The Presidential Debate: My Thoughts

The daddy's feeling tonight's presidential debates, and here are just a few of my thoughts, based on knowledge and temperament.

Knowledge

On knowledge, despite Sen. McCain attempts to paint him as wet behind the ears, Sen. Obama continues to demonstrate knowledge in all the main areas, including foreign policy. He didn't give an inch to McCain on foreign policy tonight. In terms of policy on the economy, McCain had no new ideas and Obama rightly pointed out that he was part of a group that de-regulated the financial markets, getting us into this mess in the first place.

McCain did introduce a new idea: buying up bad mortgages and selling them to get the housing market going again. To folks up on this, would not they be asking, "Wasn't that part of the idea that Paulsen had? And isn't that part of the reason taxpayers gave them the 700 billion in the first place?

Temperament

Sen. McCain continued to be a condescending, grumpy old man. He never looked at Obama, but when he did, he gave a smile that was more like a smirk, making a negative point about Obama.
On the other hand, Obama, though cordial, got his own digs in on McCain without condescention. And he did not forget to look directly at the person who asked the question or give a warm smile to the audience in the townhall.

Who won?

Because he is behind, McCain needed to beat Obama soundly in this debate. But Obama proved too knowledgeable, too skillful, even in foreign policy. Obama clearly pointed out that it was Sen. McCain who used bad judgment in not only getting us into Iraq but cheerleading Bush's policies once he got there.

I think we just saw a young upstart do one more serious ass-kicking to a tired old man.

McCain must really hate this Obama guy. He's everything he wishes he was: smart, goodlooking, charming, looking presidential, even debonair, in the face of tough times.

The Financial Crisis: Time to Do No Harm

"James K. Galbraith, a professor of business at the University of Texas at Austin, said: "Deregulation has been the public faith of the financial sector since [Ronald] Reagan. Under Bush II, waves of predatory finance in housing were aggressively promoted by Alan Greenspan, by McCain's closest economic adviser Phil Gramm, and by so-called regulators who systematically subverted the public interest...Deregulation was the theme song of the Ronald Reagan presidency, epitomized by his assertion, "Government is not the solution, government is the problem."
--Trader Markets

The daddy will continue to discuss solutions to the final crisis, but today he is feeling a short but very important that was just sent to me. It is written by Verna, who is getting her doctorate in a few moments in Psychology, specializing in business ethics. The article is about the tendency of pundits and financial analysts to blame today's financial crisis on democratic presidential for encouraging the markets to provide mortgages to low-income and middle-income people. Check it out:

The Financial Crisis: Time to Do No Harm
by Verna Monson

In following the recent financial crisis and inevitable blaming, my stomach is roiling. The idea that Democratic presidents – going back to Jimmy Carter – are to blame, and not Republicans and business executives, for pushing through policies to make home ownership a reality for more lower- and middle-class Americans is a cheap political barb. The analysis runs something like this: Anyone foolish enough to have taken out a $300K mortgage with no down payment on a limited income shares equal blame with financial executives who instituted the policies permitting subprime loans. What is hard to stomach about this? Isn’t this also greed -- the same greed that Democrats have tried to pin on Wall Street executives and Republicans?

One could say it’s a simple matter of caveat emptor, buyer beware. Entering into a long-term financial contract where more than half of one’s monthly earnings go to pay down the interest on a mortgage is questionable judgment. But it takes two to close a risky deal. Highly paid and degreed individuals structured the financial policies behind these loans. What is their responsibility in this mess? If the well-known tenet of medical professionals ‑ “do no harm” ‑ undergirded the field of business and finance, could the subprime mess have been avoided?

We need to raise expectations of our nation’s business and political leaders. We want professionals capable of assuming greater responsibility – for more than just the business bottom line. We want professionals who can account for the impact of business on citizens and society – present and future. It is time for us to demand more from those whom we entrust to help us live well, throughout our lives, by safeguarding our investments. It is time for business executives and politicians to recognize the privilege that society has accorded them. With that privilege comes the duty to do no harm.

