The issue of immigration reform has taken on the unenviable quality of an ugly blind date. One is obligated to participate in an activity that is not to one's liking, or appear as shallow and ill-mannered as one actually is. But far as illegal immigration is concerned, the date is long over and they've moved in and are inviting the relatives over for Cinco de Mayo barbeque. It’s a bit late to be questioning one's decision-making process, thus the damage-control mode we are currently engaged in. With all the grace of an alcoholic awakening from a bender, we feign surprise to any involvement with the snoozing creature cuddled up against us in bed. At this point, one has two choices... participate in an activity that is not to one's liking, or appear as shallow and ill-mannered as one actually is.
As the so-called original U.S. citizens, these are basically the camps we have divided into. At Camp Denial, we don't even recognize that illegal immigration is a problem, and go about our activities as though the campers that sneak into camp have the same rights and privileges as those who paid for camp. At Camp Defender, we shoot anyone who even looks like someone who might sneak into our camp. At Camp Denial, all activities are voluntary and therefore rather slipshod in their execution, if they happen at all. At Camp Defender, your bunk is made and gun cleaned by 6 a.m., or you spend the day in the hole. All though it can be debated which camp is less fun, there is no argument that both have aspects that make staying home attractive.
So, just like the blind date analogy, the two camps analogy leads to the same conclusion... what the hell was we thinkin'? By hiring illegal immigrants, businesses opened the barn door wide in order to make a decent profit. By looking the other way, government allowed business to actually remove the barn door and place a sign up that said "Barn Door". This may be a clever enough ruse to fool suburban socialites, but farm workers are rather pragmatic when it comes to reality. Even when the words 'Barn Door' were eventually written in Spanish, somehow workers noticed there was no barn door. "Don't let the barn door hit you on the way in" became a running joke in the fields and low-paying job sites north of the border. Meanwhile, business and government snoozed comfortably in their luxury bedding.
Sometime in the 80's., the alarm went off and the boss was caught sleeping with the help. What they general public didn't realize immediately, is that a slew of offspring had already been produced that, according to established law, were U.S. citizens. This complicated things incredibly for business and government. But, rather than deal with the ugly reality of their indiscretions, they decided to build Camp Denial and Camp Defender. By sending (what they considered to be) their legitimate children to Camp Defender, and sending their illegitimate children to Camp Denial, they managed to stave off their comeuppance for one more generation. Camp Denial proved to be quite popular, with it's lack of rules and free taco nights. Camp Defender relied on it's exclusive status, namely that it wasn't Camp Denial. As Camp Denial became overpopulated and financially unsustainable, Camp Defender grew in popularity despite it's rather ornery reputation. Now, even though today Camp Defender is considered elitist and politically incorrect, nobody really wants to be part of Camp Denial, which grows more akin to the Superdome after Katrina everyday.
So, how do you get a 500 lb. chihuahua into your living room? You feed him. How do you get a 500 lb. chihuahua OUT of your living room? Ummm... let me get back to you on that.
Border patrols, walls, and immigration laws aside, finding a so-called 'solution' to the immigration issue is like curing rain. Nobody wants to get rained on, but everyone knows it is gonna happen and it is a necessary event in nature. The real issue here is 'borders' and whether they really mean anything in relation to people needing to go where they can survive and thrive.
I postulate that there are two basic positions, believing "It's Dog-Eat-Dog" and believing "We Are the World". Most folks tend to apply these beliefs on an issue by issue basis, depending on personal integrity and/or who's paying attention. Because most dyed-in-the-wool "Dog-Eat-Dog"-ers are militaristic fascists, and truly devoted "We Are The World"-ers are bleeding heart space cadets, no one can embrace either belief wholly and not be marginalized. Yet, in essence, these two philosophies personify the conflict that the immigration issue brings up for most of us.
The "Dog-Eat-Dog"-ers would literally live up to their namesake and kill and eat the 500 lb. chihuahua in the living room. Unfortunately, in the process they would develop a taste for such and hunt chihuahuas into extinction. The "We Are The World"-ers would actually move out of their house, and continue to feed "L'il Pero' until he exploded and made the whole place unlivable anyway. Is there a compromise here? Yes, but it's not a simple one.
Who's gonna tell a 500 lb. chihuahua he's gotta go on a diet?
In the 80s, musician Sting penned “I will turn your face to alabaster, when you will find your servant is your master”, (from Synchroncity 's "Wrapped Around Your Finger") and probably was not referring to illegal immigration, but these words epitomize the concerns of those who must make decisions in this matter. As our electorate becomes increasingly diverse, it is unlikely that their faces will be turning to alabaster any time soon. And for those holed-up in Camp Defender, it’s practically the school color.
