There’s been a lot of discussion about the causes of our current financial crisis. I, for one, do not ever care to hear the Wall Street/Main Street framing again. Really, is that the best we can do? Have we no sense of language?

The “credit contraction” or “credit crunch” involved, among other things, financial institutions that were “shot through with short-termism, deceptive practices and self-dealing.” I can’t help but think that unrestrained (dare I say “unregulated”?) greed is at the root of quite a lot of what has happened.

In this regard, one thing I haven’t really heard much about lately are the predatory mortgage lending practices that have flourished under this administration. Predatory lending practices are abusive, stripping borrowers of home equity and threatening families with bankruptcy and foreclosure.

Abusive loan practices include:

• Intentionally steering you to a higher cost loan when you qualify for a lower one
• Putting you into a loan you cannot afford based on your income or assets
• Charging high interest rates and fees
• Breaking verbal promises & terms or “bait and switch” at closing (we saw this one ourselves in the difference between the “good faith estimate” and the reality of the mortgage payment amount)
• Getting inflated appraisals to loan you more than your home is worth
• Loans with balloon payments
• Coaching you to lie or be dishonest on your loan application
• Putting you into a “stated income” or “no document loan”
• Loan “flipping” or constant refinancing
• “Hard Money” lending
• Loans with payments that start low and go high (my student loan does this)
• Including prepayment penalties
• Failing to properly credit loan payments in a timely way
• Charging escrow fees when not provided by the note or deed of trust
• Issuing loan payoff statements full of inflated and improper fees

Let me tell you about the practices that have led to the ballooning of my student loan debt… but no, if I think about it I get heart palpitations and I’m already not feeling well today.

Something that seems to have made everything worse was the overturning of some regulatory safeguards. For some, the spotlight for this is on Sen. Phil Gramm, McCain campaign adviser and a lobbyist for a Swiss bank:

Eight years ago, as part of a decades-long anti-regulatory crusade, Gramm pulled a sly legislative maneuver that greased the way to the multibillion-dollar subprime meltdown. Yet has Gramm been banished from the corridors of power? Reviled as the villain who bankrupted Middle America? Hardly. Now a well-paid executive at a Swiss bank, Gramm cochairs Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign and advises the Republican candidate on economic matters. He’s been mentioned as a possible Treasury secretary should McCain win. That’s right: A guy who helped screw up the global financial system could end up in charge of US economic policy. Talk about a market failure.

I’m interested in the fact that there is very little real discussion (that makes any sense to me, anyway) about the effects of abstract speculation (gambling), or in the practices of usury (it used to be considered a sin) that surround every consumer every day.

Institutions that put too much of their working capital on the line with speculation and excessive risks went down – and shouldn’t they? But we’re so interconnected anymore that the markets have become like clusters of artificial intelligence with everything affecting everything else, so what can be done?

Paul Krugman usually has something interesting to say:

Paulson grabbed hold of the wrong end of the stick — he should have been seeking to expand bank capital, taking an ownership share in compensation, rather than trying to push up the value of toxic paper.

I just don’t know. A couple of days ago, my bank Wachovia was aquired by… Citi. Since I swore several years ago never to deal with them again, I turned to Washington Mutual (WaMu). Oops! Too late.

Meanwhile, there was the whole inflation of house prices… and then its decline.

Some are blaming immigrants. Economic crisis brings out the scapegoating impulse. Some are blaming anti-racist policies. Some are blaming poor people.

Lots of blame to go around, for sure. Blame war, blame the national deficit and the resulting increase in the mind-boggling national debt, blame corporations who send their money to Dubai after landing lucrative if wasteful and corrupt contracts (not naming names or anything), blame inflation, the average household debt, rising energy and food and healthcare costs, more productivity for less wages, the class warfare from the super-rich to the middle class…

There were a lot of people here in Atlanta that were pushed out of their homes because the neighborhood values went up, and so did their taxes. In some neighborhoods here, you could send a kid to a rather nice college for the yearly tax bill. I would like to see some figures on how that escalated in newly-gentrified neighborhoods.