The Financial Crisis, Part II: Digging Our Way to China

"You know it is appropriate that this action of the Congress is being timed to the opening of the Asian markets. How appropriate, given the fact that we are losing control of our financial destiny. Mister Speaker, when I was a child, in Cleveland, there was a myth that if you took a shovel and dug a hole deep enough, you could get to China. We're there."
--Rep. Dennis Kucinich, on the 700 billion bailout

Today, the daddy is continuing to think about how we got into the financial crisis: how is that financial entities like Fannie Mae end up providing more loans to people who couldn't afford to keep up their mortgage, eventually precipitating foreclosures on a grand scale?

An article by The New York Times looks through the eyes of a Fannie Mae executive and helps us to better understand how the crisis happened.

Pressured to Take More Risk, Fannie Reached Tipping Point

“The market was changing, and it’s our job to buy loans, so we had to change as well.” -Daniel H. Mudd, former chief executive of Fannie Mae, the government-chartered mortgage company.

"Almost no one expected what was coming. It's no fair to blame us for not predicting the unthinkable."---- Daniel H. Mudd, former executive, Fannie Mae."

By 2000, chief executives like Franklin D. Raines, above, and the chief financial officer J. Timothy Howard had greatly expanded Fannie Mae. When the mortgage giant Fannie Mae recruited Daniel H. Mudd, he told a friend he wanted to work for an altruistic business. Already a decorated marine and a successful executive, he wanted to be a role model to his four children — just as his father, the television journalist Roger Mudd, had been to him. Fannie, a government-sponsored company, had long helped Americans get cheaper home loans by serving as a powerful middleman, buying mortgages from lenders and banks and then holding or reselling them to Wall Street investors. This allowed banks to make even more loans — expanding the pool of homeowners and permitting Fannie to ring up handsome profits along the way.

But by the time Mr. Mudd became Fannie’s chief executive in 2004, his company was under siege. Competitors were snatching lucrative parts of its business. Congress was demanding that Mr. Mudd help steer more loans to low-income borrowers. Lenders were threatening to sell directly to Wall Street unless Fannie bought a bigger chunk of their riskiest loans. So Mr. Mudd made a fateful choice. Disregarding warnings from his managers that lenders were making too many loans that would never be repaid, he steered Fannie into more treacherous corners of the mortgage market, according to executives.

For a time, that decision proved profitable. In the end, it nearly destroyed the company and threatened to drag down the housing market and the economy.

Dozens of interviews, most from people who requested anonymity to avoid legal repercussions, offer an inside account of the critical juncture when Fannie Mae’s new chief executive, under pressure from Wall Street firms, Congress and company shareholders, took additional risks that pushed his company, and, in turn, a large part of the nation’s financial health, to the brink.

Between 2005 and 2008, Fannie purchased or guaranteed at least $270 billion in loans to risky borrowers — more than three times as much as in all its earlier years combined, according to company filings and industry data. “We didn’t really know what we were buying,” said Marc Gott, a former director in Fannie’s loan servicing department. “This system was designed for plain vanilla loans, and we were trying to push chocolate sundaes through the gears.”

Last month, the White House was forced to orchestrate a $200 billion rescue of Fannie and its corporate cousin. On Sept. 26, the companies disclosed that federal prosecutors and the Securities and Exchange Commission were investigating potential accounting and governance problems.

To read the full story, click here at New York Times.
------------------------------------------------------------

So, if the government needed to bail out Fannie Mae, Fannie Mac, Lehman Brothers and other financial institutions, what should it have insisted of those financial institutions? If Americans are asked to bail out the same people who put us into this crisis, what should Americans through their representatives have insisted from these institutions in return? Deborah White, a democrat from California and freelance writer, talking about the bailout as larceny, gives us a good idea of what SHOULD have been included in the bill but was not:

Taxpayers Foot the Bill, Bankers Keep Profits and Compensation
by Deborah White

Armed with fearfully catastrophic predictions reminiscent of the rushed run-up to the Iraq War, the Bush White House now insists that complete collapse of the world economy is imminent if the Bush administration isn't IMMEDIATELY given a blank check for up to $1 trillion to dole out to the ailing financial services industries and its richly paid executives.

Wall Street Gets Bailed Out by Me When I'm Getting Screwed?
Explains noted economist Robert Reich at TPM Cafe1:

"The public doesn't like a blank check. They think this whole bailout idea is nuts. They see fat cats on Wall Street who have raked in zillions for years, now extorting in effect $2,000 to $5,000 from every American family to make up for their own nonfeasance, malfeasance, greed, and just plain stupidity.

