Yea, Things are Hopeful: Sales a Big Unexpected Drop

Yea, Things are Hopeful: Sales a Big Unexpected Drop

Image via Wikipedia

By Grant Lawrence

"Recently we have seen tentative signs that the sharp decline in economic activity may be slowing," Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke on the hopeful signs in a housing, credit, and financial crisis the worst since the Great Depression.

Things are hopeful so don't let the collapse of the American auto market or the deflation reported for the first time in a half century bother you.

Oh, and don't let this other piece of news interfere with the economic rebound we are all beginning to experience.

Stores Suffer Big Drop in March Sales

CNNMoney.com -- Retail sales suffered an unexpected big decline in March which broke two straight months of improving sales, the government reported Tuesday.

The Commerce Department said total retail sales fell 1.1% last month, compared with February's revised gain of 0.3%. Sales in February were originally reported to have dipped 0.1%....

The economy stinks, people are jobless, but Economic Propaganda is working.

How Social Darwinism and Fundamental Christianity Brought about the Collapse of the American Economy

How Social Darwinism and Fundamental Christianity Brought about the Collapse of the American Economy

Image via Wikipedia

By Grant Lawrence


"Decisions on compensation and other actions taken and not taken, particularly at banks that rapidly lost a lot of shareholder value, look self-serving and greedy in hindsight".
Goldman Sachs Chairman Lloyd C. Blankfein recently stating that that the "appearance" of greed and self serving may not have been good. It is, however, just the "appearance" of greed and self serving that Chairman Blankfein sees as the problem. The Chairman of Goldman Sachs knows that it was the love of money that made this country what it is today.

It was Ronald Reagan, Milton Freedman, and TV Evangelists like Pat Robertson, Tammy Fae and Jim Baker, and Jimmy Swaggert that taught Americans to really Love Money. It was a marriage made in hell. Free Market big business, or modern day Social Darwinians, and Fundamentalist Christians joined forces in one common interest--money. Together they helped bring about another terrible event in disaster capitalism.

Wait a minute.

You might be wondering how it is that the Social Darwinians and Fundamentalist Christians joined forces to bring about our present calamity.

Americans have always loved money but over the last several decades it became an all consuming desire brought on by something seemingly more powerful than God--Greed. Or in the view of Fundamentalist Christians, it was the power of greed that served God.

Americans were taught that acting in self serving ways was what nature or God intended us to do. That was the message of our modern day Social Darwinians (Bankers, CEOs, and Market Capitalists) and their partners the Fundamentalist Christians.

Of course, the marriage might seem a bit odd since Social Darwinism believes in Evolution and the Bible believing Christians think that God created everything in 7 days or 6 or 7000 years (I guess we have a choice here).

It all gets confusing, I know. But let me try to explain.

Social Darwinian Big Business believe that humanity improves when there is less charity and only the strong are able to survive. They believe that our government actually interferes with human evolution by setting up welfare and governmental social programs because it allows the weak to live. To Social Darwinians giving to the poor is seen as a bad thing since it goes against competition, takes money away from corporate welfare, and negates the urge to accumulate vast amounts of wealth. The Love of Money is seen as a good thing because it makes people do anything to get it, which is of course a good thing (circular reasoning but it seemed to make sense to Americans).

Greed, according to the Social Darwinians, is what makes the economy and humanity work so well. It is important to note here that Social Darwinians do believe in charitable giving but only when it comes to bailing themselves and their business enterprises out. Still they can argue that they must be bailed out because they are greedy and that makes them special. Also Social Darwinians would like to help evolution along by getting rid of a few billion of the weak but that is another story.

The Bible believing Christians joined forces with the Social Darwinian business interests because they also think that social programs destroy society and they really love money. They don't like the idea of the government helping people survive because "God helps those that help themselves." God is the go to guy when it comes to getting all of the things needed for survival and much more. The Fundamentalists like the idea of the super rich getting super richer because they believe that the obscene rich deserve their fabulous wealth or "God would not have blessed them." To the Fundamentalists, God really likes you if you have a big house and lots of cars. In fact, God really loves your church if it is as big as a Wal-Mart Super Center. They firmly believe that God loves those that really Love money or else he wouldn't have blessed our "Christian Nation."

Now true Bible believing Christians want to make sure God is getting help in getting his "Will" done, so they do everything they can to make sure that the poor remain poor. They will be happy to offer a prayer for the poor (that doesn't cost anything). But when it comes to actually supporting a just society, Fundamentalist Christians will curse those that promote such anti-Christian views.