There was also the optimism about jobs that led to unrealistic assessments of homeowner affordability (what happened to the 30% of your income rule?). Add to this the emergence of the professional home-flippers. I think that took a toll among the middle class.

(T)he tanking real estate market “shifted from subprime loans made to borrowers with poor credit to homeowners who had solid credit but took out exotic loans with ballooning monthly payments.” Bloomberg reported that 3 million American homeowners are holding prime (or, actually, semi-prime) “alt-A” loans (don’t ask) worth about $1 trillion, or $150 billion more than the entire outstanding subprime market. As those loans — many of which were taken on investment properties by people expecting a nice, quick turnover — started to go belly-up, a panic ensued. …That posed a risk to the mammoth and wholly unregulated market in insurance on bad loans that had grown up around these new kinds of investments. The market in what are known as “credit default swaps” is of unknown size, but it’s estimated to be worth as much as $60 trillion, most of it essentially paper backed by too little in the way of hard assets.

I’m not an economist, and I must admit that I don’t understand all the complicated workings of the financial sector. I do, however, have a very deep suspicion toward this administration, and some of the family background alone on these topics is a little chilling before you even look at the real power-players like the visible Cheney (and the less-visible ones, too).

Document uncovers details of a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by right-wing American businessmen. The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression.

In light of all I know and suspect about imperial neocons and fascists in our government, I do feel pretty secure with the strategy of tracking and analyzing the flow of capital and power if you want to understand what’s happening. And, in this regard, I’m rather fond of Noam Chomsky. This is what he had to say at a recent summit on the problems of Latin America and the Caribbean:

We might also take note of the striking similarity between the structural adjustment programs imposed on the weak by the International Monetary Fund, and the huge financial bailout that is on the front pages today in the North. The US executive-director of the IMF, adopting an image from the Mafia, described the institution as “the credit community’s enforcer.” Under the rules of the Western-run international economy, investors make loans to third world tyrannies, and since the loans carry considerable risk, make enormous profits. Suppose the borrower defaults. In a capitalist economy, the lenders would incur the loss. But really existing capitalism functions quite differently. If the borrowers cannot pay the debts, then the IMF steps in to guarantee that lenders and investors are protected. The debt is transferred to the poor population of the debtor country, who never borrowed the money in the first place and gained little if anything from it. That is called “structural adjustment.” And taxpayers in the rich country, who also gained nothing from the loans, sustain the IMF through their taxes. These doctrines do not derive from economic theory; they merely reflect the distribution of decision-making power.

The designers of the international economy sternly demand that the poor accept market discipline, but they ensure that they themselves are protected from its ravages, a useful arrangement that goes back to the origins of modern industrial capitalism, and played a large role in dividing the world into rich and poor societies, the first and third worlds.

This wonderful anti-market system designed by self-proclaimed market enthusiasts is now being implemented in the United States, to deal with the very ominous crisis of financial markets. In general, markets have well-known inefficiencies. One is that transactions do not take into account the effect on others who are not party to the transaction. These so-called “externalities” can be huge. That is particularly so in the case of financial institutions. Their task is to take risks, and if well-managed, to ensure that potential losses to themselves will be covered. To themselves.

Under capitalist rules, it is not their business to consider the cost to others if their practices lead to financial crisis, as they regularly do. In economists’ terms, risk is underpriced, because systemic risk is not priced into decisions. That leads to repeated crisis, naturally. At that point, we turn to the IMF solution. The costs are transferred to the public, which had nothing to do with the risky choices but is now compelled to pay the costs – in the US, perhaps mounting to about $1 trillion right now. And of course the public has no voice in determining these outcomes, any more than poor peasants have a voice in being subjected to cruel structural adjustment programs.

A basic principle of modern state capitalism is that cost and risk are socialized, while profit is privatized. That principle extends far beyond financial institutions. Much the same is true for the entire advanced economy, which relies extensively on the dynamic state sector for innovation, for basic research and development, for procurement when purchasers are unavailable, for direct bail-outs, and in numerous other ways. These mechanisms are the domestic counterpart of imperial and neocolonial hegemony, formalized in World Trade Organization rules and the misleadingly named “free trade agreements.”