"Wall Street's request for a blank check comes at the same time most of the public is worried about their jobs and declining wages, and having enough money to pay for gas and food and health insurance, meet their car payments and mortgage payments, and save for their retirement and childrens' college education.

TEN REASONS WHY BUSH'S PROPOSED BAILOUT IS LARCENY

* 1. Lack of accountability or transparency, resulting in a "blank check" of up to $1 trillion. Section 8 of the Draft Proposal for Bailout Plan2 reads, "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion... "

That means that the American people can never review and will never know how the $1 trillion was spent by the Bush administration.

* 2. Lack of legal recourse for inappropriate use of $1 trillion in funds. Section 8 of the Draft Proposal for Bailout Plan3 concludes, "... and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

That means that no matter how the Bush administration spends the $1 trillion, they can't be sued or otherwise held liable for it. Even if the funds are used fraudulently or for any improper or unrelated purpose.

* 3. Lack of specific or objective criteria to determine who should be bailed out, which could result in cronyism, fraud, favoritism based on political affiliation or other misuse of taxpayers' funds.

Recipients of bailout funds are determined solely by the Treasury Secretary. There are no financial benchmarks, nor prohibitions of giving funds to related parties or based on partisan or other discriminatory factors. There are also no prohibitions of kickbacks.

* 4. Lack of specific valuation criteria for "illiquid assets" acquired by the federal government, which would result in overpayments to institutions who made or purchased the bad investments.

The Bush bailout plan is silent on what price the Treasury Secretary must pay the financial services industry to bailout their bad mortgage loans. Will the Secretary pay fair market value (i.e. what the "illiquid asset" is worth today) or will he pay the premium value of what the bad loan used to be worth before the market dropped?

This is important because if the Secretary pays the higher premium price, then American taxpayers are automatically stuck with losses that likely can never be recouped.

Normal business, and consumer, practice is to pay for an asset what it's actually worth on that day (i.e. fair market value). Princeton economist Paul Krugman describes4 "having taxpayers pay premium prices for lousy assets" as "in effect throwing taxpayers’ money at the financial world."

For more, see Concerns about the Treasury Rescue Plan5 by the Brookings Institute.

* 5. Lack of plan, budget or staff to oversee and account for this massive new Treasury Department function, which will inevitably cause a significant expansion in federal government bureaucracy.

This would be a massive undertaking on an unprecedented scale, and would cost billions of dollars in new federal government bureaucracy needs.... costs that would be passed on (coincidentally?) to the next presidential administration, and not borne by George Bush.

And yet, Section 76 of the Bush bailout plan gives unlimited powers to the Treasury Secretary: "Any funds expended for actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses, shall be deemed appropriated at the time of such expenditure."

* 6. Lack of reform or regulation of, or any measure control over, institutions bailed out. Incredibly, the Bush bailout plan requires no changes in the failed practices of the financial services industry.

Economist Robert Reich is spot-on when he writes that, as a bailout condition, Wall Street firms must "agree to comply with new regulations over disclosure, capital requirements, conflicts of interest, and market manipulation.

The regulations would "emerge in ninety days from a bi-partisan working group, to be convened immediately. After all, inadequate regulation and lack of oversight got us into this mess."

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

As the daddy understands it, there were no requirements for new regulation over disclosure, conflict of interest, or market regulations. There was only talk from Sen. Barack Obama and a few other democratic politicians about holding hearings in the future to look at what got the country into its financial crisis and develop regulations to change it. They should have either had language about re-regulating the financial markets or specific times to hold hearings to do so.

The two central problems with the 700 billion bailout is that it offered no concrete solutions to people trying to save their homes and no new regulations against the very institutions and the people that created the financial crisis. Rep. Dennis Kucinich spells this out in a speech on the house floor. Here is an excerpt from that speech.

We Had Alternatives

by Dennis Kucinich

The following statement was presented on the floor of The House of Representatives after Congressman Kucinich voted against the Wall Street bail out plan, H.R. 1424, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008:

The public is being led to believe that Congress has reconsidered its position because we have before us a better bill than we had a few days ago. It is the same bill plus hundreds of new pages for hundreds of millions of tax breaks. What does this have to do with the troubles of Wall Street?

