The Shield Finale

I only watched a couple seasons of The Shield and tonight's finale.

What a great finale! Perfection. Intense. Great episode.

CCH Pounder as Claudette is the heart of the show - she (and others like her) are the real Shield. She stayed strong and principled and steadfast. She didn't give up and she knew when to play her cards. I'm sorry the character will lose her struggle with cancer.

Why is she The Shield? - she protects all of us regular folks from people like Vic. Not just in the police force, but in life. We're all a Shield for the ourselves and we have to have integrity and honesty and courage to keep living in the world we want to live in.

Dutch was a good cop as well. I liked him. But, he sure seemed to get himself into scrapes a lot.

It was sad to see the end of Shane. He never could beat Vic. Sad. The scene when he took his wife to the bathroom - kind of amazing.

One of the central questions of the show has been whether Vic Mackey was a good guy forced to do bad things, or a bad guy who uses the law to hide his bad deeds.

The final moments tell me he was always a bad guy fooling himself into thinking he's a good guy. My recollection is that the ICE lady told him if he took his gun out of the building, he would be violating his immunity agreement and could be prosecuted. I think he decided he was willing to take the chance because he trusts his abilities on the streets, but he doesn't trust being able to get along in the office. He couldn't resist the allure of the streets and was willing to lose all his immunity so he could continue wheeling and dealing.
I wonder if it kind of means that his personality trait of needing to be in on the chase and the deception, etc is neither negative nor positive, but that he ends up using his personality trait for selfish motives so that makes him a bad guy.

Its not ACTIONS that define whether a person is good or bad, but their motives.
Maybe?
And yet, there are certainly ACTIONS that are bad irrespective of motives. Genocide? Murder?

I guess that's part of our struggle as humans. There may be times when doing a bad thing is done for the right reason, but we need to find new ways to achieve our positive goals. Otherwise, we're just as bad as the people who have negative goals.

Anyway - the show was great.

I didn't wastch The Shield for the first couple seasons because it must have been on at a time when something else was on. I started watching when Glenn Close came on. I feel like it might have been earlier, but I don't remember any storylines - they were too complicated and I didn't always know what the details of things were. It was after Aceveda was out as Captain - he was struggling with the rape after effects. And there was Antwone, and then the guy who was trying to get Vic Mackey - man that played out well too. And all the confidential informants and the Russians coming to town. Vic shooting Lem. Yeah - good stories. And it all started when Vic shot the fellow cop and the Team helped him cover it up.

In any event, it was thrilling and intense. When Shane shot Lem - crazy stuff. And then the next little bit of episodes that split Shane and Vic - seriously dramatic.

I didn't watch this season because 1) the previous batch of episodes got kind of twisty and turny and I was't entirely sure what Vic was up to, and 2) with the election and all other drama in real life, I couldn't handle more drama on television.

But, I'm glad I watched the finale. It was perfect for me.

Again, I really think Claudette was the heart of the show. She is the real Shield. That scene when she read Shane's note for Vic and then showed Ronnie that Vic had only gotten immunity for himself. Wow - that was seriously intense. I loved it!

Okay - enough gushing. Again, this was perfect for me because I understood everything that happened and I knew and remembered enough from the previous shows that it was still emotional.

Matt Roush of TV Guide talks about the show...
http://www.tvguide.com/Roush/Roush-Shield-Finale-1000246.aspx

and Maureen Ryan talks about it at the Chicago Tribune:
http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2008/11/shield-finale.html#more

Comments after reading the reviews...

I wasn't one of the people who wanted Vic to win or was charmed by him. I just thought I was on a ride and I was watching it all happen - what could possibly happen next? It was a great story.

I missed the next to last episode, but I think I'd like to watch Vic start listing off all his crimes. I might have missed an important scene when I missed that.

I guess it doesn't matter whether Vic left the cubicle job, or stayed with the cubicle job. He lost everything. It really was a good way to end things. He's screwed no matter what. But, his personality is such that I don't think he could buckle down for three years. He could have made the right choice any number of times during the 7 seasons and he never did. He doesn't believe in the boring, easy way. That's why I think - whether it matters or not - he didn't stay in the cubicle.

Today's question

Protesting is American. And I think its okay to be irreverent about the focus of the protest; to offend people. But, where does hate-filled protest cross the line? I'll have to look into that.