Hey, you knew I was a liberal, right?

I’m thinking about the Federal Reserve.

So, here’s a question for you: How much money is the U.S. government printing up right now? Can anyone give me a link to a chart that shows the history of that for the last ten years? I can’t find one -can you?

On Friday night, Ben had a sleepover planned and so we drove him over there and spent a little time with the adults. We’ve all been friends for about seven years now, and it’s always great to see them, but they have moved and it’s kind of a pain to get to their house. To avoid the northeast perimeter during rush hour(s), we take a back way over Windsor Parkway to Roswell Road. It’s not actually a parkway, but rather a small winding road chock-full of mcmansions and real mansions, too. Smack dab in the middle of all this there is a wee church, and the sign caught my eye (as church signs sometimes do). I’m not sure what the internal interpretation of the message might be at the church in question, but it was just the right message for me at the time:

So I unclenched my jaw and started to relax.

We went out to dinner at one of our favorite places, Woodfire Grill. We got there early enough to get a table right away.

Our waiter was a new transplant from North Dakota, here in Atlanta because of his beloved girlfriend who came to get an MA in Philosophy from Georgia State. He was absolutely charming, down to the sideburns and the groovy glasses. He answered all of our questions and, after some consultation with the chef, provided more detailed answers on a couple of items such as the origin of the littleneck clams (which sounded like closer cousins to the less edible kinds of quahogs than the soft and succulent steamers of my dreams. Anyway, the littlenecks were from the Carolinas somewhere – not for this New England gal, thank you!).

The bread basket had an assortment of soft fragrant breads, all from loaves baked on the premises. They have the best bread by far in Atlanta, and I have to remember to come back and buy some from the cafe.

Many of the menu items are from local food sources, and more of it is organic than not. It does make a difference.

There was a small taster, and then we ordered a range of “small plates” to share:

• Marinated red ace beets, sotto cenere cheese, organic truffle oil, micro celery
• Pan roasted sonoma artisan duck breast, chanterelle mushrooms, delicata squash, crushed pistachio, duck jus
• Pizzetta: house made fennel sausage, roasted peppers, san marzano tomato, fontina, parmigiano
• Their menu changes weekly, and the scallops we had are no longer on the menu. There were only a couple of them (read “two”) and I couldn’t tell you what else was on the plate, but it was yummy.

We savored every little bit. I don’t even like beets, but these were fantastic. To me, that’s the ultimate compliment to a chef – that he or she makes such a delectable dish that you enjoy food that you normally avoid.

To accompany the meal, we shared a bottle of Yering Station Pinot Noir, a very pleasant and balanced wine with a hint of cherry. It went perfectly with everything, even the scallops.

When one is fortunate enough to enjoy such a meal, happiness can be the only result (cf. Babette’s Feast). At least, that’s the case for me. Unfortunately, I observed another couple for whom that was clearly not the case. They spoke not one word to one another throughout the whole meal, and they both had that look of frigid annoyance that sends off waves of tension. I finally managed to block them out – by the third bite or so (grin).

By this time, I was in my sensual enjoyment state, which semi-automatically means that I felt a desire to step out for a cigarette. It had been several hours since my last one, and I was starting to feel the effects. I’m cutting down, but I’m not yet done with it. I asked the valet where smoking was still permitted, and he pointed me to a nearby bench. We conversed for a few minutes, and I guess I’m now to report back in one month on my progress on quitting.

Eventually, the new owner came over to the table to speak with us. We raved in praise of the food and the ambiance and the service. We weren’t kidding, either. The meal was divine in every respect. He must have enjoyed our descriptive prose, because he comp’ted us the dessert, a very small piece of dense chocolate cake, served with a bit of ice cream (We substituted vanilla for the caramel alternative). Mmm… a perfect ending.

