[Subject: Good luck!]
Open letter to my son in college who voted for B. Obama,
President Elect Barack Obama will be taking office soon. With his left-wing agenda and his Liberal history it is likely that he will allow the Bush tax-cuts to expire, reinstate capital gains taxes on the house I'm trying to sell and increase the taxes on businesses and the majority of the middle class in order to fund his universal federalized medical coverage and the other ‘entitlement’ programs that he has promised.
This being the case, it will probably push the economy into a tailspin. This will result in any profit from the stock that I had dedicated to your tuition being re-distributed to more worthy (including those 40% who don’t pay taxes because their income is below the taxable level) individuals. Since I will not have the money, I encourage you to submit your request for free, government-subsidized, tuition promptly. President Obama has promised tuition coverage.
I will be using my 401-k and military pension to support myself and your mother in our retirement.
Best wishes,
Dad
Then I wrote this back to Dad.OH FER …. Please do NOT worry about this. Things are fine. I’ll give your dad a lashing with a wet noodle.
MOM
And, finally, I wrote this in my journal last night.
Dad... the economy is already IN a tailspin. You cannot push the blame for that onto Obama. He has 75 days before he even takes office. The blame goes to the king of deregulation, Alan Greenspan, who as I recall was a Bush appointee. Obama will obviously be working to resolve the crisis, but being as how a coalition of the smartest economists in the world has had zero success in raising the Dow back up to the 14000 it was at last year or even to the 11000 it was in the first half of September, I doubt Obama will be able to make everything instantly better, and I even more doubt that McCain could have. The economy will suck for quite a while. But look at this without a conservative bias: it started tanking in mid-September, and has not come back even close to its former level, and not one bit of that crash can be attributed to Obama.
In conclusion, blame George Bush and Alan Greenspan for the failure or tanking of Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Lloyds TSB, and Iceland, and for the imminent tanking of Chrysler, Ford, and GM. Don't blame Obama for anything. When he gets into office, he'll be inheriting a country in economic shards, and it will keep failing, just like it would have if McCain had gotten elected.
...To be honest, I wouldn't put it past Dad to cut me off for something, but I think it'd have to be more severe than a vote. I'm still the unproblematic son - no drinking, no pot, good grades, nice friends - and his only issue with me is that I didn't absorb the Fox News hogwash that he spends half his waking hours watching. I think he also groups me as a liberal, even though he ought to know that politically I'm anarchist, and only voted for Obama because he mentality wasn't "Drill, baby, drill!" but rather something more common-sense and foresighted, and also less apt to keep destroying the planet. Not that Obama necessarily really cares deeply about the environment. I'm sure he cares, but he's also going to be of the mindset theat we need to find a "balance" between the economy and the environment. In these "balances", the environment never gets the respect we desperately need to give it, because policy-makers (ncluding Obama) see it as something that exists mainly for people who like to go on vacations in it and people who think nonhumans have rights too, beyond the right to be "developed". (What a quaint concept!) I went to Bob's tonight, and inside the graffiti-covered bathroom, there was a piece on the door that read, "This planet is not a resource to be seized and exploited." (Or something close to that.) Underneath, someone had written, "Why not?" The next person had said something about a person with a French name who (naively, they implied) believed animals and the rest of the biosphere had rights too. The next person called into question this person's philosophy, the existence of animal rights, and even perhaps the existence of rights in general. And then the debate got illegible. I believe the rest of the world has rights, but I cut right to the quick and wrote under the original "Why not?", "Because, no matter how hard we pretend otherwise, we are a part of this ecosystem just like every other species is, and if it fails, we fail too." This is the sort of concept I don't expect lawmakers and politicians to understand or, if they do understand it, to act on.
20 comments.
Why not take the trickle down(or up) theory of economics to it's ultimate limit. It is clear now, that I do not have the fiscal wisdom to manage my money. Therefore, I wish to trickle it up to the closest corporation or person in my neighborhood who is in the seven figure range. Then I can just wait for it to come back to me in shower of economic prosperity. Cut my taxes while we are at it to multiply the reward. Write a bunch of IOU's to China, Russia, and the middle east.
