Perelandran commentary on a Thulcandran existence
I’ve been posting links to different articles and such as I come across them which are helpful in explaining the whole financial meltdown thing. I am doing this because EYE really want to understand it but don’t, and assume a lot of people are in the same boat.
This cartoon is absolutely brilliant and hilarious at the same time, and is probably as good an explanation as I have seen anywhere.
Warning: a little bit of bad language. It’s entirely worth it though.
As I have said, I am posting anything I happen to write for my New Testament literature class, so here’s another short essay. I expect this to be the last one on the gospels as we will soon be diving into the Pauline writings.
Enjoy the break from political and economic rants.
The Gospel of John is called the “spiritual gospel”, and a difference is maintained among scholars between it and the synoptic writings. The spiritual nature of the book lends itself to a variety of interpretation, and one of these historical interpretations has been from the standpoint of Gnostic thought and theology. There are many aspects in which John can be seen as a Gnostic book, however at the same time John is very hostile to Gnosticism in some ways as well.
The fundamentals of Gnostic thought rest on the basis that the material world inhabited by humanity is, by definition, a dark place, and the spiritual world is a place of light. Knowledge of this spiritual light through the overcoming of the material world- an idea from which the word Gnosticism derives- becomes the goal of existence. This understanding of the nature of reality can be stipulated from the mainstream of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or other monotheistic theologies; whereas in these traditions the material world was at some point “very good”- or at the very least, amoral- a Gnostic understanding of the world avers that the material world is either a product of error or evil in itself, not created directly by the light or “God”. The world was either crafted by the light force non-ex nihilo, i.e. out of materialistic parts that happened to be lying about, or the monadic deity had no involvement in the material creation whatsoever. Instead, the world is a product of a second, lesser deity known as the demiurge.
The opening of the Gospel of John perhaps provides the seminal example of the ability for both a Gnostic and a non- Gnostic (such unfortunate alliteration) interpretation of a segment. The passage discusses an understanding of God as the light, and of Jesus as the Word having its origination from the light, and “the light shines in the darkness, but the darkness did not overcome it.” What clearer picture of spiritualized knowledge- the very basis Gnostic thought- could be painted than to describe Jesus as “the Word”, or logos (in Greek thought, that which links the human mind to the mind of God)? Not only this, but the darkness of the world is separate from the light, and in various translations is capable of neither overcoming nor understanding the light. Indeed, John continues to tell that the mission of the light itself is to “enlighten the world”, and here we find the Gnostic idea of knowledge coming only from an experience with the source of the light. The light was coming specifically to interact with the world and impart knowledge. At the same time however, in this same passage there are explicit contradictions to Gnostic rumination, beginning with the statement that “All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being,” and continuing with “the Word became flesh.” This is clearly an assault on one of the tenants of Gnostic theology, and there may be no more effective way to state for the reader, “the material world was not created by a demiurge; the material world has the logos at the impetus of its existence. Even the Word itself did not find material existence so abhorrent as to abstain from coming to live as part of it.” Continuing on, John the Baptist is sent to “testify to the light, so that all men might believe through him.” Indeed, this statement constitutes another shot across the bow of Gnosticism in that knowledge of the light is specifically delineated to be based not on experiential knowledge, but propositional knowledge. The only way to learn about truth, from a Gnostic perspective, is not to be told about it from another party- as John himself is doing, and as his character John the Baptizer is doing- but through experiential, participatory knowledge. Indeed, if John were a character of Gnostic provenance, he would not have said- TWICE- “I myself did not know him” (1:31, 33), and “testified that this is the Son of God”. He would have invited others to come experience the Son of God for themselves.
Continuing on from the introduction, there is no shortage of other places for Gnostics to find fertile ground for their beliefs to take root. Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus, in which Jesus instructs him to become born of the spirit as opposed to being born of the flesh, is an example. Jesus likes to say about himself that he is not of this world, but is “from above”, and the “light of the world”- leading the reader to surmise that he is drawing an unfavorable comparison between material and spiritual existence. In addition, the wording of remaining in him, and Jesus prayer that all of his followers be one together (17:22) indicates a very spiritualized understanding of the mechanics of Christian practice. However, there is one glaringly obvious point with which the Gnostic reader of John much struggle; the bodily resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of John seemingly throws a wrench into the idea that the goal of religious life ought to be to overcome and eventually leave behind the material, which is by definition a dirty and undesirable state for the light to debase itself. Already mentioned before was the untenable notion (from a Gnostic perspective) that the eternal logos may debase itself to a fleshly existence, yet this might be forgivable if the story culminated in a throwing off of that existence as an example to humanity; but the Gospel concludes with the exact opposite event. The tomb, we are told, is empty; to underscore the fact that Jesus’ resurrected body is fleshly in nature, Thomas is told “Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side”, and again we find the evangelist actively engaged in fending off the roots of Gnostic thought.