"Face The Nation" and "Meet the Press"

Meet the Press Transcript: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27873500/

Face the Nation video: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4628191n

"Face The Nation" this morning:

I heard Austan Goolsbee, a member of Obama's Economic team talk about the auto makers. He said, it's reasonable that if companies want to avoid bankruptcy and they're having problems they restructure their company. And, part of that restructure often includes a bridge loan. However, and most importantly, the loan is contingent on a business plan. If the government is going to provide a bridge loan to the automakers because the current credit markets are too frozen to provide it, then its even more important to the taxpayers that we have a reasonable plan from the automakers.

The auto maker CEO's displayed their incompetency this week when they not only flew to Washington DC on private jets, but incomprehensibly did not have a plan in place. That's strange and ridiculous. So, I'm glad a plan is being required.

*****

Nancy Pelosi discusses the auto maker bailout. A person commented on the Face the Nation website. I don't like registering for the websites so I'm not going to comment, but this is the person's comment and what I would have said: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/23/ftn/main4628137.shtml

Comment: "Bob, another puff piece interview this time with Pelosi. After you two roundly criticized the Big 3''s management, you didn''t ask the next question. What about labor and the UAW? Was this a mistake, or were you told to dtay away from that topic? The biggest expense for any organization is labor. With union members making an unrealistic $100,000 or more per year, there has to be a reduction. Nor did you mention the job bank workers who get paid for doing nothing. If a plan emerges from the next administration that doesn''t touch excessive labor costs, we will know that Obama is tied to big labor. That won''t fly with a lot of people. You should have challenged Pelosi on that. Since you didn''t, your interview might as well have never happened."

My response: "I disagree...Nancy Pelosi has no obligation to make any comment about the unions. Its the auto makers who signed the union agreements and agreed with the current labor costs. The CEO's will be developing some kind of business plan to discuss their restructuring. Its incumbent upon them to work with the unions to create a workable solution for the company and the workers. I hope the unions will consider the companies a partner in regional economic survival. But, that's between them. The suggestion that the government - congress, even - should interfere with labor relations is the kind of government interference in the free market that will only compound the problems we currently face."

*****

Nancy Pelosi also discussed the 700 billion dollar bailout.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Let me talk to you just about the economy in general. So far, the Treasury, I guess, has used 250 billion of the 700 billion dollar financial bailout that passed the Congress. Yet the stock market seems to be in free fall, nobody seems to know what's going on. Do you have confidence in this plan that Secretary Paulsen has put forward. And do you have confidence in him generally?

NANCY PELOSI: Well, earlier this week, on Monday, the House Democrats called in Secretary Paulsen and Chairman Bernanke. We're all busy people, and I said to them 'I know you're busy and you're under pressure. So are we. We want to know what's going on with this rescue plan. It was supposed to instill confidence, we don't see that in the markets.' They maintain matters would be much worse if we had not made that infusion of cash. We thought that this money was going to circulate credit, put credit out there, so many more people could function in a business sense. And that doesn't seem to be happening. They tell us it will. We were very concerned about the fact that the legislation called very specifically for them to help with mortgage forebearance to help people stay in their homes. They've done nothing on that score. They've testified to that effect the next day in front of all of Congress. And I think they got the word that we want to see some results from this legislation. But, again, as they say, it would be worse without this. Now we have another installment of the money, and I think that Congress is going to demand some real accountability - I know they will - before we can proceed with other money.

*****

I no longer trust Henry Paulsen. Well, I only barely did before, but I was willing to give him a chance. And then, on "Meet the Press" I hear this exchange:

MR. BROKAW: Well, let, let me take this to the next phase, if I can. I want to share with you what Secretary Paulson had to say recently, November 13th, about the stabilization of the American banking system. Here's what he had to say.

(Videotape)

SEC'Y HENRY PAULSON: I believe the banking system has been stabilized. No one is asking themselves anymore is there some major institution that might fail and that we would not be able to do anything about it. So I think that is a positive.

Unidentified Man: There could be a failure of another major institution?

SEC'Y PAULSON: I, I got to tell you, I think our, our major institutions have been stabilized. I believe that very strongly.

(End videotape)

MR. BROKAW: And shortly after that statement, as we all know, Citibank, one of the largest financial institutions in the world, had its stock drop by 64 percent in a matter of days, hours. It was in free fall. It's now looking for additional government assistance.

*****

And then, there's this article from the New York Times yesterday:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/business/23citi.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

The headline is The Reckoning: Citigroup pays for the rush to risk.