You are right and wrong about Greenspan. He is the champion of derivative fiscal vehicles, and was the oracle of so many democrats and republicans for many years. We were all equal clients to the whore of fiscal genius.
He was appointed by Reagan, so all partisans of the last 20+ years can have some of the credit.
Face it, we are in the restaurant and all of us want to dine and dash. But we, all of us have to pay this bill, and it's a whopper.
Dave
I knew I should've actually researched who appointed Alan Greenspan. But, I also knew that if it was a Democrat, Dad wouldn't have missed the opportunity to mention that. He was from Reagan, so my point to Dad mostly still stands.
Dave, you sound like you might actually get something out of the primitivist-type books I've read (just a couple so far, but they've impressed me). I don't usually recommend them because I know the person usually would either never read them, or would call it insanity, but you could well see reason in them. Have you thought about finding one of them at a library?
Addendum: I went back and wrote the stuff down. This is how it went:
A:— This planet is not a tool or a resource for us to exploit.
B:— Why not?
C:— Because Deleuze believes that, like, rainforest machines have rights too, ya know?
D:— An utterly non-Deleuzian concept. What were you thinking? Try a liberal for rights-discourse; Deleuze doesn't play the rights game.
C:— Sorry, my bad. That was irresponsible.
Deleuze refers to Gilles Deleuze, a French philosopher. I looked him up and, like all philosophers, he seems a bit spacey. I don't have a lot of patience with philosophy once it starts using the special secret philosophers' code that no one sane can understand. But you can see how this argument reduces the fact of our destruction of the planet to a philosophical matter, rather than a very real physical concern that should be near the very top of most policy lists. (What's actually near the top: making sure businesses in your district don't go bankrupt; raising money for the next election cycle; keeping the stock market from bucking too violently. Derrick Jensen observed that if there's a real problem with the physical world, the powers that be will study it for years and years before finally doing something extremely minimal and ineffectual, but as soon as Wall Street looks shaky, they'll hand over hundreds of billions of dollars "before you can say 'rip-off'.")
Chuck,
Forgive your father for his right-wing thinking. I’m sure the last 8 years have been very difficult on him. Going to that charade of a war and having to deal with the incompetence of the U.S. Army must have been and still probably is very hard to deal with. Of course, he has been a part of a very right-wing family and that makes it hard to see both side of the coin.
I think you were lucky to have grown up with a right-wing family in your dad’s side and a left-wing family on your mom’s side (excepting your mom). It is clear that someone as intelligent as you sees through the garbage and has learned to decide for yourself, even if it means turning your back on some of your family. I applaud you for standing up for what you believe in.
I suspect in many ways it is easier for people to continue believing what they know is wrong because admitting the truth to themselves is too hard. I wish I had some recordings of FOX News from the 2000 and 2004 elections, I suspect that the crap they spewed was completely wrong. But you sure don’t see them bringing up their past. They are just like the weathermen, when it’s a complex situation, they are usually wrong.
I am jealous that you were able to vote for a winner in your first presidential election, it took me 5 tries.
Dan
Dan, why do you presume to know what I think? Just because I often disagree with YOU does not make me extreme right-wing. It just makes me someone who often disagrees with you. But this isn't the blog to pick fights with me. Do that on your blog or mine, not Nathanael's. I know you always think you know what I'm thinking but you do not and that's the primary disagreement I have always HAD with you. You presume what I think. Don't do that. I will tell you what I think (or don't think). Don't presume or infer from me.
And everyone on our side is not "left-wing", either. Grandpa Blaser was quite a Republican and fiscal conservative. We have a good mix of Republicans and Democrats. Jerry is really conservative. I mean, come on. Do you know what everyone in our family really thinks? Likewise, in Steve's extended family there are lots of political colors. Get a clue.
Also you have NO clue what Steve had to deal with over there- it was not easy and he is really having a hard time dealing with it.
