perfect album a I've ever heard. But for her "perfect song" you have to go back to her first self-titled album. Every once in a while a song captures such stripped down emotion that it almost takes one aback. "Side of the Road" is one of those songs. This tale of self discovery and independence is so raw and naked that it has brought a tear to my eye on more than one occasion. It starts out "You wait in the car, by the side of the road, let me go and stand a while, I want to know you're there, but I want to be alone. If only for a minute or two, I want to know how it feels to be without you, to know the touch of my own skin, against the sun, against the wind." Like most of Williams's songs, there is no great crescendo or emotional bridge. The beauty is in its simplicity and the emotion is shown through the honesty with which the song is delivered. At once the song shows both great love and devotion along with loneliness and longing. "If I stray too far away from you, don't try and find me/It doesn't mean I don't love you, it doesn't mean that I don't want to lay beside you/It only means I need a little time to follow that unbroken line." All I can say, is "Damn, that is good!"
"Ohio" by Neil Young. Usually when one sets out to write a "protest song" it comes one one of two ways both of which are bad. It is either corny or it is preachy. "Ohio" is neither. This song about the murders of unarmed college students at Kent State University by National Guardsmen assigned to patrol Vietnam protests on campus is three minutes of angry perfection. Young wrote the song immediately upon hearing the news of the killings. The song was completed within hours of the incident and was recorded and released as a single within the week. It is the rawness of Young's emotion that comes through and makes this perhaps the perfect protest song of all time. "Tin soldiers and Nixon coming/We're finally on our own/This summer I hear the drumming/Four dead in Ohio." If Young had taken the time to collect his thoughts or emotions, this would not have been near the song it is. Even more than 40 years removed from the incident, listening to the song today, you understand completely the feeling of the nation on that day. Incredible stuff.
"A Change is Gonna Come" by Sam Cooke. I am constantly amazed by just how many hit songs Sam Cooke wrote and sang is his all too brief life. I really love almost all of Cooke's songs, but let's face it -- most of them are simple throw-away pop songs. "Everybody Wants to Cha-Cha-Cha", "Working on the Chain Gang," "Darling You Thrill Me" even "Cupid." All of them great songs, but none of them would predict the immensity of his thrilling emotional epic "A Change Is Gonna Come". From its very first line "I was born by the river, in a little tent, and just like the river I've been running, ever since." the listener is treated to such emotional longing and pain that one can't help but be moved. Cooke never lets up at any point during the classic. Picturing the singer recording the song, I have always seen someone twisted in pain with tears streaming down his eyes, almost begging the listener to believe that change is indeed going to come. "It's been a long, a long time coming, but I know, a Change is gonna come, Oh yes it will." I simply can't write anything that good. In fact, I'm not sure that anyone else can either.
There's lots of other songs that would make this list. It's far from exhaustive. If you haven't heard some of these songs, I encourage you to check them out on Amazon or iTunes. Also feel free to add your own selections in the comments section.
Maybe I'll be back to my angry diatribes on the economy and that banksters next week. Or maybe I'll continue on the musical kick. I have something percolating in the back of my mind on all of the reasons I hate Rod Stewart that might be interesting.
When I was young, songs would come to me completed in my mind. As I wrote them down, it was more that I was taking dictation from some other force than making up words and lyrics from my mind. Anything I did, any experience I had, any issue that concerned me, was quickly translated into a song. As I grew older, the songs came less frequently and usually involved more work on my part -- working out chord changes, coming up with lyrics in a more fashioned way. Sometimes this would take hours, sometimes it would take days or weeks. But the songs still came.
The last complete song that I wrote came to me almost in the same way that songs used to. I remember going through the song and writing down the lyrics as I watched the movie "American Splendor". Not only was it the last song that I wrote, but it also was probably the best.
As I have grown older, my experiences translated less and less into music. Perhaps this is due to me becoming more mature. Perhaps it is just the pressures of life and work taking a toll on creativity. Perhaps my feelings as a middle aged man simply don't lend themselves to song lyrics as my feelings as a teenager or young adult did. In any event, the music doesn't flow any longer and I have come to accept this as time marched on.
However, as someone who has experienced the creativity and power of songwriting, I have come to greatly admire those who write songs for a living. There are many songs I have heard that inspire a feeling of tremendous admiration and just a little bit of envy as I listen to them and think to myself, "Man, I wish I had written that song." These are not necessarily my favorite songs in all instances, but they are songs that for some reason have touched me somehow in a deeply personal way. I refer to them as "Perfect Songs." Many of them you probably have never heard. Many of them are extremely popular. But in every instance, for one reason or another, I consider these songs to be a step above all others I have heard.
Here is a list of some of them in no particular order:
"I Need Love" by Sam Phillips. Sam Phillips has one of the most magical and intriguing voices of any female singer/songwriter I've heard. Her mature lyrics and unique voice transfix listeners as they are drawn into her songs. Her album "Martinis and Bikinis" holds the greatest treasure of Phillips's work. Her single "I Need Love" catches your attention immediately with the first line of the song "I left my conscience like a crying child". The lyrics speak of almost a desperate longing that comes only from years of experiencing life's repeated disappointments. This is definitely a love song but much deeper than your ordinary Top 40 pop fare. Phillips transitions to the chorus describing herself as "broken like a window, I see my blindness now." She then triumphantly proclaims "I need love, not some sentimental prison/I need God, not the political church/I need fire, to melt this frozen sea inside me/I need love."
"Will the Wolf Survive" by Los Lobos. Los Lobos is most famous for their covers of Richie Valens's hits in the movie La Bamba. But, they are a whole lot more than that. Los Lobos is one of the deepest and most creative bands in popular music still to this day. Their music draws deeply on their Mexican-American heritage, but also owes much to traditional folk music, blues, rockabilly and good plain old rock and roll. "Will the Wolf Survive" was their second single off of their first major label release "How Will the Wolf Survive." This deeply emotional song tells the tale of young working class Mexicans in Los Angeles, unable to reach their dreams and desires. Although the members of the band at the time of its release were all in their early 20s this song shows a maturity well beyond their years that still continues to carry this great band through today.