Which leads to another sidenote. The article states:
"The bank’s downfall was years in the making and involved many in its hierarchy, particularly Mr. Prince and Robert E. Rubin, an influential director and senior adviser.

Citigroup insiders and analysts say that Mr. Prince and Mr. Rubin played pivotal roles in the bank’s current woes, by drafting and blessing a strategy that involved taking greater trading risks to expand its business and reap higher profits. Mr. Prince and Mr. Rubin both declined to comment for this article."

Who is Robert E Rubin? From the article:
"When he was Treasury secretary during the Clinton administration, Mr. Rubin helped loosen Depression-era banking regulations that made the creation of Citigroup possible by allowing banks to expand far beyond their traditional role as lenders and permitting them to profit from a variety of financial activities. During the same period he helped beat back tighter oversight of exotic financial products, a development he had previously said he was helpless to prevent.

And since joining Citigroup in 1999 as a trusted adviser to the bank’s senior executives, Mr. Rubin, who is an economic adviser on the transition team of President-elect Barack Obama, has sat atop a bank that has been roiled by one financial miscue after another."

And that's all for the sidenote.

*****

On "Meet the Press" James Baker suggests that it would help confidence if Obama and Bush could find even one thing that they agree on to help the economy for the immediate days and weeks ahead. I agree. Somebody's got to be in charge. Bush is President, but doing nothing. And Obama is President-elect and can't do anything. Unfortunately, they have differing views on solving the problem, but there must be ONE thing they could agree on.

"MR BAKER: May I say one other thing, Tom? I, I think that a lot of what we're seeing out there today is a lack of confidence, and the president-elect and, as a matter of fact, the current president have to face this problem over the next 60 days. It's unfortunate that we're in this interregnum of a transition, but I think that something very useful might even come out of the two of them sitting down together and addressing not the, not the midterm, not the mid and long-term problem that we face that was the subject of the president-elect's speech, but the--but facing--but addressing stability of our financial system and to see if there isn't something that they could do jointly, together, over the next 58 to 60 days that would help us make sure that the--that the financial system is stabilized and, and secure. Because if that goes under, then this thing is even, believe it or not, going to get worse. And I think just the mere fact of their sitting down together and seeing if there's not one thing that they could come together on would do a lot to restore confidence and, and remove the anxiety and fear that's out there."

"MR. BAKER: I agree. I agree 100 percent. We can only have one president at a time, but nothing would do more to create confidence and, and eliminate the fear and anxiety that's out there, particularly in the finance--in financial markets, than to see the incoming president and the outgoing president get together on a--on some sort of a proposal or, or program over the short term. I'm not talking about the, the mid, the mid-term or, or long-term correction of the economy, but something that would do a little more perhaps to make sure that our, that our banks don't continue to slide down and, and that would stabilize our financial system, which is critical."

*****

Tom Brokaw spoke to Joe Lieberman. I don't like Joe Lieberman anymore. I won't support him. Its not because he supported his friend John McCain. Its because he supported the campaign of his friend John McCain. He liked Sarah Palin, he said Obama wasn't experienced enough. He's lucky I wasn't deciding his fate because I would have kicked him out of the Democratic caucus. I would shun him. Another reason I'm not in charge of anything. I'm not temperate enough.

*****

In the roundtable discussion of Meet the Press, the group seems to think Baker's idea to get Bush and Obama to present something jointly is a good idea. Also, they think the unions should be part of the testimony on capital hill. I don't - let the company and union work it out themselves.

Same Place, Different Time

This picture was taken on June 20, 2005 at the Japanese Garden in Portland, Oregon.

This picture was taken in October 2008 at the Japanese Garden in Portland, Oregon.

Meme

I've heard this word more often lately and not understood what it meant - and didn't bother to look it up.

In today's paper there's a review of Malcolm Gladwell's new book 'Outliers' in which its described: "Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins coined the word 'meme' to indicate a small, persisting unit of culture, in effect our social DNA."

Ahh...that's what meme is.

I think this concept deserves some thought. How many of our decisions are based on memes - memes that are no longer applicable, but stubbornly hang on. Interesting.

*****

And the dictionary definition:

meme 
/mim/
–noun
a cultural item that is transmitted by repetition in a manner analogous to the biological transmission of genes.