For my opinion, I think this: Saddam was a tyrant to the Kurds. I think he and other despots have to be stopped. How to do that, I don't know. I'm a humanitarian. I believe equally that the Hutus and Tsutsis shouldn't slaughter each other. But the US doesn't care because it's black people killing other black people and in our country it's inconceivable to too many that blacks can hate other blacks. So millions of people died in one of the worst genocides ever and the US doesn't do squat. Because they didn't have anything we wanted. Iraq is a strategic place militarily, and it had to do partially but not wholly with war. But despots need to go, but he should have been deposed a long time before this happened. The US did too little too late and I don't believe in bombing and killing as a good approach. Even after 911 when we started bombing Afghanistan I think it was just returning one evil for another. And Al Qaeda is still strong. So the interventions we need to do are humanitarian, NOT military. We (or any one) who has the strength should get rid of whatever impediments are in the way to get humanitarian aid to whoever needs it. Al Qaeda needs to go because it oppresses women and everyone with their suppression of human rights. Or, better yet, they need to change and become a group of people who don't do this. I say they become Quakers. :) OK I know that's rambling but I'm all about being humanitarian and using force only to defend the weak.
"wholly with oil" is what I meant to say.
"We were all equal clients to the whore of fiscal genius."
That's the smartest thing anyone has said in their responses here.
Ann
I wasn't trying to pick a fight with anyone. I was really trying to defend Steve and his right to think and vote the way he sees fit. I guess I didn’t do a very good job of that. I also clearly stated that the past 8 years must have been very hard and that his experience in the war must have been difficult as well. Where's the fight there? I never claimed to know what he had to, and still deals with from the war!
The only reason I stated that you have “right-wing” thinking, not “extreme right-wing”, is based on the letter that was posted. You have to admit it is filled with distain for the left-wing.
The last sentence in the first paragraph of my post was poorly stated, all I meant by not seeing both sides of the coin is that people that gather with others that have the same ideals sometimes find it hard to see the other side of an argument. It is true for everyone, regardless if you are left or right-wing. I’m sure it’s true for me.
When I stated right-wing / left-wing families, I meant immediate family that he regularly confers with, not Nathaniel’s extended family that he doesn’t regularly confer with or people he never knew at all. I don't really know what all of their beliefs are.
For the record, I didn’t even know Steve has a blog. Send me a link.
I'm going to have to side with Dan here, Mom. He wasn't being argumentative, and he didn't even call you a right-winger - he only called you not left-wing.
Dan, Dad doesn't have a blog. Where did you think you read that he did?
In your Dad's response he say's "do that on your blog or mine"
I'm a thousand percent sure Mom wrote that.
Oh, I thought the first post was from your dad. I guess it makes sense, I havn't ever seen anything posted by your dad. As far as I can tell, he stays out of all this and is probably the wisest one of all.
Steve is the one who wrote the letter to Nathanael about Obama.
I was the one who said I would "whip Steve with a wet noodle" for writing his son the letter.
I think you were confused as to who wrote the letter.
I also apologize for not putting my name in the post. Yes, I was the one who said "why do you think I'm right wing?"
Ann
Sorry it was not clear to you, Dan. Apology accepted.
Mom/Ann
I knew the letter that was posted was from Steve, I just didn't know the first response to my comment was Ann's and not Steve's.
For the record, I admire Steve's dedication to his country and willingness to serve. I also supported him during his tour, as I do all our troops. I'm just not happy with the way we got into the war and the continued path our outgoing adminstration has handeled it.
I'd rather chew glass than argue on a blog...but, y'all knock yourselves out.
Dad
I bet you'll be talkin' out of the other side of your mouth when I bring some glass home.
Was that actually Dad, as in, my dad? Or Grandpa, like, Dan's and Mom's dad?
I'd say your dad, Grandma and Grandpa are in a different hemisphere and I doubt they are reading any blogs.
Good point. Then, I think that makes the first comment Dad has ever posted here. I wasn't aware he even read this. I don't think he does... probably Mom just pointed him to this post because it deals with his letter. Care to clarify anything, Dad?
O.K. were back from ecuador. Remember this.
YES WE CAN. If you believe in America. G.Pa.
Post a Comment