"When Doves Cry" by Prince and the Revolution. This is probably the best known song in my list. In fact, it was the number one selling song of 1984. From the soundtrack to his loosely biographical movie "Purple Rain" Prince goes beyond the usual dirty sexy songwriting that formed the basis of his early career (and much since -- hey, Prince sings better about sex than any person I've ever heard, so if you're good at something do it). When this song and album were released, I really couldn't comprehend the dark beauty of the song, or its incredibly detailed musicality. Only as I grew older did I comprehend that this song tells a tale of deep pain very rare in popular music. The heaviness of the song is more akin songs of bluesmen like Robert Johnson rather than what was on the charts in the early 80s. I now see Prince as rightfully among the best songwriters of his generation. He has penned many great songs, this being the best of them.
"Hold On, Hold On" by Neko Case. It is no secret that Neko Case is my favorite singer. Her rich, expressive voice moves me like no other in existence. This song from her incredible release from a few years back "Fox Confessor Brings the Flood" was one of the first of her songs that I heard. It is also still my favorite. "Fox Confessor" diverged from her earlier more country tinged releases to create a dark, ethereal, foreboding collection of songs. "Hold On, Hold On" fits perfectly into this collection with its darkly comical and deeply self-critical lyrics ("I leave the party at 3 a.m., alone thank God, with a Valium from the bride, it's the devil I love") combined with a pulsating, building guitar line that drives the song from its soft beginning "The most tender place in my heart is for a stranger," quickly into the more confessional "Compared to some I've been around/But I've really tried so hard/That echo chorus lied to me with its hold on hold on hold on hold on" to its emotional climax "And its the devil I love, and it's as funny as real love, and it's as real as true love." Written with the Canadian alt-country band The Sadies, this song still inspires me every time I hear it.
"Bad Reputation" by Freedy Johnston. Freedy Johnston had one hell of a bad breakup. Fortunately because of this he also had one hell of a great album. "This Perfect World" is chock full of pain as Johnston details the end of a relationship that was emotionally crushing. "Bad Reputation" is the greatest song on this great album. It starts out with his confession "I know I've got a bad reputation, and it isn't just talk, talk, talk". He then goes through to describe the torment that has plagued him for seven years since the loss of his relationship. His lyrics are obsessive as he sees his lost love everywhere "Suddenly I'm on the street/Seven years disappear below my feet/Been breaking down/Do you want me now? Do you want me now?" Although the raw emotion of the song tends to border on the psychotic, the emotions are easily understood by anyone who has ever gone through a painful breakup that leaves your heart so shattered that you think you can never put it back together again.
"Heroes" by Jill Sobule. OK, now for something a little lighter. Jill Sobule is best known for her quirky hit "I Kissed a Girl" from the mid 1990s (unlike Katy Perry's song of the same name, Jill meant it and kept doing it). Sobule has continued writing songs ever since continually turning out some of the funniest and most inventive lyrics in modern popular music, although never reaching the commercial success of her first single. "Heroes" is seriously one of the funniest songs I've ever heard, as Sobule lists her heroes foibles and imperfections. "Why are all our heroes so imperfect/Why do they always let us down". Among those listed "William Faulkner drunk and depressed, Dorothy Parker mean, drunk and depressed." Also "T.S. Eliot hated the Jews, FDR couldn't save the Jews, All the French joined the resistance after the war," and "Paul McCartney jealous of John, even more so now that he's gone, and Bob Dylan was so mean to Donovan in that movie." This gem is a three minute laugh riot that ends with Sobule listing several more of her heroes who were "drunk and depressed," causing her to conclude "why don't I just get drunk and depressed."
"England 2, Colombia 0" by Kirsty MacColl. "Tropical Brainstorm" was such a thoroughly enjoyable and inventive album, that it would no doubt be on my list of cd's to have on a deserted island. Posthumously released following her tragic death in a boating collision, this album drew heavily on the English singer's infatuation and immersion in Latin music, especially that of Cuba. It also showed MacColl to be almost as good at writing unabashedly about sex as Prince. This song, one of the many great ones on the collection, tells the story of MacColl being propositioned at a bar by a man who she later learns is married, all of this while watching a soccer game on television between England and Columbia. The soccer game serves as the structure around which the song is built. "You shouldn't have kissed me, you started a fire, but I soon found out you're a serial liar." Driven by Latin horns and rhythms the song continues to build as the flirty conversation builds to more and then is dashed when the man passes out and his friend tells the storyteller that he is married, all while continuing to return to its base of the soccer game. "You lied about your status, you lied about your life, You never mentioned your three children, or the fact you have a wife, and it's England 2, Colombia nil and I know just how those Colombians feel."
"Side of the Road" by Lucinda Williams. I would be proud to have written anything half as good as anything that Lucinda Williams has put out during her entire career. Her album "Car Wheels on a Gravel Road" may very well be as close to a perfect album a I've ever heard. But for her "perfect song" you have to go back to her first self-titled album. Every once in a while a song captures such stripped down emotion that it almost takes one aback. "Side of the Road" is one of those songs. This tale of self discovery and independence is so raw and naked that it has brought a tear to my eye on more than one occasion. It starts out "You wait in the car, by the side of the road, let me go and stand a while, I want to know you're there, but I want to be alone. If only for a minute or two, I want to know how it feels to be without you, to know the touch of my own skin, against the sun, against the wind." Like most of Williams's songs, there is no great crescendo or emotional bridge. The beauty is in its simplicity and the emotion is shown through the honesty with which the song is delivered. At once the song shows both great love and devotion along with loneliness and longing. "If I stray too far away from you, don't try and find me/It doesn't mean I don't love you, it doesn't mean that I don't want to lay beside you/It only means I need a little time to follow that unbroken line." All I can say, is "Damn, that is good!"