Origin: 1976; < Gk mīmeîsthai to imitate, copy; coined by R. Dawkins, Brit. biologist Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. ***** meme philosophy/meem/ [By analogy with "gene"] Richard Dawkins's term for an idea considered as a replicator, especially with the connotation that memes parasitise people into propagating them much as viruses do.Memes can be considered the unit of cultural evolution. Ideas can evolve in a way analogous to biological evolution. Some ideas survive better than others; ideas can mutate through, for example, misunderstandings; and two ideas can recombine to produce a new idea involving elements of each parent idea.The term is used especially in the phrase "meme complex" denoting a group of mutually supporting memes that form an organised belief system, such as a religion. However, "meme" is often misused to mean "meme complex".Use of the term connotes acceptance of the idea that in humans (and presumably other tool- and language-using sophonts) cultural evolution by selection of adaptive ideas has become more important than biological evolution by selection of hereditary traits. Hackers find this idea congenial for tolerably obvious reasons.See also memetic algorithm.[The Jargon File](1996-08-11)

Obama's 11/22/2008 message

http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/2_5_million_jobs/

We really are a nation afloat. Bush has stopped governing (if he ever was) and Obama won't take over before he's supposed to. I like Obama's plan to rebuild our infrastructure to make sure people have jobs. But, we need it now!

From his message:

"But what is not negotiable is the need for immediate action."
"These Americans need help and they need it now."
"It is time to act. As the next President of the United States, I will."

So, he knows we need something now. From the tone of his words it sounds like he knows the current President isn't planning on doing anything. Yet, he won't do anything either. Grrr!

Now, let me be clear - he's completely right that there's only one President at a time. There's nothing he can do. But, given the current state of our economy, I would like something bold and decisive and exciting to happen. Like, just take over!!! Bush should acknowledge his heart's not in it anymore (and really, he's rich so none of this affects him anyway) and make it official that we can swear in Obama now instead of later.

That's why I'm not in charge of anything. I get too upset and scream out "SOMEBODY JUST DO SOMETHING!!".

When that happens in my small world I might jump in to do something because I see nobody else is doing anything and then I get screwed because I have no authority and no support. So, its not a good idea. But, its REALLY frustrating!!!! Two months is a long time in this economy.

Throw Out 50 Things

I'm completely inspired to find 50 things in this small apartment I can throw out.

http://www.amazon.com/Throw-Out-Fifty-Things-Clutter/dp/044650579X

I'm sorry to the author and publisher, but the title alone tells me all I need to know. This is my project through Thanksgiving weekend!

Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State

Is this the beginning of a pattern with Hillary Clinton? Or, the Barack Obama administration? Why are we having to wait so long for Hillary Clinton to finally say she accepts the role of Secretary of State? She's drawing this out much longer than is necessary. She did the same thing in the primaries. And before she gave her Saturday concession speech. Everything's a big hush hush secret (except that everyone knows) until the last minute. Is this so she can stay in the spotlight? WTF is going on? Accept the position already.

Whether she's the right candidate for the job, I don't know.
She's very smart. I like her. All is well.
But, what about Joe Biden? Wasn't he supposed to have some role in foreign policy? I hope he made sure of it.
And, she did cave in to political pressure to vote for George Bush's war powers act that got us into the Iraq War.
And, she didn't run her campaign very well.

I continue to trust that Obama knows what he's doing.

Photo

I can't explain why, but I enjoy looking at this picture. Upon closer inspection, I think it demonstrates my lack of expertise related to the aperture; the horizontal slats are slightly out of focus. I guess that's kind of okay, because the knot is in focus and that's the dominant point in the picture.

I'm learning how to use a Nikon D60.

I took the picture at the Japanese Garden in Portland, Oregon in October this year.

I like this card

Here is a card I made a couple weeks ago. I have demonstrated some progress in card making, but not photography. the lighting is bad. Lighting is my Achilles Heel. Its imperative that I learn how to make light work for me.

The View - Rosie O'Donnell, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, and Barbara Walters

I'm giving in to my need to share my opinion. Even if the topic is completely manufactured and ridiculous. This is my opinion and not based on anything other than watching the show. Its my perception only. I could be completely wrong.

First, in a work situation you learn to get along with people you don't like. So, to the degree that they are work mates, I believe that, at the least, the hosts learn to appreciate parts of their coworkers personalities, even if they wouldn't spend time with them outside of work.

Barbara Walters is about making money. She'd like to believe she's still a newsperson, but I don't think she is. She's the executive producer of the show. She's the one who determines the tone and direction of the show. When they started discussing all the ABC reality shows (The Bachelor) so incessantly, I realized she's all about making money.