Ok so apparently Putin and Chavez have seen Red Dawn:
Putin says ties with Latin America a top priority
NOVO-OGARYOVO, Russia (AP) - Prime Minister Vladimir Putin vowed Thursday to make relations with Latin America a top foreign policy priority, a pledge backed by the first Russian naval deployment to the Caribbean since the Cold War.
WOLVERINES!
I recall (vaguely- I’m a rather unskilled recall-er) an incident in my youth in which there was some sort of problem being discussed between myself and another person. In the course of the discussion, the other person suddenly blurted out in response to my line of argument: “It doesn’t matter who is to blame, let’s figure out the problem!”
That always stuck with me, but with the opposite effect which was intended. I think blame is hugely important. Our entire court system is based on assigning blame for crime. The central tenant of the Christian religion is the miraculous reassignment of sin-guilt from one party to another. Until we understand who is responsible for a crime or a mistake, we can’t have a full understanding of the grievance itself, and we can much more easily remedy a situation when we have all the information.
And so I believe it’s important to understand what group of people is most responsible for the current financial crisis, and by extension, whether the long-term answer to problem is more government or less government. The following op-ed was immensely helpful for me in lucidating the blame game.
Blame Fannie Mae and Congress
For the Credit MessMany monumental errors and misjudgments contributed to the acute financial turmoil in which we now find ourselves. Nevertheless, the vast accumulation of toxic mortgage debt that poisoned the global financial system was driven by the aggressive buying of subprime and Alt-A mortgages, and mortgage-backed securities, by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The poor choices of these two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) — and their sponsors in Washington — are largely to blame for our current mess.
How did we get here? Let’s review: In order to curry congressional support after their accounting scandals in 2003 and 2004, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac committed to increased financing of “affordable housing.” They became the largest buyers of subprime and Alt-A mortgages between 2004 and 2007, with total GSE exposure eventually exceeding $1 trillion. In doing so, they stimulated the growth of the subpar mortgage market and substantially magnified the costs of its collapse.
It is important to understand that, as GSEs, Fannie and Freddie were viewed in the capital markets as government-backed buyers (a belief that has now been reduced to fact). Thus they were able to borrow as much as they wanted for the purpose of buying mortgages and mortgage-backed securities. Their buying patterns and interests were followed closely in the markets. If Fannie and Freddie wanted subprime or Alt-A loans, the mortgage markets would produce them. By late 2004, Fannie and Freddie very much wanted subprime and Alt-A loans. Their accounting had just been revealed as fraudulent, and they were under pressure from Congress to demonstrate that they deserved their considerable privileges. Among other problems, economists at the Federal Reserve and Congressional Budget Office had begun to study them in detail, and found that — despite their subsidized borrowing rates — they did not significantly reduce mortgage interest rates. In the wake of Freddie’s 2003 accounting scandal, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan became a powerful opponent, and began to call for stricter regulation of the GSEs and limitations on the growth of their highly profitable, but risky, retained portfolios.
If they were not making mortgages cheaper and were creating risks for the taxpayers and the economy, what value were they providing? The answer was their affordable-housing mission. So it was that, beginning in 2004, their portfolios of subprime and Alt-A loans and securities began to grow. Subprime and Alt-A originations in the U.S. rose from less than 8% of all mortgages in 2003 to over 20% in 2006. During this period the quality of subprime loans also declined, going from fixed rate, long-term amortizing loans to loans with low down payments and low (but adjustable) initial rates, indicating that originators were scraping the bottom of the barrel to find product for buyers like the GSEs.
The strategy of presenting themselves to Congress as the champions of affordable housing appears to have worked. Fannie and Freddie retained the support of many in Congress, particularly Democrats, and they were allowed to continue unrestrained. Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass), for example, now the chair of the House Financial Services Committee, openly described the “arrangement” with the GSEs at a committee hearing on GSE reform in 2003: “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have played a very useful role in helping to make housing more affordable . . . a mission that this Congress has given them in return for some of the arrangements which are of some benefit to them to focus on affordable housing.” The hint to Fannie and Freddie was obvious: Concentrate on affordable housing and, despite your problems, your congressional support is secure.