"Ohio" by Neil Young. Usually when one sets out to write a "protest song" it comes one one of two ways both of which are bad. It is either corny or it is preachy. "Ohio" is neither. This song about the murders of unarmed college students at Kent State University by National Guardsmen assigned to patrol Vietnam protests on campus is three minutes of angry perfection. Young wrote the song immediately upon hearing the news of the killings. The song was completed within hours of the incident and was recorded and released as a single within the week. It is the rawness of Young's emotion that comes through and makes this perhaps the perfect protest song of all time. "Tin soldiers and Nixon coming/We're finally on our own/This summer I hear the drumming/Four dead in Ohio." If Young had taken the time to collect his thoughts or emotions, this would not have been near the song it is. Even more than 40 years removed from the incident, listening to the song today, you understand completely the feeling of the nation on that day. Incredible stuff.
"A Change is Gonna Come" by Sam Cooke. I am constantly amazed by just how many hit songs Sam Cooke wrote and sang is his all too brief life. I really love almost all of Cooke's songs, but let's face it -- most of them are simple throw-away pop songs. "Everybody Wants to Cha-Cha-Cha", "Working on the Chain Gang," "Darling You Thrill Me" even "Cupid." All of them great songs, but none of them would predict the immensity of his thrilling emotional epic "A Change Is Gonna Come". From its very first line "I was born by the river, in a little tent, and just like the river I've been running, ever since." the listener is treated to such emotional longing and pain that one can't help but be moved. Cooke never lets up at any point during the classic. Picturing the singer recording the song, I have always seen someone twisted in pain with tears streaming down his eyes, almost begging the listener to believe that change is indeed going to come. "It's been a long, a long time coming, but I know, a Change is gonna come, Oh yes it will." I simply can't write anything that good. In fact, I'm not sure that anyone else can either.
There's lots of other songs that would make this list. It's far from exhaustive. If you haven't heard some of these songs, I encourage you to check them out on Amazon or iTunes. Also feel free to add your own selections in the comments section.
Maybe I'll be back to my angry diatribes on the economy and that banksters next week. Or maybe I'll continue on the musical kick. I have something percolating in the back of my mind on all of the reasons I hate Rod Stewart that might be interesting.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Who Is John Galt? Well, He Sure As Hell Isn't You!
Let me preface this outright attack on Ayn Rand and all the mouth breathing lemmings who spout her pseudo-philosophical garbage by making a confession. I actually really like Ms. Rand's books. Really. Not joking. I think both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and to a lesser extent We The Living are great works of fiction (although Anthem is just self-congratulatory horseshit). But, that is the point. They are FICTION. They are not relevant at all to the real world much less the basis of a political and social philosophy.
There was a lot of excitement, especially among the Tea Party set when the movie version of Rand's epic novel Atlas Shrugged was released in theaters. The thought was that the movie version of the 1200+ page novel would introduce Rand's unique world view to a whole new and expanded audience. I thought it a bit ironic that a philosophy that holds intellectualism and reason as its highest aim would need a movie to indoctrinate those too lazy to read a freaking novel. Any of the Tea Party fascists who start quoting Rand's work now after seeing the movie remind me of the assholes in high school who were too lazy to read a novel for the book report and then were shocked when they received a failing grade because they didn't realize that the movie version of the Scarlett Letter didn't end the same way as the novel.
But the excitement surrounding the movie made me think about the amazing fact that such a morally bankrupt and priggish philosophy as Objectivism had managed to not only survive so long, but that it had gained a new following among the least likely people to identify with its ideals -- the Tea Party. I can understand a bunch of Wall Street investment bank bastards using Rand's writings to justify their systemic destruction of the middle class through fraud and deceit, but when the same individuals who are being destroyed by these same bastards start adopting the same philosophy as their own, something has to be wrong.
Then it hit me. Rand's novels are so well constructed and her writing so persuasive that the reader inevitably identifies with the protagonists in an incredibly strong fashion. One might even think that the book is talking about them. Of course for any rational person this feeling is fleeting as they quickly remember that this is indeed a work of fiction and that the real world is not that which Rand has created. But, if you have such a demented sense of self-importance as many of those involved in the Tea Party movement seem to have, this becomes an actual part of your warped sense of reality.
So, in other words, Michelle Bachmann actually thinks that she is Dagny Taggart. Donald Trump actually thinks that he is John Galt. Hell, even that angry old fart at the Congressional town hall sitting in his Hoverround yelling through his oxygen tank to keep your damn government hands off of my Medicaid actually thinks that he is Hank Reardon. Forget about the fact that you don't know that the Revolutionary War started in Massachusetts not New Hampshire. Forget about the fact that you've declared bankruptcy multiple times to keep from paying your debts. Forget about the fact that you are too stupid to understand that the very chair you are sitting in was paid for with taxpayer money. You are a Creator and all of those "others" are the Looters keeping you from fulfilling your dreams. If they would just get off of your back, all the riches in the world would be yours. They are the ones that have been holding you back.
In a way, they aren't that different from Rand herself. Ayn Rand was born Alisa Rosenbaum in Russia 10 years prior to the Bolshevik Revolution that ushered in an era of communism and decades of despotic rule in the Soviet Union. After her family suffered great deprivation at the hands of communist rulers, they fled to the United States. Rand's early childhood experiences under communism grew into a lifetime hatred of anything that had even a hint of communism and a zealous championing of its opposite economic philosophy of capitalism. The fervor with which Rand professed the ideals of capitalism remind me of many of the people with whom I attended college. She's very much like the upper middle class girl whose parents belonged to the local country club, who dated the quarterback and was prom and homecoming queen who on a whim takes a Womens' Studies class the second semester of her Freshman year and suddenly stops shaving her legs, smells of patchouli and constantly rants that I am part of the white, male, corporate, bourgeois establishment that must be destroyed by any means necessary. Rand was just the Bizzarro World version.