She often makes a point to toot her own horn. Its fine once in a while because she's had an interesting life. But, its clear Barbara doesn't like the parade passing her by. She creates opportunities to talk about her pioneering status at ABC News, or her entertainment specials, or who she's interviewed. I remember when Meredith took the job at The Today Show, and before Barbara could say congratulations, (on the show at least). she made a point to remind everyone she was the first woman on that show or something like that.

I don't think she likes Elisabeth Hasselbeck any more than anyone else, but she wants to make money.

Rosie O'Donnell is a tough cookie and she's ready to play the game, but she also wears her heart on her sleeve. She believes what she's told and feels betrayed when people don't live up to her expectations. That's why she's still frustrated and angry about her experience on the View. She believed Elisabeth was her friend. She believed Barbara understood her. Neither of them was as genuine and Rosie would have hoped, and expected. I understand Rosie's frustration - the more she tries to tell the truth, the more the 'machine' works against her.

I don't think I could be friends with Elisabeth Hasselbeck. I could be friendly and civil towards her, but not her friend. I think Rosie is the same. Apparently they've exchanged e-mails, so maybe they are more than just friendly to each other. I'm sure if you compartmentalize who Elisabeth Hasselbeck is, she's probably a nice person. I happen to think people's political views are a reflection of their entire personhood. I don't like the politics she stands for; not that she's a Republican, but that she's an ideologue.

Anyway - the whole 'affair' is stupid and if the news hadn't shown a story about it, I wouldn't even have thought about it.

Why is it coming up now? Because Rosie has a new variety show coming up. The question is - did promoting the variety show put Rosie in the position of being interviewed more often and the interviewers asked her about The View? Or, is she talking about The View so she'll get interviewed more and her variety show will be promoted? Which came first - the chicken or the egg?

Well, my take on this is that Rosie is being interviewed more and the media are asking her about The View and she's answering honestly.

I think Joy Behar is the type who knows who signs the paychecks and stays out of this. I'd be interested to know what she thinks. I think Joy and Barbara understand each other and are good friends. (Barbara is on the liberal side, I think). Joy is loyal to her own interests - the 'feud' doesn't involve her so she won't get involved. Which would frustrate me but its perfectly reasonable and acceptable. I think Rosie's emotional openness makes Joy uncomfortable so they probably aren't great friends outside the office, but they had a good working relationship. Joy makes it clear she won't get involved.

Okay - that's what I think. It means nothing.

Big 3 loan again

This morning I feel like we should let the Big 3 auto manufacturers (GM, Ford, Chrysler) fail.
Why?

1. Those CEO's are unbelievable and have no idea what they're doing. I don't trust them at all.
2. According to some, the alternative to bailing them out is a depression like we've never seen before. Somebody is trying to scare me into agreeing with them. I don't think its good to make decisions from fear.
3. Where does it end? What industries will be determined to be so important to the American economy that we need to save them? What is the criteria? Nobody knows.
4. The problem with the auto industry is that it hasn't stayed competitive. A bailout won't change that.
5. I have said I'd support a loan to the automakers with S T R O N G strings attached. But, I don't trust the government to make a good negotiation that will stick.

The other side of the coin, for me, is all those workers who might lose their jobs. That's a stiff price to pay. I don't feel comfortable making a decision that doesn't directly affect me (though indirectly it could), but could cause other people to suffer. Especially through no fault of their own.

Which makes me wonder what the workers think.
And then I remember that part of the problem is that the government has been supporting the automotive and big oil companies for years with their lackadaisical fuel efficiency policies and that was done with the support of congress. The same workers who might now be affected are probably the same people who voted for congresspeople who supported the bad policies of the big oil and big 3 automakers.

So, maybe the people in that area have helped to create the situation they're in by their selection of congress people? I'd have to research the policies of congresspeople in that area.

That's an example of the how important our votes can be and how easily we can be manipulated to vote against our own interest.

As of this moment, Harry Reid has decided not to vote in the Senate today about auto manufacturers loan. Those private jets really did them in! What a bunch of idiots!

I still think the issues that have been brought out in this discussion and the previous one about the financial markets are important. We need to come to terms with this.

And what about all the other industries that are supported by the government, but we don't even talk about? Farmers still get subsidies and price supports don't they? We add tariffs (?) to countries that want to import commodities that we consider special. Right?
So, all this talk about socialism and stuff like that is a little disingenous.