Friday night we had some very special dinner guests, including my beloved friend “death of God” theologian Thomas J. J. Altizer. The other guests were Tom’s son John and his wife Sandy, and Professor Mikhail Epstein, a wonderfully interesting guy in his own right.

I don’t often entertain guests. This was a big occasion for me, and preparation was intense. Like the post title says, I’m no Martha Stewart. I could really use a wife – that housecleaning gardener nanny planner decorator hostess person that I hear so much about…

We didn’t have more than four of anything, and dinner was for six. So I went out and got settings for eight. On my limited budget, this basically limited me to Target, but I found a Zazen Lime glazed set that I really liked in their global collection. Then John went out and got some wine glasses.

Tom gave me a couple of DVDs – one on his whole Emory history and the “death of God” controversy, and another on depictions of Jesus in art. I’m looking forward to watching them.

Benevolent Deities Inc. answered my prayers, and provided warmth and sunshine enough to eat outdoors. The circling bats arrived at twilight and made everything magical.

I served mixed olives, chips and salsa and guacamole, and fresh papaya with lime for appetizers. The wine was Seven Deadly Sins Red Zinfandel throughout (how could I resist such a name, and it’s good), although we also had a white and some import beer on hand. The main course was ginger jerk salmon, sweet potato souffle, and asparagus with Parmesan, with a salad (spinach and tomatoes and feta and some of that broccoslaw stuff) and a couple of baguettes. For dessert, a choice of creme brulee or raspberry chocolate mouse from Alon’s. Note to self: I need a tray to carry things!

We talked politics and apocalypse and resurrection and the white whale and the coincidence of opposites, and the growing divide between dominionism and credible theology, and the growing
gap between rich and poor, and Jesus art, and all manner of other things.

It was a lovely night.

Then, last night, we were supposed to go to a party in Tom’s honor, but our babysitting arrangements fell through so I went alone. Synchronity! The party was at the home of the brother of one of my favorite undergraduate professors at UMass. A good time was had by all, and Tom told us a very amusing story about Karl Barth, Paul Tillich and Mircea Eliade.

So today – well, I’m enjoying the clean house…and the feeling of having nothing to do that I don’t want to do. It’s cold and windy, and it’s my birthday, and I’m snuggled in.

What do you get when you pour very hot water down a rabbithole?

Hot cross bun(ny)s!

One a penny two a penny – Hot cross buns!

It’s official – the memes of repression in the name of freedom and diversity have travelled to the U.K. Or have they?

For fear of offending the religious minorities at The Oaks Primary School in Ipswich, headteacher Tina Jackson has asked suppliers to remove the cross from their hot cross buns. .. “The cross is there in recognition of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ but for our students who are Jehovah Witnesses hot cross buns are not part of their beliefs. “We decided to ask to have the cross removed in respect of their beliefs. It was just a currant bun.”

For some reason, they seem worried -only- about Jehovah’s Witnesses. JW’s are not activists for such things – I smell mendacity here.

Evening Star – School decides to ban the bun

Albert Berwick, a minister with the Ipswich Cavendish Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, said the buns would indeed be offensive to members.

He said: “I can understand why the school has done this and I support the decision. Hot cross buns are a pagan symbol of fertility no different to bunnies, eggs and Easter.

The sentence is so typical in its self-confusion and half-understood prohibitions. I notice they didn’t get any offical statement from the Watchtower Society, who would never put it quite this way. Excusing the grammer (or lack thereof) for a moment, I’m simply trying to understand how hot cross buns are a symbol of fertility – you know, exactly. Since when is bread, currents and the shape of a cross made in icing a symbol of fertility? If you want to talk about the “pagan” roots of the resurrected god, that’s one thing, but this? “Hot cross buns” does of course sound a little bit suggestive (or is it just me?), but “hot cross buns” are a very different thing than “hot buns” in general…

The cross, cut into the dough before cooking or added later (as in this case) with icing, was thought to ward off evil spirits. You might not have noticed, but JWs don’t say anything when someone sneezes. The common “God bless you” or “gesundheit” has the same sort of ancient belief attached.