Rand, like her modern tea party contemporaries fell very much short of the ideals that the characters in her novels presented. Of course, you would never know that if you met her. Rand saw herself as the leader of a movement that was going to save the world from the destructive forces of governments which she saw as standing in the way of business and creation by means of taxation, regulation and redistribution of wealth. Her philosophy can be best summed up as "sharing is bad." Although her philosophy is still used by many in power as a basis for their various policies, especially those on the right, Rand was never as successful or influential in her life as she herself believed.
But, Objectivism somehow keeps its hold in our society. You can hear echoes of John Galt's seemingly endless speech which served as the climax of Atlas Shrugged everytime you see some jackass executive from Goldman-Sachs or J.P. Morgan going on about how government regulation stifles their ability to create innovative new financial vehicles that diversify risk and create efficiencies in the market (translation: they keep us from screwing the consumer repeatedly by fraudulently cooking the books and inflating our bottom line) or everytime you see a right wing politician going on about how the government is attacking your freedom with this or that law (translation: trying to protect the consumer from being repeatedly screwed by the jackass executives at Goldman-Sachs or J.P. Morgan).
I encourage you, though, to read Rand's books. They are quite entertaining. Or, if you must, watch the movie (it's in three parts, so it might actually be more painful than reading the book). Just remember -- this is the real world and you aren't John Galt.
There was a lot of excitement, especially among the Tea Party set when the movie version of Rand's epic novel Atlas Shrugged was released in theaters. The thought was that the movie version of the 1200+ page novel would introduce Rand's unique world view to a whole new and expanded audience. I thought it a bit ironic that a philosophy that holds intellectualism and reason as its highest aim would need a movie to indoctrinate those too lazy to read a freaking novel. Any of the Tea Party fascists who start quoting Rand's work now after seeing the movie remind me of the assholes in high school who were too lazy to read a novel for the book report and then were shocked when they received a failing grade because they didn't realize that the movie version of the Scarlett Letter didn't end the same way as the novel.
But the excitement surrounding the movie made me think about the amazing fact that such a morally bankrupt and priggish philosophy as Objectivism had managed to not only survive so long, but that it had gained a new following among the least likely people to identify with its ideals -- the Tea Party. I can understand a bunch of Wall Street investment bank bastards using Rand's writings to justify their systemic destruction of the middle class through fraud and deceit, but when the same individuals who are being destroyed by these same bastards start adopting the same philosophy as their own, something has to be wrong.
Then it hit me. Rand's novels are so well constructed and her writing so persuasive that the reader inevitably identifies with the protagonists in an incredibly strong fashion. One might even think that the book is talking about them. Of course for any rational person this feeling is fleeting as they quickly remember that this is indeed a work of fiction and that the real world is not that which Rand has created. But, if you have such a demented sense of self-importance as many of those involved in the Tea Party movement seem to have, this becomes an actual part of your warped sense of reality.
So, in other words, Michelle Bachmann actually thinks that she is Dagny Taggart. Donald Trump actually thinks that he is John Galt. Hell, even that angry old fart at the Congressional town hall sitting in his Hoverround yelling through his oxygen tank to keep your damn government hands off of my Medicaid actually thinks that he is Hank Reardon. Forget about the fact that you don't know that the Revolutionary War started in Massachusetts not New Hampshire. Forget about the fact that you've declared bankruptcy multiple times to keep from paying your debts. Forget about the fact that you are too stupid to understand that the very chair you are sitting in was paid for with taxpayer money. You are a Creator and all of those "others" are the Looters keeping you from fulfilling your dreams. If they would just get off of your back, all the riches in the world would be yours. They are the ones that have been holding you back.
In a way, they aren't that different from Rand herself. Ayn Rand was born Alisa Rosenbaum in Russia 10 years prior to the Bolshevik Revolution that ushered in an era of communism and decades of despotic rule in the Soviet Union. After her family suffered great deprivation at the hands of communist rulers, they fled to the United States. Rand's early childhood experiences under communism grew into a lifetime hatred of anything that had even a hint of communism and a zealous championing of its opposite economic philosophy of capitalism. The fervor with which Rand professed the ideals of capitalism remind me of many of the people with whom I attended college. She's very much like the upper middle class girl whose parents belonged to the local country club, who dated the quarterback and was prom and homecoming queen who on a whim takes a Womens' Studies class the second semester of her Freshman year and suddenly stops shaving her legs, smells of patchouli and constantly rants that I am part of the white, male, corporate, bourgeois establishment that must be destroyed by any means necessary. Rand was just the Bizzarro World version.
Rand, like her modern tea party contemporaries fell very much short of the ideals that the characters in her novels presented. Of course, you would never know that if you met her. Rand saw herself as the leader of a movement that was going to save the world from the destructive forces of governments which she saw as standing in the way of business and creation by means of taxation, regulation and redistribution of wealth. Her philosophy can be best summed up as "sharing is bad." Although her philosophy is still used by many in power as a basis for their various policies, especially those on the right, Rand was never as successful or influential in her life as she herself believed.
But, Objectivism somehow keeps its hold in our society. You can hear echoes of John Galt's seemingly endless speech which served as the climax of Atlas Shrugged everytime you see some jackass executive from Goldman-Sachs or J.P. Morgan going on about how government regulation stifles their ability to create innovative new financial vehicles that diversify risk and create efficiencies in the market (translation: they keep us from screwing the consumer repeatedly by fraudulently cooking the books and inflating our bottom line) or everytime you see a right wing politician going on about how the government is attacking your freedom with this or that law (translation: trying to protect the consumer from being repeatedly screwed by the jackass executives at Goldman-Sachs or J.P. Morgan).