Auto manufacturer's loan

Some additional pros and cons about an automaker loan (not all my thoughts - I watched C-SPAN this morning):

1. Auto manufacturing is the last manufacturing base in America.
2. If we attach strings to the loan we have leverage to make the automakers move quickly on alternative energy cars.
3. In the 80's Chrysler received a loan from the federal government. They paid it back more quickly than required, and the government got about 800 million extra dollars.
4. There is a 50 billion dollar infrastructure bill that the Congress is/will be looking at.
5. The automakers want a 25 billion dollar LOAN. Where would the money come from? Additional money from the government?, as part of the 700 billion already allocated to Treasury?, or can it be taken from an energy bill that is giving automakers money to retool for green type cars?
6. Automakers support communities and families. If they go under, the whole region is at risk. Not to mention the people who depend on the pension money.
7. Chrysler was bailed out by the Federal Government and still made a mess, so Mercedes Benz partnered (?) with them and even they gave up. So, now they want more money.
8. All the CEO's of the automakers flew to Washington to testify today and to ask for money. They flew here in private jets.
9. All these companies have been sending jobs out of the country all these years.
10. The management of these companies must be bad, otherwise they wouldn't keep getting in trouble.
11. It was the car manufacturers who scrapped the electric car - "Who killed the electric car?". So, they haven't built the kind of cars for the futre.
12. Apprently, their cars are not well made. I like my Ford car and haven't had any troubles, so I'm not sure what this is about. But, the American cars do have a reputation.
13. By 'bailing' out the automakers we're fighting the trend of competitive forces.
14. Its unconstitutional for America to selectively bail out some companies and industries and not others. The government shouldn't be making that choice.
15. Domestic manufacturers pay about $30/hour of fully absorbed payroll costs more than foreign car companies manufacturing in the US. The problem with the car manufacturers is their union contracts, and bad product mix. Bailing them out won't help.
16. One option is to let the companies go bankrupt, but (in order to keep customers from shying away from a bankrupt company) let the federal government warranty the cars or something like that.

I still don't know what the right answer is. As of this evening, it looks like the chances of a loan in the lame duck congress is slim. Henry Paulsen is against helping the auto makers. it didn't help when it got out that the CEO's used the private jets today.

Once again, we're left with some crappy choices.

I guess I gotta go with the best interest of the workers and advocate for the loan.
However, I wouldn't do it unless there are some really powerful strings attached related to energy efficient cars, and new management personnel and style, and bringing jobs back to America.

I don't know if I trust Congress to get a lot of concessions though.

Some people talked about letting the big 3 go bankrupt and support the smaller car manufacturers in the country. That would be okay, but I don't know who those car makers are.

A tough 24 months

November 2004 - George Bush reelected for a second term
December 26, 2004 - Indian Ocean Earthquake leading to tsunami
August 29, 2005 - Hurricane Katrina
October 8, 2005 - Great Pakistan Earthquake
July 2006 - Hezbollah/Israel war
October 9, 2006 - North Korea tests first nuclear weapon

Bailouts

I wrote a few days ago about the bailout of auto makers. If it weren't for the fact that its regular workers who would be getting screwed, I'd be against the bailout.

A Personal Side Note:
In my life, my mother would help me out if I followed her rules and was accountable to her for every penny, etc. Which is why I've asked my mother for help rarely, and never for any significant sum. (In all honesty, my mother has been generous with Christmas and birthday presents though.)
I learned to live with my mother's philosophy, essentially - you made your bed, you have to sleep in it. Its true - its my fault for getting into trouble and I'll have to pay the consequences.

That's an easy philosophy when no one else is involved. Nobody else depended on me for money or jobs or support. So, I dealt with it.

When I was in my early 20's my Grandmother bought me a bookcase that I like, and still use. While talking afterward, she kind of whined that I should get my hair cut. "Won't you get your hair cut?" "For me?" When I told her I didn't want to get my hair cut, she said that if she'd known that, she wouldn't have bought me the bookcase. That exchange, while not the first time it had happened - nor the last, is the one I remember that describes the relationship between money and control in my house. And why asking for financial help is my last resort. (My Mom and Grandma are good people - they just learned that money is control and passed it on to me. And, individually, it is. I have control over my own destiny when I can afford it. But, I wouldn't want to use money to get what I want from people.)

So, my personal feelings color my public feelings about bailouts. You made your bed, you lie in it.