Driven by fear we are moving quickly to pass a bill, which may produce a temporary uptick for the market, but nothing for millions of homeowners whose misfortunes are at the center of our economic woes. People do not have money to pay their mortgages. After this passes, they will still not have money to pay their mortgages. People will still lose their homes while Wall Street is bailed out.

The central flaw of this bill is that there are NO stronger protections for homeowners and NO changes in the language to ensure that the secretary has the authority to compel mortgage servicers to modify the terms of mortgages. And there are NO stronger regulatory changes to fix the circumstances that allowed this to happen.*

We should have created a mechanism for our government to take a controlling interest in mortgage-backed securities and use our power to work out a new deal for the homeowners. We could have done this. We should have done this. But we didn't.

Now millions of Americans will face the threat of foreclosure without any help. And the numbers will soon rise for a number of reasons. Not only because of the Alt-A, jumbo mortgages which will soon be reset at higher interest rates, but because the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) is pushing up rates on adjustable mortgages and more than half of the US adjustable mortgage rates are tied to LIBOR. Homeowner defaults will grow in significant numbers. Let's see if Congress will be as quick to help homeowners on Main Street as they were to help speculators on Wall Street.

Now the government will have to borrow $700 billion from banks, with interest, to give banks a $700 billion bailout, and in return the taxpayers get $700 billion in toxic debt. The Senate "improved" the bailout by giving tax breaks to people in foreclosure. People in foreclosure need help paying their mortgage, they do not seek tax breaks.

Across our Nation, foreclosures continue to devastate our communities, people are losing their jobs, and the prices of necessities are skyrocketing. This legislation, just like the one we defeated last week, will do nothing to solve the problems plaguing American families or help them to get out from underneath the oppressive debt they have been forced to take on.

Unfortunately, there has been no discussion of the underlying debt-based economy and the role of our monetary system in facilitating the redistribution of wealth upwards.

It is not as though we had no choice but to pass the bill before us. We could have done this differently. We could have demanded language in the legislation that would have empowered the Treasury to compel mortgage servicers to rework the terms of mortgage loans so homeowners could avoid foreclosure. We could have put regulatory structures in place to protect investors. We could have stopped the speculators.

This bill represents an utter failure of the Democratic process. It represents the triumph of special interest over the triumph of the public interest. It represents the inability of government to defend the public interest in the face of great pressure from financial interests. We could have recognized the power of government to prime the pump of the economy to get money flowing through out society by creating jobs, health care, and major investments in green energy. What a lost opportunity! What a moment of transition away from democracy and towards domination of America by global economic interests.

* Emphasis: The daddy's.

Next: The Financial Crisis Part III: Where Do We Go from Here?

The U.S. Financial Crisis Part I: Background, Basic Tips

"Those who most opposed government intervention in the economy for much of the past two decades were so successful in keeping the government away from regulating activities that should have been regulated, that the consequence is now a greater degree of intervention by the government in the economy.”
--Democratic Rep. Barney Frank

"It took a lot of work, but the Senate labored long and hard and produced a mortgage-bailout bill that in important ways is even worse than the measure defeated Monday in the House. Getting senators to vote to force their taxpaying constituents to purchase $700 billion worth of "toxic" assets that the private sector wouldn't touch is not an easy thing to do. So, the Senate Democratic and Republican leadership came up with a plan to bribe taxpayers into forking over the $700 billion by giving $100 billion worth of pork, mandates and tax breaks to favored constituencies. "
--Washington Times editorial

Today, the daddy is feeling the U.S. economic crisis. Specifically, he's feeling that none of the politicians have helped us, as American citizens, to even begin to appreciate the depth of this crisis, its impact on future U.S. policies (regardless of whom the next U.S. president will be) families and communities. And since they have not explained it to us, the daddy thinks that we will have to do the research to better understand it ourselves.

Toward that end, the daddy will be providing articles, comments, charts and quotes on his blog. He will begin with a short piece from Wilkipedia that explains in laymen's terms what subprime mortgages are and how we got into the financial crisis. The second article is by Dr. Boyce Watkins, a Finance Professor at Syracuse University. It provides a black perspective on the crisis and some basic tips to deal with the crisis. The article suggests that it is written for African Americans but, truthfully, its perspective and suggestions would be helpful to other Americans as well.