Fundamentalists see Greed as God ordained. They believe that God made man greedy and that is why we need capitalism. I guess they don't have much faith in Jesus saving anyone or they might be thinking people could respond to something besides greed. They also believe that if you interfere with man's God given right to be Greedy then you interfere with God's chosen economy--Capitalism. God developed capitalism because Jesus died for our sins. Or something like that. I guess it is all right there in the Bible or at least that is what I am told.

However, there is one thing that Fundamentalist Christians don't like and that is to be poor. So they love it when they themselves or members of their immediate family collect their social security or disability checks. But they get awfully unhappy when someone else collects a social security or disability check. That is because fundamentalist Christians are greedy and they see that as a good thing.

The only thing a Fundamentalist Christian loves as much as Jesus is money. Or at least if you really love Jesus then you will get lots and lots of money, they believe.

That is how the Fundamentalists fell in love with Big Business and the Free Market. They all Love Money and they think Greed is good.

Fundamentalist Christians and Social Darwinians had to bless their marriage so they had a baby, so to speak, and that was George W. Bush.

Bush was a man of God and a greedy creep so he was perfect in the eyes of his parents, the Fundamentalists and the Social Darwinians. They were happy to see him doing the work of God or nature (depending on which way you look at it) by making the super rich super richer, by killing a million or so Non Christians along with thousands of American soldiers, and by making sure the poor and the working poor had a tough time of it.

It was all going so well. But there was one problem. It turns out that the Love of Money is the root of all evil (where did I read that?).

So just as you might expect, the system began collapsing because of Greed. The Fundamentalist Christians began to disown their "Christian President" and the forces of Social Darwinism began looking for another "creature of Nature" to carry out their social engineering. The 2 parents of this evolutionary throwback Bush began questioning the diabolical work that resulted in our present economic collapse. The 2 Lovers of Money began to fall out of love for each other and they disowned their marriage and its progeny.

Today, the 2 former lovers are looking for a new relationship but they will not abandon their great Love--The Love of Money. The Fundamentalist Christians and the Big Business Social Darwinians have abandoned each other but they will not abandon the fundamental principle that united them in the past and that is that Greed is ultimately good. Or, the Love of Money is a rising tide that lifts all boats or something like that.

Perhaps it is a bit confusing this former marriage of Christian Fundamentalism and Social Darwinism, but it could be a bit clearer if you only had more faith....in money that is.

Former President Bush Faces One of His Toughest Challenges

Former President Bush Faces One of His Toughest Challenges

Bush has often gotten out of jams by dint of personal charm, and he’s trying that once again...
From a recent news story on the struggle that the Former President now faces.

Image by danny.hammontree via Flickr

By Grant Lawrence

Times are tough for the country and the world but it seems that
things aren't so great for former President George W. Bush.

Bush now faces one of his toughest challenges.

He has to convince the wealthy of the world to contribute 300 million to his library. At first thought, you would think that it would be quite easy for the former President to gather 300 million from wealthy donors.

After all, the super rich owe their President a lot. They were able to profit handsomely from America's wars. They were able to amass greater fortunes because of Bush's support for economic globalization and an American economy that made Reagan's "trickle down" seem somehow progressive. But most importantly when there was a possibility that the super rich might lose some of those super riches, Bush stepped in and in a matter of a week or so he came up with a trillion or 2 to help out.

So what's the problem?

Well there is some complaining at Southern Methodist University in Dallas about the President having his library there. Also, the economic depression and the endless wars has made the former President awfully unpopular among common Americans. I guess the super rich don't want to make the rabble any more upset then they already are.

But Bush is a fighter. He has faced tough challenges in the past and if anyone can build himself a library worth hundreds of millions of dollars, it is our former Commander-in-Chief.

But I do hate to see the former President have to interrupt his biking, speaking engagements, golfing (oh, I guess he gave that up because he says he felt sorry for all of the people he killed), writing of his memoirs, fine dining, parties, and social fun by having to worry about his library.

But I have a plan that I think could help out the former President.

I believe that Bush needs to do more than offer to build the library. If he were to offer to create a memorial within the library for the tens of thousands of dead and wounded American soldiers, the millions of war torn Iraqis and Afghans, and even the tens of millions of Americans ravaged by Bush economics then I am sure he could gain a lot more support for the project. If he offered to build this memorial along with his library then it might create a groundswell of support for the work to proceed.

Come to think of it, Bush could also include sections in the memorial to those tortured, enemy combatants, assassinations authorized by the Administration, illegal wiretapping, the shredding of the constitution, and the art of propaganda and the big lie. I am sure those additions to the library/memorial would really build some excitement among progressives and liberals in the country.