I encourage you, though, to read Rand's books. They are quite entertaining. Or, if you must, watch the movie (it's in three parts, so it might actually be more painful than reading the book). Just remember -- this is the real world and you aren't John Galt.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
What the Hell Is Up With Gas Prices?
As any of you who drive already know, gas prices are ludicrously high. Driving across my state of North Carolina this weekend, I saw prices ranging from $3.75 a gallon up to $3.89. In many places across the country, gas is already far beyond the $4.00 mark, something we haven't seen since 2008. So, what exactly is causing prices to skyrocket and what can be done about it?
If you listen to the reports in the media, you usually get some combination of increased demand worldwide, especially China, or unrest in the Middle East. These are not responsible for the increases you are seeing now. If you follow politics you would believe that it is either a lack of production, especially domestic production (if you are a Republican) or vast greed upon the part of oil companies who are systematically driving up prices to fatten their dividends (if you are a Democrat). Neither of these are the reason, either.
In my attempt to understand this predicament as well as the causes behind the world wide economic catastrophe that we have experienced over the last several years, I have concluded that there are three main causes for the current spike in oil prices. One of these is mentioned in the media regularly, one occasionally, and one pretty much is never mentioned.
1. Turmoil in the Middle East
The recent unrest in the Middle East, from Tunisia to Egypt to Libya is often cited as a main contributor to the rise in oil prices worldwide. This is especially the case for those who look at the normal processes of supply and demand as a root cause for the increased price of oil.
There is no doubt that there are some systemic costs that are caused by the unrest in Libya and other oil producing countries which have had a slight contribution to the price of oil. For instance, oil companies need to pay for additional security to insure that their ships are not attacked by one side or the other. This probably contributes a dollar or two to the total price of oil, but is not responsible for the more than 100% rise in oil prices over the past several months.
A larger role played by turmoil in the Middle East is its psychological effect on the markets, especially futures markets as we will explore in more detail under number 2. As stability decreases in the oil producing regions, there is an obvious unease among investors in oil and other commodities as the fear of the unknown would lead many to expect the worst. This undoubtedly contributes to the rise in prices.
However, the most often referenced reason that the unrest in the Middle East has contributed to increased oil prices is that of supply and demand. It is argued that along with the increased demand by emerging economies, especially China, the ongoing political turmoil has led to a decrease in supply. This is simply rubbish. I have been unable to find one singular instance of any decrease in supply coming from the Middle East or anywhere else. There have been no disruptions in the supply network, not a single tanker bombed or captured, not a single oil field torched.
So why is it that this is the most often cited reason for the increase in prices? The only reason I can fathom for this is that it is the long entrenched belief by economists and market analysts that our markets are rational and therefore they look for a rational explanation for the increase in prices. But even a cursory look at the actual supply and demand worldwide would prove this assumption incorrect in this case. Even with the increased demand in China and other emerging economies, the worldwide demand for oil is stable, if not falling. That combined with the fact we have already discussed that supply is also stable would lead one to believe that costs of oil should be stable or decreasing. Perhaps a slight increase due to increased expense would be believable. But rational factors are not the cause of this spike, so there must be other reasons for prices to be quickly approaching their all time high of $149 a barrel in late Summer 2008.
2. Speculation
In 2008 when oil prices reached their all-time high of $149 a barrel and gas prices were more than $4.50 a gallon all across the U.S., there was eventually much talk about the role that speculators played in the process. While many investment houses like Goldman-Sachs and JP Morgan were downplaying the role that speculators were playing in the oil bubble that was becoming an economic monster, later studies of the commodities market confirmed that speculation in oil futures was the largest contributor to the sharp spike in prices that were seen in the second half of 2008.
It is necessary to understand the role of a speculator in commodities markets and how this role has changed over recent years in order to understand the effect these players had and continue to have in the oil market (as well as other commodities). Commodities markets provide a platform in which producers and buyers of raw goods that are essential for consumers can buy and sell their goods. Farmers, for instance, sell their grain on the commodities markets and say makers of cereal buy the grain from the farmers in the same market. Speculators traditionally provide an important, albeit limited role in the commodities exchanges. Essentially speculators provide fluidity to the markets by contracting to purchase or sell goods at a certain price in the future. This guarantees that even if there are no buyers or sellers that there will still be a market because the farmer will be able to sell to the speculator even if it is at a reduced price if the cereal company is not buying when he is selling.
As long as everyone kept to their role, everything was peachy-keen. So, you ask, how did speculators end up skyrocketing the price of oil (along with lots of other commodities to boot)?
Well, speculators have been allowed to expand their participation in the commodities markets with disastrous effects. During the first Bush administration several investment banks applied to the Commodities and Futures Trade Commission for an exemption which would allow them to trade on commodities exchanges as if they were themselves producers and purchasers of the commodities. The CFTC bought their argument, and issued 16 letters to large speculators owned by investment banks granting them this exception. The problem with this is that unlike producers and purchasers of the commodities themselves, speculators do not have a vested interest in the market for these goods, their only interest is to make as much money off of the deals that they can.
This exemption was amplified at the very end of Clinton's presidency with the passage of both the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and more so the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Gramm-Leach-Bliley was passed in 1999 by a Republican Congress, but with the overwhelming encouragement of Bill Clinton's financial team, most encouraging among them Robert Rubin (this act was referred to by some as the Citigroup Authorization Act since Citigroup could not exist without its passage; Rubin would go on to become one of the highest executives at Citigroup reaping tens of millions of dollars in compensation). Gramm-Leach-Bliley did away with the depression era Glass-Steagall Act which mandated the separation of commercial banks and investment banks.