The daddy apologizes in advance to those who only want him to write about poetry or music, but some things cannot be ignored.

Subprime Mortgage Crisis
from Wilkipedia

The subprime mortgage crisis is an ongoing economic problem that became more apparent during 2007 and 2008, and is characterized by contracted liquidity in the global credit markets and banking system. The downturn in the U.S. housing market, risky lending and borrowing practices, and excessive individual and corporate debt levels have caused multiple adverse effects on the world economy. The crisis has passed through various stages, exposing pervasive weaknesses in the global financial system and regulatory framework.

The crisis began with the bursting of the United States housing bubble^[1][2] and high default rates on "subprime" and adjustable rate mortgages (ARM), beginning in approximately 2005–2006. For a number of years prior to that, declining lending standards, an increase in loan incentives such as easy initial terms, and a long-term trend of rising housing prices had encouraged borrowers to assume difficult mortgages in the belief they would be able to quickly refinance at more favorable terms. However, once interest rates began to rise and housing prices started to drop moderately in 2006–2007 in many parts of the U.S., refinancing became more difficult. Defaults and foreclosure activity increased dramatically as easy initial terms expired, home prices failed to go up as anticipated, and ARM interest rates reset higher. Foreclosures accelerated in the United States in late 2006 and triggered a global financial crisis through 2007 and 2008. During 2007, nearly 1.3 million U.S. housing properties were subject to foreclosure activity, up 79% from 2006.^[3]

Major banks and other financial institutions around the world have reported losses of approximately US$435 billion as of 17 July 2008.^[4][5] In addition, the ability of corporations to obtain funds through the issuance of commercial paper was affected. This aspect of the crisis is consistent with a credit crunch. The liquidity concerns drove central banks around the world to intervene by bailing out defaulting financial corporations in order to encourage lending to worthy borrowers at the expense of tax payers.

The risks to the broader economy created by the financial market crisis and housing market downturn were primary factors in several decisions by the U.S. Federal Reserve to cut interest rates and the economic stimulus package passed by Congress and signed by President George W. Bush on February 13, 2008.^[6][7][8] Following a series of ad-hoc market interventions to bail out particular firms, a $700 billion proposal was presented to the U.S. Congress in September, 2008. These actions are designed to stimulate economic growth and inspire confidence in the financial markets. The U.S. House of Representatives rejected the bill on September 29, 2008^[9] but congressional leaders said they will revise the proposal to address the concerns of opponents.^[10] The U.S. Senate approved an amended HR1424 with a version of the bailout plan on October 1, 2008.^[11] On 3rd October, 2008, the amended version of the bill was passed by the House of Representatives as well.

The Liquidity Crisis of 2008: What Black People Should Do Now
by Dr. Boyce Watkins

Most of you have been watching politicians shuck and jive in predictable ways to try and manage the even more predictable liquidity crisis that has terrorized our financial markets. As a supporter of Senator Barack Obama, I am hopeful that this will serve as the final signal to America that a Harvard graduate with extensive Economics training might be a better choice than a mediocre student who claims to know nothing about the economy. I won’t even mention Sarah Palin, who now makes George Bush the runner-up in the “Unfit to Manage a Burger King” contest. I am not big on Obama-mania, but I tend to be big on common sense. It is also telling that many Americans would sacrifice our nation’s future in order to avoid the discomfort of seeing a Black man in the White House. OK, let me shut up before I say what I REALLY think.

This is not about the pale one called Palin or John McCain’s Black Extermination Plan for criminal justice. It is about USOBA. USOBA doesn’t stand for the “United States of Obama”, rather, it stands for the “United States of Black America”. This is about finding ways to manage, contextualize and internalize this crisis so we can figure out what to do right now. Neither McCain nor Obama is going to take care of you and your family, since politicians tend to take care of themselves (note Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s prior affiliation with Goldman Sachs will likely drive his desire to save his Wall Street buddies). The truth is that we are all Presidents of our own households, and as President, your job is to shield your household from the impact of FICA - The Financial Ignorance Crisis of America. Here are some quick thoughts:

1) The government bail-out doesn’t necessarily mean you should bail-out of the Stock Market: If you are invested in the Stock Market, I would strongly consider staying there, especially if you are under the age of 50. In fact, you might want to buy more stocks. Warren Buffett (a man who is sometimes wrong) had it absolutely right when he said that you should “be greedy when everyone else is cautious and cautious when everyone else is greedy.” Drops in the Stock Market can be the best times to invest because the historical data clearly shows that when the US Stock Market declines, it eventually comes back up. Personally, I plan to use this market decline as an opportunity to expand my portfolio. But I am not going to try and pick individual companies: I am going to buy into a diversified mutual fund that spreads my money around the entire global economy.

2) Paying off credit card debt is one of the best investments you can make: Which would you prefer? To possibly earn 10% interest in an investment in the Stock Market or to DEFINITELY save 18% per year on that high interest credit card in your purse? Remember that money SAVED is money EARNED. Get rid of the bulk of your high interest debt before you even consider investing in the Stock Market or anywhere else.

3) Change the game: With all of Barack Obama’s speeches about how Black men need to learn personal responsibility, he may have wanted to save that speech for the rest of America. The typical American consumer has been incredibly irresponsible with spending, saving, borrowing and investing habits over the past 20 years. I grow sick of seeing one article after another attempting to argue that African Americans have a monopoly on irresponsible financial behavior. Don’t believe the hype – ALL OF AMERICA has a problem with financial choices. The goal is not for you to emulate the behavior of the rest of America….it is to set a new standard. Black people can be quite good at saving money. Many of our grandmothers could support a household with two nickels and a hot dog bun. Perhaps we can tap into our natural survival instincts to get us through this mess.

4) This crisis might be the tip of the iceberg: I agree with my respected colleague Paul Krugman at Princeton, who is the only other commentator I’ve heard mention that recent financial problems may be nothing more than a symptom of more serious fundamental issues in the US economy. All I could say when I heard that was “Amen”. Without going into much detail, I can say that it is time to remember that old saying “Learn to save your money, so your money can save you.”

5) Don’t be “scuuuurred” (translation for the uppity among us: “Don’t be afraid”): This is NOT the end of the world. The financial systems are not going to melt down. This is not likely going to be the start of any kind of Great Depression. Truth be told, the Black community has been in a Great Depression for about 400 years! We have survived worse, and just because the economy struggles, that doesn’t mean you have to struggle along with it. Remember that our greatest challenges are usually our greatest opportunities for growth. Learn from this experience, grow from it, and we will continue to move forward.

Your financial liberation is part of your social and spiritual liberation. Let’s use the shake-up as an opportunity to shake ourselves off the plantation. I’m tired of someone else owning me.

Note: In Part II, more on how we got into the financial crisis and at least one politician's reason for voting against the bailout.

Troy Davis: Hold Him in the Center of Your Heart

"Since I was a law student, I have been against the death penalty. It does not deter. It is severely discriminatory against minorities, especially since they’re given no competent legal counsel defense in many cases. It’s a system that has to be perfect. You cannot execute one innocent person. No system is perfect. And to top it off, for those of you who are interested in the economics it, it costs more to pursue a capital case toward execution than it does to have full life imprisonment without parole."
--Ralph Nader

"Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable... Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals."
--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

This morning, the daddy got out of bed, made coffee, and sipped it out on his patio. Then, with java still in hand, he strolled leisurely around his backyard, smelling flowers and listening to birds.

Then the image of a round, speckled-face Troy Davis came into his head, this almost nerdy looking guy who, had he not been arrested and convicted, could have been someone's smart lawyer defending someone in court, or some community librarian sitting behind a desk. This is the same Troy Davis who, last week, was saved by the U.S. Supreme Court just two hours before he was put to death by the racist parole board of Georgia. The same Troy Davis who is awaiting to hear if the same court that saved him last week (the U.S. Supreme Court) will, in a few days or a couple of weeks, say they will NOT hear his case, signaling to the racist Georgia Parole board to go ahead and execute him...

The same Troy Davis who not only can't grab a cup of coffee and walk around his backyard; he can't even leave his cell.