Like I said, hopefully nobody is going to find a solution to rain. People are going to continue to try and make lives for themselves regardless of restrictions business and government impose upon the populace, illegal or otherwise. As Camp Denial spills over its own fencing and merges with the surroundings, it is likely Camp Defender will soon be surrounded. Although it is in great “Dog-Eat-Dog” tradition to go out in a blaze of glory, I have a feeling that when faced with the inevitable, they may balk. After all, between the two, which kind of person would you want living next door to you?
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Cash: The Epitome of Diplomacy
Let us not forget amid this cavalcade of financial crises resulting from the surreptitious manipulations of scheming speculators, that business is still pretty simple. I have something you want and/or you have something I want and we cut a deal. Of course, finesse in these matters is no less than an art form, practiced by businesspeople throughout history to the nth degree and beyond. Yet the basic tenets remain plain. There is an agreement.
This is why cash is the epitome of diplomacy. Empirically, money is the human measure of a thing's worth (a 'thing' being an object or service) and as such, a physical manifestation of the most basic business agreement. Whether coinage or paper, it documents the essential essence of business, namely getting paid.
Perhaps since the flurry of stocks and bonds, credit/debit cards, and electronic banking descended upon our financial world, we may have somehow displaced our faith in currency. With convoluted loan and interest structures, as well as intricate legal language interwoven into the financial documents of today, the idea of cash as an agreement seems almost quaint. IF it weren't for the fact that these pieces of paper and metal are physically traded amongst billions of us every second of everyday, one could argue that dollars and cents are an antiquated form of exchange. That's what we call a big "IF", by the way.
With humble beginnings as simple record keepers, bankers quickly blossomed into a full-blown economic mafia complete with strong arms and territories. And this was before the written word, mind you! The first accountants were scrawling their calculations into stone long before the Mesopotamians started dotting i's and crossing t's. The machinations of this industry rely on a simple truth, namely, some people are smarter than other people.
It works like this. I come up with a deal that benefits you in the initial short run, but benefits me more than you in the long run. We shake hands, sign papers, do the hokey-pokey or whatever symbolizes this understanding. The bottom line is there is a record of this agreement, thus if you fail to fulfill the latter portion of the bargain, I get to whoop ass. This has been the basic arrangement since counting was standardized.
This concept really gathered steam after writing came into being. With an absolutely huge contingent of humanity unable to read at all, much less even wanting to, the smarter people had a big advantage when it came to writing and writing legal documents and recording agreements. To make a long story short, this is basically what goes on today, with lawyers as the primary translators of a meticulously twisted code. Along with these changes, the 'ass-whooping' aspect has taken on infinitely complicated permutations, including such morally awkward aspects as rewriting the terms of any agreement that led to the ass-whooping currently in progress.
Now this is where the situation begins to unravel. As the plethora of financial agreements grow in number and complexity, the ability of the system to 'whoop ass' properly in a timely manner becomes unmanageable. Soon, far too many agreements become unenforceable and wa-lah... fiscal meltdown! Welcome to the "Smart People/Stupid Choices" portion of the program, where otherwise pragmatic beings compete for cash and prizes in lieu of common sense. The major problem with this process is that it is all ultimately based on promises, which I have been told, is hardly the most reliable of currencies.
The point is... IF we had stuck to the simple agreement, (cash only) the likelihood of said disaster decreases one hell of a lot. That's another big IF, folks. Unfortunately, it is the rear-view mirror kind, unless you are one of those that think printing more money makes you richer. In that case, you probably shouldn’t be handling a spork, much less a pen to sign financial papers. Yet, outrageously enough, this is the very course of action we see our leaders promoting today!
Therefore, my initial hypotheses, although accurate, needs to be footnoted with " ...of course, there is good diplomacy and bad diplomacy". This is due to the fact that even cash can lose its meaning as an agreement if enough people contend otherwise. However, by the time that scenerio arises, most thinking individuals have returned to the more traditional forms of 'whooping ass' to get their needs met. It's not a pretty picture, but one worth a thousand words... of warning.
I cannot imagine that the perpetrators of the demise of world financial markets can even comprehend the ramifications of their actions. Lost in the manufactured tunnels and gilded caves of a metropolitan hamster cage, how can we expect such illusion-drunk corporate chattel to understand anything but what's put in the trough for them? The unfortunate reality is that one can be clever, without being wise. A disfunction that seems increasingly prevalent the higher one goes in financial circles.
Knowing that seeds become plants isn't the same as thing as being able to grow your own dinner. Hunting and gathering, and even farming have becoming lost arts for the majority of us. If cash becomes valueless, most of us will be at a loss to provide for ourselves. Despite assurances of so-called ‘smarter’ people to the contrary, this system seems destined to collapse under the weight of it's unfulfilled obligations. This “breakdown in diplomatic relations” means that all prior agreements are non-binding, effective immediately.