More important to this discussion is the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which insured that all derivative trading would be free from any government regulation. This led directly to every economic disaster that we have seen since, most notably the collapse of Enron (both bills were spearheaded by Sen. Phil Gramm, whose wife Wendy Gramm was head of the CFTC under the first President Bush and was a board member of Enron who benefitted most immediately from the provisions of the act), the real estate bubble of the late 2000s and the ensuing collapse of the credit markets when the real estate bubble burst leading to the bailout of the entire investment banking sector.
In addition to all of these monumental economic disasters caused by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, it also led to the enormous increase in oil prices in 2008. This is because banks such as Goldman-Sachs and JP Morgan, newly emboldened by the complete deregulation of derivative investments combined with their newly expanded role in the commodities market, developed new derivative investments called commodities index funds. What these derivative investments did was allow investors to invest their money in broad ranges of commodities, sort of the same way that a mutual fund or a 401(k) invests in a broad range of stocks and bonds.
The problem with this is that an investor in this type of fund is going to be in it for the long haul. Because of this, their only position is "long" -- that is, they are betting that the price of these commodities will go up. And up they did. With this amount of money being invested into the commodities markets, the only place for prices to go was up. Matt Taibbi in his book Griftopia gives an example of a person going to a car dealership and saying "Give me $500,000 worth of cars." Since the person doesn't care about the kind of car or the amount of cars, just the price, eventually someone is going to sell him a $500,000 car, and the average car buyer is going to be priced out of the market. The same thing happened with oil. With this many people betting on the cost of oil to go up, and the vast amounts of money that were fueling this bet, the skyrocketing of oil prices became a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Eventually, the bubble burst and prices returned to their pre-bubble levels. So, what has been done since this debacle to prevent this from happening again? Absolutely nothing. Since Congress balked at any serious reform in the Dodd-Frank bill passed late last year, and did nothing to return the role of speculators to their previous limited status on commodities exchanges, or to regulate derivatives into open, transparent exchanges, or to re-establish the necessary separation of commercial and investment banks done away with in 1999, the exact same thing is happening again.
Investment banks are still shilling these disastrous financial products to their customers, "long only" speculators are still driving up the price of commodities to unsustainable and non-realistic levels and we are paying for it at the gas pump.
But this time it will be even worse.
3. The Weak Dollar and Inflation
Last week, Ben Bernanke held a press conference and stated (with a straight face, mind you) that he was leaving the Fed's prime interest rate at 0% because he felt that there had not been significant increases in inflation to warrant an increase in the lending rate and that the dollar was strong and stable. Anyone who has put gas into their car or shopped at a grocery store over the past few months would have to greet such a statement with disbelief. It almost seemed that Bernanke was living in an alternate world.
Well, in a way he was.
The United States judges inflation by the use of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) which is essentially an economic snapshot of prices throughout the economy at any particular time. The CPI, however, due to the findings of the Boskin commission in 1995, doesn't really look at everything. The Boskin commission studied the CPI and through some rather questionable mathematical tricks, decided that inflation had been overestimated by 1.1% over the years. To do this, they implemented among other things "hedonic adjustments" which said that things aren't really more expensive, they are just better and the increased quality of the product cancels out any increase in price; and "substitution adjustments" which said that as prices for products such as say steak increase, consumers substitute less expensive chicken and therefore pay the same price -- the economic equivalent of "let them eat cake." So, in effect, inflation as reported is less than inflation actually.
But, the Fed actually has an even smaller view of what inflation is. The Fed in order to judge inflation uses the Core CPI, which I guess they believe is a more accurate view of inflation to consumers. How, I don't know. The Core CPI excludes energy costs and food. Huh? Yup, that's right, the Fed bases their decisions about the economy on a view of inflation that excludes the two highest expenditures for most consumers.
During the 2008 oil bubble, the U.S. dollar was weak. This was mostly because of the policies of the Federal Reserve. In order to spur growth and encourage investment, the Fed initially under Alan Greenspan and subsequently under Ben Bernanke embarked on an economic Kamikaze mission to continually cut interest rates. This was for the most part loved by Wall Street since it meant they could borrow money very cheaply and then invest it in increasingly risky exotic derivatives and make boatloads of money. However, the other effect that the race to the bottom on interest rates was that the market was flooded with dollars, and the dollar was weakened substantially.
In 2008 the prime Fed interest rate started out at 3.00%. It was lowered throughout the year, and during the height of the oil bubble, the interest rate was about 2.25%. After the collapse of Wall Street investment banks that year, it was lowered again to 2.00% in October and by the end of the year had gone to 0.0% where it has remained ever since. This is unprecedented in the history of the Federal Reserve. It is also reckless.
By the time interest rates were taken down to their current levels at the end of 2008, the oil bubble had long since burst and levels had gone back to their pre-bubble levels. However, there is no doubt that the weak dollar contributed to the increase in gas prices. Since the dollar is still accepted as the world's most common reserve currency, oil is traded world wide in U.S. Dollars. As the U.S. dollar is weakened, the price of oil inevitably increases, as a dollar simply cannot buy as much oil as it had in its former stronger levels.
With interest rates staying at 0% for 2 1/2 years with Bernanke saying there is no plan to adjust the Fed rate upward any time soon, the dollar is far weaker than it was in 2008. When you add to the low interest rates the fact that the Fed has pumped trillions of dollars into the economy in the form of bailouts for failed financial institutions, the dollar is even weaker. The effect this is going to have on price levels being spurred on by speculators is going to be one of magnification. The price of oil is likely to be higher than its previous high of $149. Furthermore, even when the new speculative bubble that we are now seeing bursts, the chances that prices will return to their post-2008 bubble levels is unlikely.