The Villager over at Electronic Village says, "It is up to us to share information with our blog readers that they might not find elsewhere." The daddy agrees and adds, "Keep Troy Davis in the front of their minds and in the center of your hearts until he is liberated from prison and can walk in his own backyard, smell the flowers and hear the birds sing again.

Meanwhile, Troy Davis has sent a message to those who continue to support him. It suggests that he is a man of faith who believes in God, in himself, and in our commitment to continue the fight against the death penalty and for peace:


To all:

This is a message from Troy Anthony Davis I want to thank all of you for your efforts and dedication to Human Rights and Human Kindness, in the past year I have experienced such emotion, joy, sadness and never ending faith. It is because of all of you that I am alive today, as I look at my sister Martina I am marveled by the love she has for me and of course I worry about her and her health, but as she tells me she is the eldest and she will not back down from this fight to save my life and prove to the world that I am innocent of this terrible crime. As I look at my mail from across the globe, from places I have never ever dreamed I would know about and people speaking languages and expressing cultures and religions I could only hope to one day see first hand. I am humbled by the emotion that fills my heart with overwhelming, overflowing Joy. I can't even explain the insurgence of emotion I feel when I try to express the strength I draw from you all, it compounds my faith and it shows me yet again that this is not a case about the death penalty, this is not a case about Troy Davis, this is a case about Justice and the Human Spirit to see Justice prevail. I cannot answer all of your letters but I do read them all, I cannot see you all but I can imagine your faces, I cannot hear you speak but your letters take me to the far reaches of the world, I cannot touch you physically but I feel your warmth everyday I exist. So Thank you and remember I am in a place where execution can only destroy your physical form but because of my faith in God, my family and all of you I have been spiritually free for some time and no matter what happens in the days, weeks to come, this Movement to end the death penalty, to seek true justice, to expose a system that fails to protect the innocent must be accelerated. There are so many more Troy Davis'. This fight to end the death penalty is not won or lost through me but through our strength to move forward and save every innocent person in captivity around the globe. We need to dismantle this Unjust system city by city, state by state and country by country. I can't wait to Stand with you, no matter if that is in physical or spiritual form, I will one day be announcing, " I AM TROY DAVIS, and I AM FREE!

Never Stop Fighting for Justice and We will Win!
--------------------------------------------------------
Note: To sign the petition to save Troy Davis or to find out how you can help,
check out his website at: troyanthonydavis@yahoo.com

The Financial Crisis, Political Culture--It Ain't Pretty

"There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle."
--Alexis de Tocqueville
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
--John Kenneth Galbraith
"All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field.
--Albert Einstein

Today, the daddy is feeling two insightful articles about our political landscape. As comedian Roger Dangerfield said about Phyllis Diller, another comedian, it ain't pretty. Actually, the puffed-hairdo, the crazy laugh, the knee-slapping one-liners--it was all part of a persona. Diller was quite an attractive, intelligent person, especially in her younger years. But, as the two authors below will attest, there is nothing either attractive or intelligent about today's political culture.

The first article is written by Cynthia Tucker, an editor of the Atlanta Journal Constitution and a recent Pulitzer Prize this past April for her commentary. The second is by David Michael Green, a political science professor and author of the book "The Europeans: Political Identity in an Emerging Polity (2007).

Credit crisis: Melting pot of problems
by Cynthia Tucker

September 28, 2008

In the midst of a severe financial crisis — a meltdown fueled by clueless home buyers, greedy lenders and money-grubbing financiers — some observers have decided to blame “minorities” for the mess. Though wiser heads have proclaimed the emergency too serious for partisan gamesmanship, some in the conservative commentariat still can’t resist playing the race card.

Several days ago, Neil Cavuto, host of Fox News’ “Your World,” declared, “Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster.”

On WorldNetDaily, a compendium of loopy half-truths, pundit Drew Zahn declared that “when federal regulators demanded parity between racial groups in lending, the only way to achieve a quota would be to begin making intentionally bad lending decisions.”

The conservative National Review Online trotted out a favorite whipping boy, the Community Reinvestment Act, claiming that the legislation was the result of “racially inflammatory campaigns” that forced banks to “make mortgages available to people without much in the way of income, assets or credit.”

Why would anyone inject skin color into a debate over credit?