I know I am missing some things that could be included in the library/memorial. But the former President should ultimately be the one to decide on what he wants to add. Or he can do like he did during his Presidency, and turn everything over to the Head of Assassinations, former Vice President Cheney. Then Bush could just do what he does best.

Enjoy himself.

Can Americans have a Depression and manage to shoot themselves in both feet?

Renowned gadfly-with-afterburners Blue Gal (why do I keep wanting to call her Susie Bright?) does a creditable job of putting the ultra-glib and slightly manic pundits turned naysayers, à la Glenn Greenwald ("Obama fails his first test on civil liberties and accountability -- resoundingly and disgracefully"), into perspective. She does that by reminding us of the obvious:

Obama has been in office less than a month.

But wait, there's more:

Glenn, freshly shorn & perfumed

He also inherited an unparalleled economic fiasco the severity of which is just beginning to become apparent.

Greenwald has already discerned that Obama has wasted no time showing his true colors as nothing less than a conscious dupe of the neo-cons. The president is certainly now undergoing full Borg assimilation after surviving the secret initiation rituals of Opus dei, the Freemasons, and the International Mensa Cabal.

Intention is so hard to nail down (unless you're a middle-finger-flippin', silver-spoon-born, tin-tongued, frat-boy bungler nominated to pretend to preside over a country your handlers had to explain to you before they could start gutting it — then it ain't so hard). And intention is even harder to prove.

But so many in Congress already seem to want Obama to fail, whether because

• they're true Conservatives (except aren't they all in mausoleums now?)
• they're too indebted and in too many corporations' pocket(s)
• they're busy jockeying for position so that in 2012 they can preside over the third-world country formerly known as America, or
• Obama isn't going far enough fast enough for them (the Best being the enemy of the Good, etc., etc.).

True, there is the legitimate question of who's pulling Obama's strings. People and corporations are naturally uneasy about contributing millions to Juggernaut Obama without having some high-status souvenirs to show for it.

And the Council on Foreign Relations and the innumerable other nefarious elitist cliques, all of them swarming with éminences grises, do have some influence, via the corporate media they own at home and abroad if nothing else, over how people perceive a president's first-quarter competence and charisma.

Then there's the little unhealed psychic trauma of being taken in by "Compassionate Conservatism" in 2000 and then having absolute indifference shoved down our throats by a psychopathic dull-normal every day of every year, right up to the Inauguration. Can we blame folks for being antsy and gun-shy this time around before the Moon has completed a full cycle of phases?

It might be wise to remember that the U.S. doesn't have a lot political traditions and social programs that other countries have. That's good and bad. Our Constitution was written to ensure that government not work very well, less we get a commoner who behaved like King George III.

King George III

The three branches of government, their checks and balances, the Bill of Rights — those do hamstring tyranny to some degree.

But they also enshrine individualism and prevent the decisive, concerted, efficient action that the parliamentary democracies are sometimes capable of. There the executive and legislative branches are merged into one branch. With a majority government, your party can ram through all kinds of legislation, fast. The only real limit, besides judicial intervention, is a public outcry and the risk of the opposition calling a confidence vote.

If you lose that vote, you have to call elections, and if your programs have made you unpopular, you may lose the whole game. It's a remote but sobering disincentive. No such threat exists in the U.S., otherwise Cheney and Bush would have ruled for months instead of almost a decade. In Japan, they'd have had to commit seppuku on the Japanese equivalent of Charlie Rose.

So Obama, we forget, is having to deal with a structure that is designed not to make cohesive action easy, even in dire crisis. He also has 310 million constituents in a variegated assemblage of states, regions, and ethnic mixes. In each of those locales the incidence and prevalence of FoxNews-induced paranoid delusion are different.

Lincoln and FDR had to deal with many of the same obstacles in crises of similar scope, only life was much simpler then. No phone trees, no reality TV, no obesity epidemics, no Oprah, no Blue Screens of Death. And still they found it necessary to adopt some rather autocratic measures to do so.

The Plank of Risen Expectation

Can Obama be selectively autocratic, too, long enough to get people back to work? Or is he too much of a compromiser? It takes one mighty astute and influential politician to be able to pull the right strings and bully the Congressional herd of cats with finesse and the specter of imminent skewering. LBJ knew how.

Fortunately Obama is sharp enough to learn how.

What if we waited another month or two for Obama to gain his Ship of State sea legs before summarily cutting them off and then declaring him inept to be captain?