In essence, this means that I would not be surprised if gas reaches in excess of $5.00 per gallon, possibly even eclipsing the $6.00 a gallon level by the end of the Summer. Furthermore, after the bubble bursts (which it inevitably will), we will probably not see gasoline for under $3.00 a gallon for a very long time. This of course will increase costs for food, milk, and other necessities as well, and yes, people around the world will starve. But don't worry, Ben Bernanke says these things don't really matter, so stop whining.
If you listen to the reports in the media, you usually get some combination of increased demand worldwide, especially China, or unrest in the Middle East. These are not responsible for the increases you are seeing now. If you follow politics you would believe that it is either a lack of production, especially domestic production (if you are a Republican) or vast greed upon the part of oil companies who are systematically driving up prices to fatten their dividends (if you are a Democrat). Neither of these are the reason, either.
In my attempt to understand this predicament as well as the causes behind the world wide economic catastrophe that we have experienced over the last several years, I have concluded that there are three main causes for the current spike in oil prices. One of these is mentioned in the media regularly, one occasionally, and one pretty much is never mentioned.
1. Turmoil in the Middle East
The recent unrest in the Middle East, from Tunisia to Egypt to Libya is often cited as a main contributor to the rise in oil prices worldwide. This is especially the case for those who look at the normal processes of supply and demand as a root cause for the increased price of oil.
There is no doubt that there are some systemic costs that are caused by the unrest in Libya and other oil producing countries which have had a slight contribution to the price of oil. For instance, oil companies need to pay for additional security to insure that their ships are not attacked by one side or the other. This probably contributes a dollar or two to the total price of oil, but is not responsible for the more than 100% rise in oil prices over the past several months.
A larger role played by turmoil in the Middle East is its psychological effect on the markets, especially futures markets as we will explore in more detail under number 2. As stability decreases in the oil producing regions, there is an obvious unease among investors in oil and other commodities as the fear of the unknown would lead many to expect the worst. This undoubtedly contributes to the rise in prices.
However, the most often referenced reason that the unrest in the Middle East has contributed to increased oil prices is that of supply and demand. It is argued that along with the increased demand by emerging economies, especially China, the ongoing political turmoil has led to a decrease in supply. This is simply rubbish. I have been unable to find one singular instance of any decrease in supply coming from the Middle East or anywhere else. There have been no disruptions in the supply network, not a single tanker bombed or captured, not a single oil field torched.
So why is it that this is the most often cited reason for the increase in prices? The only reason I can fathom for this is that it is the long entrenched belief by economists and market analysts that our markets are rational and therefore they look for a rational explanation for the increase in prices. But even a cursory look at the actual supply and demand worldwide would prove this assumption incorrect in this case. Even with the increased demand in China and other emerging economies, the worldwide demand for oil is stable, if not falling. That combined with the fact we have already discussed that supply is also stable would lead one to believe that costs of oil should be stable or decreasing. Perhaps a slight increase due to increased expense would be believable. But rational factors are not the cause of this spike, so there must be other reasons for prices to be quickly approaching their all time high of $149 a barrel in late Summer 2008.
2. Speculation
In 2008 when oil prices reached their all-time high of $149 a barrel and gas prices were more than $4.50 a gallon all across the U.S., there was eventually much talk about the role that speculators played in the process. While many investment houses like Goldman-Sachs and JP Morgan were downplaying the role that speculators were playing in the oil bubble that was becoming an economic monster, later studies of the commodities market confirmed that speculation in oil futures was the largest contributor to the sharp spike in prices that were seen in the second half of 2008.
It is necessary to understand the role of a speculator in commodities markets and how this role has changed over recent years in order to understand the effect these players had and continue to have in the oil market (as well as other commodities). Commodities markets provide a platform in which producers and buyers of raw goods that are essential for consumers can buy and sell their goods. Farmers, for instance, sell their grain on the commodities markets and say makers of cereal buy the grain from the farmers in the same market. Speculators traditionally provide an important, albeit limited role in the commodities exchanges. Essentially speculators provide fluidity to the markets by contracting to purchase or sell goods at a certain price in the future. This guarantees that even if there are no buyers or sellers that there will still be a market because the farmer will be able to sell to the speculator even if it is at a reduced price if the cereal company is not buying when he is selling.
As long as everyone kept to their role, everything was peachy-keen. So, you ask, how did speculators end up skyrocketing the price of oil (along with lots of other commodities to boot)?
Well, speculators have been allowed to expand their participation in the commodities markets with disastrous effects. During the first Bush administration several investment banks applied to the Commodities and Futures Trade Commission for an exemption which would allow them to trade on commodities exchanges as if they were themselves producers and purchasers of the commodities. The CFTC bought their argument, and issued 16 letters to large speculators owned by investment banks granting them this exception. The problem with this is that unlike producers and purchasers of the commodities themselves, speculators do not have a vested interest in the market for these goods, their only interest is to make as much money off of the deals that they can.
This exemption was amplified at the very end of Clinton's presidency with the passage of both the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and more so the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Gramm-Leach-Bliley was passed in 1999 by a Republican Congress, but with the overwhelming encouragement of Bill Clinton's financial team, most encouraging among them Robert Rubin (this act was referred to by some as the Citigroup Authorization Act since Citigroup could not exist without its passage; Rubin would go on to become one of the highest executives at Citigroup reaping tens of millions of dollars in compensation). Gramm-Leach-Bliley did away with the depression era Glass-Steagall Act which mandated the separation of commercial banks and investment banks.
More important to this discussion is the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which insured that all derivative trading would be free from any government regulation. This led directly to every economic disaster that we have seen since, most notably the collapse of Enron (both bills were spearheaded by Sen. Phil Gramm, whose wife Wendy Gramm was head of the CFTC under the first President Bush and was a board member of Enron who benefitted most immediately from the provisions of the act), the real estate bubble of the late 2000s and the ensuing collapse of the credit markets when the real estate bubble burst leading to the bailout of the entire investment banking sector.