But, I also understand, that at this point, I'm not sure our economy can stand having a lot of unemployed people in one region of the country.

I don't know what the right answer is.

My only solution is to do what my mother did - if we give them money, they have to follow our rules for running the company.

I'm also concerned that the government not artificially support an economic model or a product that is no longer in the country's best interest, just to save a job. We asked forestry workers to find new jobs when a lot of them were laid off to save the spotted owl. Maybe its time we asked automakers to find a new industry.

If we do bail them out and we have some say in how they run their business, its a good idea to require automakers to create cars that are fuel efficient beyond our current standards.

Anyway - as usual, I don't have an answer, only considerations and conflicting points of view.
And I didn't write about it all that well, either.

Unions

I like unions. I like the idea of people working together for a common cause.

And why were unions necessary? Because company owners were not valuing workers. Working conditions were bad, companies took advantage of people with few options, and sweat equity was not rewarded.

So, unions came into being.

After awhile unions started asking for more and more.

Companies are being taken down by the excessive union contracts (automakers).

I think the unions should give a little for the sake of all of us. But, I also think the company big shots should share the wealth among the workers more. On their own. If the company could be trusted to share a reasonable amount of profit with the workers, a union wouldn't be necessary. A CEO receives 20 million dollars a year and a worker makes less than 100, 000 a year. That sounds unreasonable. Maybe the CEO should receive 10 million a year and the workers can get a bit more.

That's all I'm asking for. But, I'm not in a union.

Taxes

I don't mind paying taxes. Its the price I pay for living in a great country with good roads, good water, police and fire protection, a court system, etc, etc, etc.

Nothing comes from free and if we want things to work well, we have to pay for it.

Nobody likes waste though. All Americans (Democrats and Republicans alike) can agree that wasting tax payer money is the sin.

Of course, what some people call a waste, other people call a necessity.

I think the social security limit should be changed. We shouldn't have a dollar value limit, but a percent limit. Everyone should pay the same rate up to x% of their pay. Wouldn't that solve the problem of rich people having to pay considerably less tax as a percentage of their income?

I don't understand the reasoning behind the estate tax. I haven't researched it. I wonder if its a way to protect against an aristocracy? I don't know. I'll look into it. But, it doesn't seem reasonable to tax estate money, because, hasn't it already been taxed as income?

Capital gains tax is fine. Its income (or loss). And mostly rich people are the ones who get this, so I'm even okay with a reasonably higher rate than normal income. I should research that one a little more as well, though.

Reality Bites

As of Saturday, at least 4,200 members of the U.S. military have died in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes eight military civilians killed in action.
At least 3,390 military personnel died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers.
The AP count is four hgher than the Defense Department's tally, last updated Saturday at 7 am PST.

As of Saturday at least 555 members of the US military had died in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan as a result of the US Invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001, according to the Defense Department. The department last updated its figures Friday at 7 am PST
Of those, the military reports 403 were killed by hostile action.

Questions for me until Barack Obama's Inaguration

I want the new administration to start but it won't be until after Thanksgiving and Christmas and New Year's Day. Who knows what will happen in the next two months - will I be keep my job? will I make Christmas cards? will I learn how not be angry at work people? will I figure out what to buy my family for Christmas presents? will I be lonely? will the country really change because of Barack Obama? will I be motivated to exercise, volunteer, eat properly? will the stock market stabilize? will I make an appointment with the dentist, gynecologist, dermatologist? will I move? will I become a hermit?

Where is Barack Obama

There have only been 9 complete days since the election and today.

And yet, I want to see Barack Obama fired up and ready for change!

I don't think its fair of me, so I don't want to sound like I'm criticizing or that I'll stop supporting Obama.

I just wish I saw more action. Its not his style to be impulsive and that's one reason I voted for him. But, I want to move beyond George Bush! I'm ready for Obama's administration!

George Bush is almost invisible. I understand he's ready to be done, and I think it shows. I don't blame him for feeling that way - even if I supported his policies and his tone, I'd still recognize he had a hard administration.

Obama is going to make a real obvious distinction between him and Bush.
He's given up his Senate seat so he won't be voting on any lame duck congressional action.
He's not going to the G20 economic conference this week.
He makes a point of talking about ONE president at a time.
His surrogates are not talking specifics on any of his programs yet - its a continuation of the campaign speeches.

Anyway - I'm ready and I wish Obama could take over already.