In light of the collapse of Fannie and Freddie, both John McCain and Barack Obama now criticize the risk-tolerant regulatory regime that produced the current crisis. But Sen. McCain’s criticisms are at least credible, since he has been pointing to systemic risks in the mortgage market and trying to do something about them for years. In contrast, Sen. Obama’s conversion as a financial reformer marks a reversal from his actions in previous years, when he did nothing to disturb the status quo. The first head of Mr. Obama’s vice-presidential search committee, Jim Johnson, a former chairman of Fannie Mae, was the one who announced Fannie’s original affordable-housing program in 1991 — just as Congress was taking up the first GSE regulatory legislation.
In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then under Republican control, adopted a strong reform bill, introduced by Republican Sens. Elizabeth Dole, John Sununu and Chuck Hagel, and supported by then chairman Richard Shelby. The bill prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios, and gave their regulator prudential authority (such as setting capital requirements) roughly equivalent to a bank regulator. In light of the current financial crisis, this bill was probably the most important piece of financial regulation before Congress in 2005 and 2006. All the Republicans on the Committee supported the bill, and all the Democrats voted against it. Mr. McCain endorsed the legislation in a speech on the Senate floor. Mr. Obama, like all other Democrats, remained silent.
Now the Democrats are blaming the financial crisis on “deregulation.” This is a canard. There has indeed been deregulation in our economy — in long-distance telephone rates, airline fares, securities brokerage and trucking, to name just a few — and this has produced much innovation and lower consumer prices. But the primary “deregulation” in the financial world in the last 30 years permitted banks to diversify their risks geographically and across different products, which is one of the things that has kept banks relatively stable in this storm.
As a result, U.S. commercial banks have been able to attract more than $100 billion of new capital in the past year to replace most of their subprime-related write-downs. Deregulation of branching restrictions and limitations on bank product offerings also made possible bank acquisition of Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch, saving billions in likely resolution costs for taxpayers.
If the Democrats had let the 2005 legislation come to a vote, the huge growth in the subprime and Alt-A loan portfolios of Fannie and Freddie could not have occurred, and the scale of the financial meltdown would have been substantially less. The same politicians who today decry the lack of intervention to stop excess risk taking in 2005-2006 were the ones who blocked the only legislative effort that could have stopped it.
Mr. Calomiris is a professor of finance and economics at Columbia Business School and a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Wallison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was general counsel of the Treasury Department in the Reagan administration.
It’s all over the news right now that McCain is suspending his campaign and heading to Washington in order to help get this financial stuff figured out. The debate Friday looks like it will be canceled and he’s asking Obama to join him in Washington so the parties can “put aside differences” and get things done.
This is a great political move by McCain, but the best part about it is that I think that for him, the political reasons for this are secondary. We are talking about a man who staked his reputation on the belief that the surge in Iraq would be a success. I truly believe that the primary reason McCain is doing this is because he truly believes in his campaign’s mantra: “Country First”.
The question now is: what does Obama do now?
A minute ago, Drudgereport had a link up top to CNN saying “Obama says campaign suspension not necessary…”, but it disappeared a second later. Does this mean the Obama camp had a knee-jerk reaction but was instantly having second thoughts? It’s possible. In the instant-news, split-second-update world which we live in these days, it may be that someone on the Obama team made a statement that was immediately suppressed while they figure out what they want to do with this.
I think Obama’s best move here would be to go to Washington, but to find a way to one-up McCain’s country first mantra while there. How? I don’t know. What I do know is, if the reaction I saw on Drudge is the one that sticks, Obama will pay a heavy price in the polls.
UPDATE: Obama says the debate is on!
Wow. Just wow. Bad move by Barack. If he keeps at this, this news cycle is lost for him.
I don’t actually think that this will happen- but boy oh boy, for those who enjoy political theater, it’s fun to think about.
…was September 19th. And I missed it.
Oh well. In honor of the day, I share some of best (but also oldest) pirate jokes:
Who is a pirate’s favorite movie character?
Captain Jack Sparrow? NO! It’s ARRRRR-too-dee-too.
Who does a pirate enjoy fighting the most?
The Navy? NO! The ARRRRRRRRmy.
Who is a pirate’s favorite Greek Deity?
Poseidon, god of the sea? NO! ARRRRRRtemis.
What is a pirate’s favorite fast food place?
Long John Silvers? NO! It’s ARRRRRRRRby’s.
What’s a pirates favorite holiday?
Talk Like A Pirate Day? NO! It’s ARRRRRbor Day.
And finally….
What is a pirate’s favorite letter of the alphabet?
What? Did you say ‘R’? NO! It’s P of course. P for Pirate. ARRRRRen’t you paying attention?
Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton were both invited to speak at a rally today against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and a nuclear Iran. Clinton, after finding out Palin was coming, opted out. Which is fine- she can do what she likes. Unfortunately, Palin was then disinvited by rally organizers. The reason for this is not clear to me.
However, below is the text of the speech she would have given today. It’s pretty great.
I am honored to be with you and with leaders from across this great country - leaders from different faiths and political parties united in a single voice of outrage.
Tomorrow, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will come to New York - to the heart of what he calls the Great Satan - and speak freely in this, a country whose demise he has called for.
Ahmadinejad may choose his words carefully, but underneath all of the rhetoric is an agenda that threatens all who seek a safer and freer world. We gather here today to highlight the Iranian dictator’s intentions and to call for action to thwart him.
He must be stopped.The world must awake to the threat this man poses to all of us. Ahmadinejad denies that the Holocaust ever took place. He dreams of being an agent in a “Final Solution” - the elimination of the Jewish people. He has called Israel a “stinking corpse” that is “on its way to annihilation.”
Such talk cannot be dismissed as the ravings of a madman -not when Iran just this summer tested long-range Shahab-3 missiles capable of striking Tel Aviv, not when the Iranian nuclear program is nearing completion, and not when Iran sponsors terrorists that threaten and kill innocent people around the world.
The Iranian government wants nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that Iran is running at least 3,800 centrifuges and that its uranium enrichment capacity is rapidly improving. According to news reports, U.S. intelligence agencies believe the Iranians may have enough nuclear material to produce a bomb within a year.
The world has condemned these activities. The United Nations Security Council has demanded that Iran suspend its illegal nuclear enrichment activities. It has levied three rounds of sanctions. How has Ahmadinejad responded? With the declaration that the “Iranian nation would not retreat one iota” from its nuclear program.
So, what should we do about this growing threat? First, we must succeed in Iraq. If we fail there, it will jeopardize the democracy the Iraqis have worked so hard to build, and empower the extremists in neighboring Iran. Iran has armed and trained terrorists who have killed our soldiers in Iraq, and it is Iran that would benefit from an American defeat in Iraq.
If we retreat without leaving a stable Iraq, Iran’s nuclear ambitions will be bolstered. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons ? they could share them tomorrow with the terrorists they finance, arm, and train today. Iranian nuclear weapons would set off a dangerous regional nuclear arms race that would make all of us less safe.
But Iran is not only a regional threat; it threatens the entire world. It is the no. 1 state sponsor of terrorism. It sponsors the world’s most vicious terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah. Together, Iran and its terrorists are responsible for the deaths of Americans in Lebanon in the 1980s, in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s, and in Iraq today. They have murdered Iraqis, Lebanese, Palestinians, and other Muslims who have resisted Iran’s desire to dominate the region. They have persecuted countless people simply because they are Jewish.
Iran is responsible for attacks not only on Israelis, but on Jews living as far away as Argentina. Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial are part of Iran’s official ideology and murder is part of its official policy. Not even Iranian citizens are safe from their government’s threat to those who want to live, work, and worship in peace. Politically-motivated abductions, torture, death by stoning, flogging, and amputations are just some of its state-sanctioned punishments.
It is said that the measure of a country is the treatment of its most vulnerable citizens. By that standard, the Iranian government is both oppressive and barbaric. Under Ahmadinejad’s rule, Iranian women are some of the most vulnerable citizens.
If an Iranian woman shows too much hair in public, she risks being beaten or killed. If she walks down a public street in clothing that violates the state dress code, she could be arrested.
But in the face of this harsh regime, the Iranian women have shown courage. Despite threats to their lives and their families, Iranian women have sought better treatment through the “One Million Signatures Campaign Demanding Changes to Discriminatory Laws.” The authorities have reacted with predictable barbarism. Last year, women’s rights activist Delaram Ali was sentenced to 20 lashes and 10 months in prison for committing the crime of “propaganda against the system.” After international protests, the judiciary reduced her sentence to “only” 10 lashes and 36 months in prison and then temporarily suspended her sentence. She still faces the threat of imprisonment.
Earlier this year, Senator Clinton said that “Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is in the forefront of that” effort. Senator Clinton argued that part of our response must include stronger sanctions, including the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. John McCain and I could not agree more.
Senator Clinton understands the nature of this threat and what we must do to confront it. This is an issue that should unite all Americans. Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Period. And in a single voice, we must be loud enough for the whole world to hear: Stop Iran!