In addition to all of these monumental economic disasters caused by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, it also led to the enormous increase in oil prices in 2008. This is because banks such as Goldman-Sachs and JP Morgan, newly emboldened by the complete deregulation of derivative investments combined with their newly expanded role in the commodities market, developed new derivative investments called commodities index funds. What these derivative investments did was allow investors to invest their money in broad ranges of commodities, sort of the same way that a mutual fund or a 401(k) invests in a broad range of stocks and bonds.
The problem with this is that an investor in this type of fund is going to be in it for the long haul. Because of this, their only position is "long" -- that is, they are betting that the price of these commodities will go up. And up they did. With this amount of money being invested into the commodities markets, the only place for prices to go was up. Matt Taibbi in his book Griftopia gives an example of a person going to a car dealership and saying "Give me $500,000 worth of cars." Since the person doesn't care about the kind of car or the amount of cars, just the price, eventually someone is going to sell him a $500,000 car, and the average car buyer is going to be priced out of the market. The same thing happened with oil. With this many people betting on the cost of oil to go up, and the vast amounts of money that were fueling this bet, the skyrocketing of oil prices became a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Eventually, the bubble burst and prices returned to their pre-bubble levels. So, what has been done since this debacle to prevent this from happening again? Absolutely nothing. Since Congress balked at any serious reform in the Dodd-Frank bill passed late last year, and did nothing to return the role of speculators to their previous limited status on commodities exchanges, or to regulate derivatives into open, transparent exchanges, or to re-establish the necessary separation of commercial and investment banks done away with in 1999, the exact same thing is happening again.
Investment banks are still shilling these disastrous financial products to their customers, "long only" speculators are still driving up the price of commodities to unsustainable and non-realistic levels and we are paying for it at the gas pump.
But this time it will be even worse.
3. The Weak Dollar and Inflation
Last week, Ben Bernanke held a press conference and stated (with a straight face, mind you) that he was leaving the Fed's prime interest rate at 0% because he felt that there had not been significant increases in inflation to warrant an increase in the lending rate and that the dollar was strong and stable. Anyone who has put gas into their car or shopped at a grocery store over the past few months would have to greet such a statement with disbelief. It almost seemed that Bernanke was living in an alternate world.
Well, in a way he was.
The United States judges inflation by the use of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) which is essentially an economic snapshot of prices throughout the economy at any particular time. The CPI, however, due to the findings of the Boskin commission in 1995, doesn't really look at everything. The Boskin commission studied the CPI and through some rather questionable mathematical tricks, decided that inflation had been overestimated by 1.1% over the years. To do this, they implemented among other things "hedonic adjustments" which said that things aren't really more expensive, they are just better and the increased quality of the product cancels out any increase in price; and "substitution adjustments" which said that as prices for products such as say steak increase, consumers substitute less expensive chicken and therefore pay the same price -- the economic equivalent of "let them eat cake." So, in effect, inflation as reported is less than inflation actually.
But, the Fed actually has an even smaller view of what inflation is. The Fed in order to judge inflation uses the Core CPI, which I guess they believe is a more accurate view of inflation to consumers. How, I don't know. The Core CPI excludes energy costs and food. Huh? Yup, that's right, the Fed bases their decisions about the economy on a view of inflation that excludes the two highest expenditures for most consumers.
During the 2008 oil bubble, the U.S. dollar was weak. This was mostly because of the policies of the Federal Reserve. In order to spur growth and encourage investment, the Fed initially under Alan Greenspan and subsequently under Ben Bernanke embarked on an economic Kamikaze mission to continually cut interest rates. This was for the most part loved by Wall Street since it meant they could borrow money very cheaply and then invest it in increasingly risky exotic derivatives and make boatloads of money. However, the other effect that the race to the bottom on interest rates was that the market was flooded with dollars, and the dollar was weakened substantially.
In 2008 the prime Fed interest rate started out at 3.00%. It was lowered throughout the year, and during the height of the oil bubble, the interest rate was about 2.25%. After the collapse of Wall Street investment banks that year, it was lowered again to 2.00% in October and by the end of the year had gone to 0.0% where it has remained ever since. This is unprecedented in the history of the Federal Reserve. It is also reckless.
By the time interest rates were taken down to their current levels at the end of 2008, the oil bubble had long since burst and levels had gone back to their pre-bubble levels. However, there is no doubt that the weak dollar contributed to the increase in gas prices. Since the dollar is still accepted as the world's most common reserve currency, oil is traded world wide in U.S. Dollars. As the U.S. dollar is weakened, the price of oil inevitably increases, as a dollar simply cannot buy as much oil as it had in its former stronger levels.
With interest rates staying at 0% for 2 1/2 years with Bernanke saying there is no plan to adjust the Fed rate upward any time soon, the dollar is far weaker than it was in 2008. When you add to the low interest rates the fact that the Fed has pumped trillions of dollars into the economy in the form of bailouts for failed financial institutions, the dollar is even weaker. The effect this is going to have on price levels being spurred on by speculators is going to be one of magnification. The price of oil is likely to be higher than its previous high of $149. Furthermore, even when the new speculative bubble that we are now seeing bursts, the chances that prices will return to their post-2008 bubble levels is unlikely.
In essence, this means that I would not be surprised if gas reaches in excess of $5.00 per gallon, possibly even eclipsing the $6.00 a gallon level by the end of the Summer. Furthermore, after the bubble bursts (which it inevitably will), we will probably not see gasoline for under $3.00 a gallon for a very long time. This of course will increase costs for food, milk, and other necessities as well, and yes, people around the world will starve. But don't worry, Ben Bernanke says these things don't really matter, so stop whining.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)