Of course, bunnies and eggs harken to something other than Christianity – but everyone knows that. Are egg hunts “offensive” to the Church of England?

Are the Brits turning into JWs? I’m curious about how exactly this school made the decision, and why they leave it at the feet of JWs. If they wanted to mollify JWs, they would have to end all of the holidays, delete all of the celebrations, get rid of anything that suggested a connection to any of them. Somehow I don’t see that happening.

My recollection is that JWs who are troubled by “pagan” celebrations and symbols simply do not participate, and they do not partake of those foods if they feel they are too closely associated. They simply wouldn’t eat the buns. Or – they could have an alternative, such as regular bread. Or they could simply smear the icing. You can’t spend your life trying to avoid symbols – anything can be a symbol.

An aside – I wish my son had the option of hot cross buns at school – they are delicious.

So is this for real, or are the same folks operating over there as here? Sounds either bogus or extremely silly to me. It’s a Monty Python sketch in the making. I welcome any contact from the school administrators. It would be an interesting conversation. No mention of any other religions…

As a former JW and an American liberal (as well as a scholar of religion, ethics and literature), may I suggest that banning hot cross buns has nothing to do with liberation, affirmation of cultural or religious diversity, or reducing hatred of those different from one’s own comfort group?

Pretending that traditions do not exist is not “politically correct” at all, even if you forget that the designation of “political correctness” is meant as an insult rather than a description. With all my disagreements with Jehovah’s Witnesses, I don’t know a single one who would be “offended” by such a thing as hot cross buns. If there is someone who is in fact offended by hot cross buns, please send contact information and an interview invitation. That would be the story here – someone is offended by hot cross buns! Let them explain.

A better solution might be to include some foods from other cultural and religious traditions. Some of them are downright yummy.

Inclusivity, toleration, respect and dignity for all people regardless of their religious beliefs – these are the deeper issues, and I don’t see how these are served by eroding and erasing one set of beliefs for another. There is no need to become bland in order to have dialogue. This attempt, if it was sincere, only reinforces resentment – the JW is reconfirmed in his own sense of superiority above the “impure” and the “pagan” remnants tied up with Christian tradition (as though there were a “pure” place without such influences), and the traditional Christians feel threatened and upset that even the most innocuous food should(?) be sacrificed (they don’t necessarily know the history of traditions, but why spoil them for everyone?).

If what has come to be called “political correctness” is really about attempting to erase difference in some authoritative way, then it no longer represents a move toward a language of liberation and freedom. As I recall, the main point was to create a language of inclusivity and dialogue so that everyone could speak – not to make every utterance so problematic that people were afraid to speak at all. Those who would make freedom of expression a way to limit expression have profoundly misunderstood. The regulatory function has to do with limiting hate speech, not with erasing one’s own differences from others.

Compare this to the situation of depicting Mohammed in cartoons – misunderstanding all around. The cartoon used the Prophet as a visual shortcut to depict radical Islam as terrorism. It’s sloppy, but no more so than the cartoons of Jesus and God that are seen all over. The main problem is not so much the comment on terrorism as its collapse into Islam generally, which isn’t really fair and, most importantly, it is regarded as blasphemous. There is a prohibition on depicting God (and by extention, perhaps) the Prophet in images. By the way, this prohibition is technically shared with Judaism and I’m not exactly sure how the Christians got around it. It’s a commandment. Here is the wriggle room – how does anyone know that the cartoons depicted the Prophet specifically? Were they actually labelled as such, or could they have been depictions of terrorist leaders? Personally, I was more disturbed by the exaggerated features on the one I saw, which seemed a caricature of race/nation/people more than of religion per se. There is a whole history of such caricatures of the “enemy” (see, for example Faces of the Enemy: Reflections of a Hostile Imagination by Sam Keen).

The culture clashes on religion can be mediated – with difficulty, but it is not impossible. Why just jump in to opposition, hatred, violence – without speaking with one another, without even an attempt at dialogue? Again, the differences are reinscribed as opposing ones and all sides have forgotten to care for one another as all religions of the book agree we ought to do.