Only by working together, across national, religious, and political differences, can we alter this regime’s dangerous behavior. Iran has many vulnerabilities, including a regime weakened by sanctions and a population eager to embrace opportunities with the West. We must increase economic pressure to change Iran’s behavior.Tomorrow, Ahmadinejad will come to New York. On our soil, he will exercise the right of freedom of speech - a right he denies his own people. He will share his hateful agenda with the world. Our task is to focus the world on what can be done to stop him.
We must rally the world to press for truly tough sanctions at the U.N. or with our allies if Iran’s allies continue to block action in the U.N. We must start with restrictions on Iran’s refined petroleum imports. We must reduce our dependency on foreign oil to weaken Iran’s economic influence.
We must target the regime’s assets abroad; bank accounts, investments, and trading partners.President Ahmadinejad should be held accountable for inciting genocide, a crime under international law.
We must sanction Iran’s Central Bank and the Revolutionary Guard Corps -which no one should doubt is a terrorist organization. Together, we can stop Iran’s nuclear program.
Senator McCain has made a solemn commitment that I strongly endorse: Never again will we risk another Holocaust. And this is not a wish, a request, or a plea to Israel’s enemies. This is a promise that the United States and Israel will honor, against any enemy who cares to test us. It is John McCain’s promise and it is my promise.
Thank you.
I don’t throw around the word “lie” very often. When used inappropriately, it is 1. a sinful assault on another person’s reputation, tantamount to murder of that person’s character and ability to operate in society and 2. deleterious to the impact of the word “lie” in appropriate situations. When animal rights activists refer to the “holocaust” of chickens, it cheapens real holocausts. When Israel is described as engaged in genocide against Palestinians, it robs the word “genocide” of its gravity when used to describe real genocides. When people accuse President Bush of lying to get us into a war in Iraq, it is an immoral cheapening of the real lies that damage our society (not to mention a wrongful assault on the man’s character- but people don’t seem to care about that these days).
So I am very sensitive about what criteria amounts to a lie. Obama’s newest assertions referring to the Bush-proposed and McCain-supported Social Security reform of 2005 is a lie- not a stretch, but a falsehood. Factcheck.org has the details, and they are ugly.
I know it’s an election year and that stretching the truth is in many ways unavoidable in order to win a presidential election; but people who utter falsities this sinister shouldn’t be rewarded with the greatest position of power in the land.
On a side note, I find it interesting that the party who accuses its opposition of trafficking in nothing more than scare tactics when it comes to the war against Islamic Jihad is itself guilty of the worst kind of fear-mongering among perhaps the most susceptible demographic in the country: the elderly.
I didn’t see the 60 Minutes pieces tonight on the candidates (I have cable).
A friend of mine did watch, however, and talking with her got me thinking: I’ve already said that McCain and Obama’s domestic economic policies are both a disaster. But what, exactly, will each plan do to the American economy?
McCain’s plan will accelerate inflation. Gold prices (and that of other commodities) will continue to soar. As the dollar gets weaker and weaker, the rate of return on business investment will be lower, and unemployment will rise. As liberals know very well (and are correct, by they way)- the idea that you can continue to cut taxes and spend spend spend (which is what he will do), and not see any consequences, is flat wrong.
Conservative talk radio hosts (of which I am an avid fan! don’t get me wrong) will counter, “well, when you cut taxes, government revenue goes up, because the economy is encouraged to grow and businesses growth translates into more taxes.” This has been true for the Bush administration, and will probably be true for a McCain administration who cuts taxes further. However, Bush did not reduce spending! This is the key part to understand. Yes, I concede that McCain’s tax cuts will increase revenue for the government, but spending will continue to go up. It didn’t go down with a Republican president AND legislature, there is no way it will go down with a Democrat controlled legislature.
Obama’s plan will ruin the economy much more quickly by putting the breaks on business growth. If Obama wins on Nov 2nd, Nov 3rd will be a terrible day on Wallstreet. Capital gains taxes wll go from 15 to 20%. The top 5% income tax bracket will pay the highest tax rate in more than 30 years- the 1970s- a decade not known as the economic good ol’ days. Anyone who does business with big business- translation, anyone who shops, gets their oil changed, eats, invests, or uses (legal) drugs- will pay the price. We haven’t had a recession yet. We probably won’t have one before Bush leaves office. If Obama wins, and if his economic policies are allowed to be imlemented, I guarantee a recession within the next 4 years.
So, there we go. Either plan is bad. Pick your poison. The only silver lining: if McCain wins, he’ll have a hard time getting his plan enacted under a Democratic congress.
In this case, economically speaking, government gridlock is good.