There is certainly no evidence to support this claptrap. Federal regulators have never “demanded parity between racial groups in lending.” Not ever.

The CRA — designed to stop banks from “redlining,” or withholding loans from entire neighborhoods — has long been under attack by conservatives, but for entirely different reasons. Critics called it vague, contradictory and useless. They claimed it was unfair to banks and thrifts, which were regulated, while other financial institutions were left to lend money as they saw fit.

To read the full story, clicke here at Cynthia.

The Elephant in the Living Room
by David Michael Green

The second most astonishing thing about American politics is that John McCain and Sarah Palin have a respectable chance of winning the White House in 2008. (Or, for that matter, that any Republican could have a shot at any office for which the Democratic candidate hasn’t suddenly died on the stump.)

Yeah, yeah, I know. Barack Obama has a funny name. He’s relatively young and inexperienced. Oh, and – have you heard? – he’s also black. But, just the same, I mean, c’mon. A Republican could win the presidency in 2008? You gotta be kidding, right?

All of this is deeply related, in multiple ways, to what is without a doubt absolutely the first most astonishing fact of American politics. And that is that conservatism (I prefer to call them ‘regressives’) isn’t the most repudiated ideology this side of cannibalism. And that regressive practitioners of this hateful disease masquerading as a political philosophy haven’t been tarred-and-feathered, hung, drawn and quartered, then run out of town on an electrified rail. And that any red-blooded American wouldn’t infinitely prefer in this day and age to be called a pedophile, a terrorist or a European – heck, or all of the above combined – rather than a conservative.

I mean, seriously, people. Now that Wall Street has imploded, potentially taking down with it the entire global economy in a fun reprise of the 1930s, what more could possibly be necessary to repudiate a set of ideas for which a good day is when thousands of people don’t die (again) as a result of anyone, let alone the world’s sole superpower, subscribing to something so astonishingly stupid? Really, is there anything that the regressive agenda has touched so far that hasn’t completely turned into a pillar of salt? Not only do these nice pious Christians show every evidence of actually being the anti-christ, they’ve also managed to be the anti-Midas as well.

To read the full story, click here at regressive.

Down by the River at St. Anthony Main

Today, the daddy is chilling. When he's chilling, he hangs out around St. Anthony, a riverfront offering visitors acres of parks, trails, picnic areas, landmarks, a Movie Theater, restaurants, shops, family-oriented events, entertainment and attractions and numerous walk or bike trails to explore.

Around lunch time, the daddy steps into the Astor Cafe to have a salad, juice and coffee and check out the people strolling by. Later in the afternoon, he drops into Vic's, munches on a cheese and fruit tray and sips a glass of Trimbach white wine.

Vic's has a great wine list and the best food in St. Anthony Main. Also, at Vic's, you can sit inside
and look out its wide windows and see couples outside drinking on the patio or strolling on the sidewalks. You can see women walking dogs and guys biking.

But what the daddy really likes about St. Anthony Main is that all the streets, restaurants and shops are near the Mississippi river; and the daddy likes to leave the shops and stand in the middle of the Stone Arch bridge and watch the water flow in and out the damn.

Standing in the middle of the Stone Arch Bridge today, the daddy is thinking of Emmett Till, a sweet 14 year old black male kid from Chicago who was visiting relatives in a small town called Money, Mississippi. Supposedly, he whistled at a white woman. For this alleged action, later that night, some white came to his relative's house with guns and flashlights, pulled him out of bed, took him away in trucks, beat him to death, and threw him in the Tallahatchie river.

To my knowledge, no one was convicted for this crime, though many whites and blacks knew who did it.

As the daddy stares into the river, he thinks of Emmett Till and the great poet Langston Hughe's poem about rivers. It was his first published poem:

The Negro Speaks of Rivers

I've known rivers
I've known rivers ancient as the world and older than the
flow of human blood in human veins.

My soul has grown deep like the rivers.

I bathed in the Euphrates when dawns were young.
I built my hut near the Congo and it lulled me to sleep.
I looked upon the Nile and raised the pyramids above it.
I heard the singing of the Mississippi when Abe Lincoln
went down to New Orleans, and I've seen its muddy
bosom turn all golden in the sunset.

I've known rivers.
Ancient, dusky rivers

My soul has grown deep like the rivers.