Still, it is human greed, rather than banking itself, greasing the rails to economic Ragnarok. Financial agreements are needed for civilized society to function, and cash on the barrelhead, although the most basic and proven financial agreement of all, does not serve the overwrought expectations of expanding oligarchies. Perhaps the rise and fall of civilizations are as cyclical as day and night, and this rollercoaster to financial devastation is not new. Evidence would seem to bear out that this crisis is not the end of the human race, only a massive portion of it- which is just fine... they probably owed us money anyway.
This is why cash is the epitome of diplomacy. Empirically, money is the human measure of a thing's worth (a 'thing' being an object or service) and as such, a physical manifestation of the most basic business agreement. Whether coinage or paper, it documents the essential essence of business, namely getting paid.
Perhaps since the flurry of stocks and bonds, credit/debit cards, and electronic banking descended upon our financial world, we may have somehow displaced our faith in currency. With convoluted loan and interest structures, as well as intricate legal language interwoven into the financial documents of today, the idea of cash as an agreement seems almost quaint. IF it weren't for the fact that these pieces of paper and metal are physically traded amongst billions of us every second of everyday, one could argue that dollars and cents are an antiquated form of exchange. That's what we call a big "IF", by the way.
With humble beginnings as simple record keepers, bankers quickly blossomed into a full-blown economic mafia complete with strong arms and territories. And this was before the written word, mind you! The first accountants were scrawling their calculations into stone long before the Mesopotamians started dotting i's and crossing t's. The machinations of this industry rely on a simple truth, namely, some people are smarter than other people.
It works like this. I come up with a deal that benefits you in the initial short run, but benefits me more than you in the long run. We shake hands, sign papers, do the hokey-pokey or whatever symbolizes this understanding. The bottom line is there is a record of this agreement, thus if you fail to fulfill the latter portion of the bargain, I get to whoop ass. This has been the basic arrangement since counting was standardized.
This concept really gathered steam after writing came into being. With an absolutely huge contingent of humanity unable to read at all, much less even wanting to, the smarter people had a big advantage when it came to writing and writing legal documents and recording agreements. To make a long story short, this is basically what goes on today, with lawyers as the primary translators of a meticulously twisted code. Along with these changes, the 'ass-whooping' aspect has taken on infinitely complicated permutations, including such morally awkward aspects as rewriting the terms of any agreement that led to the ass-whooping currently in progress.
Now this is where the situation begins to unravel. As the plethora of financial agreements grow in number and complexity, the ability of the system to 'whoop ass' properly in a timely manner becomes unmanageable. Soon, far too many agreements become unenforceable and wa-lah... fiscal meltdown! Welcome to the "Smart People/Stupid Choices" portion of the program, where otherwise pragmatic beings compete for cash and prizes in lieu of common sense. The major problem with this process is that it is all ultimately based on promises, which I have been told, is hardly the most reliable of currencies.
The point is... IF we had stuck to the simple agreement, (cash only) the likelihood of said disaster decreases one hell of a lot. That's another big IF, folks. Unfortunately, it is the rear-view mirror kind, unless you are one of those that think printing more money makes you richer. In that case, you probably shouldn’t be handling a spork, much less a pen to sign financial papers. Yet, outrageously enough, this is the very course of action we see our leaders promoting today!
Therefore, my initial hypotheses, although accurate, needs to be footnoted with " ...of course, there is good diplomacy and bad diplomacy". This is due to the fact that even cash can lose its meaning as an agreement if enough people contend otherwise. However, by the time that scenerio arises, most thinking individuals have returned to the more traditional forms of 'whooping ass' to get their needs met. It's not a pretty picture, but one worth a thousand words... of warning.
I cannot imagine that the perpetrators of the demise of world financial markets can even comprehend the ramifications of their actions. Lost in the manufactured tunnels and gilded caves of a metropolitan hamster cage, how can we expect such illusion-drunk corporate chattel to understand anything but what's put in the trough for them? The unfortunate reality is that one can be clever, without being wise. A disfunction that seems increasingly prevalent the higher one goes in financial circles.
Knowing that seeds become plants isn't the same as thing as being able to grow your own dinner. Hunting and gathering, and even farming have becoming lost arts for the majority of us. If cash becomes valueless, most of us will be at a loss to provide for ourselves. Despite assurances of so-called ‘smarter’ people to the contrary, this system seems destined to collapse under the weight of it's unfulfilled obligations. This “breakdown in diplomatic relations” means that all prior agreements are non-binding, effective immediately.
Still, it is human greed, rather than banking itself, greasing the rails to economic Ragnarok. Financial agreements are needed for civilized society to function, and cash on the barrelhead, although the most basic and proven financial agreement of all, does not serve the overwrought expectations of expanding oligarchies. Perhaps the rise and fall of civilizations are as cyclical as day and night, and this rollercoaster to financial devastation is not new. Evidence would seem to bear out that this crisis is not the end of the human race, only a massive portion of it- which is just fine... they probably owed us money anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)