A note that I wrote in my journal on April 09, 2009:
"Well, swell. We get to watch these heart-wrenching stories about banks forcing families to vacate homes when they have nowhere else to go -- this is STILL the land of the Banks and they do not let you forget it. My nephew and I began a loan modification with BofA last January '08. We were told NOT to pay any mortgage fees while the negotiation was occurring. After three months lo and behold -- foreclosure papers started to arrive because they hadn't gotten any money from us. Meanwhile the mortgage itself was being thrown back and forth between BofA and Freddie Mac ... and a rogue foreclosure cell continued to operate and thrive while we were going through the SECOND ROUND of loan modifications. This rogue cell continued to do what processes in gigantic bureaucracies often do -- despite our successful round of negotiations with BofA (even though they did NOT want to talk with us did NOT want to help us). One day a rogue Realtor who hadn't had a sale in 3 1/2 years received orders (improper documentation, bad procedure, we received no warnings, no notifications) from someone somewhere, and he took it upon himself to seize our home. Suddenly all negotiations stopped -- if my nephew had not persisted and forced them to admit their errors the house would be lost. As it is, we have been locked out of it since last August -- and THIS is AMERICA??? The only reason the bank will even listen to us is because there is a lawyer involved. Who gets lucky and finds the right people?
I found the services of a legally driven loan mod firm (lawyer on board) with a BBB rating of A, and we're moving along nicely. I wanted to sue the Bank for the year of stress that exacerbated my brain weasels (bipolar disorder) to the point where I could not fight to save myself, but my adviser laughed. As if!! I guess whomsoever is stupid enough to sue an entity like BofA gets tied up in court in class action lawsuits that take forever, and the Banks have the resources to make them last forever. Justice isn't an issue with banks -- I can still remember the old "Little Nell" melodramas I learned when I was young -- "if you don't give me the deed to your ranch I'm gonna tie you to the railroad tracks" and the bankers were always, always the villains.
I personally find it unbearable to watch sheriffs or police personnel forcibly removing families from their homes -- last night on the news we saw a desperate, disturbed man robbing a convenience store in front of his child. It was awful, heartbreaking. But what about the trauma inflicted by the presence of the police forcing a family frozen by fear and in denial onto the streets? We need more social workers handling this sort of thing -- or less of this sort of thing. That would be my preference -- I want my Great Society back. Or if you want to call it a Shining City on a Hill -- I don't give a damn. I just want our people to have homes, and by god that includes ME."
That note was written as I said in April. Last week I found out that shortly after I wrote those words, the legal firm I'd mentioned told my nephew that they couldn't help us. The President's new policies apparently don't allow negotiations on already foreclosed-upon properties. (Even if the damned bank took it illegally??) Liberty and JUSTICE for all?
Funny how neither said nephew nor the legal representative bothered to tell me I have lost my house and that represents about $500 K of real dollars! In a way I don't blame them -- who wants to tell a woman she has lost everything? This last weekend I felt raw grief for my lost house, career dreams and life savings. I cannot begin to describe my feelings when I started to comprehend my losses -- I raged and shrieked and sobbed and at a certain point the very rawness of my pain was so great that I drugged myself into a stupor and slept it off. I don't have any friends that are lawyers, and only know what I have heard -- that fighting BofA is useless because they will tie you up in court for the rest of your life -- just because they can. And me without money for a lawyer.
This is only one story of thousands -- and in another time things could have gone in just the opposite direction. But still, the truth is I wasn't savvy enough to bear the main responsibility for such a costly project, and I never imagined the extraordinary dishonesty of Lake County contractors. But -- damn, that house is beautiful. Beautiful and solid, my gift to a transitional neighborhood. Ooog, whenever the Prez looks down his nose at citizens "flipping" houses I want to say "WAIT!! That's not what I was trying to do!! I wanted a career in Green Building! You don't understand!" I did write him a letter, though. Injustice is injustice. Now what? I just don't know. I really just don't know. Ha, can you imagine getting an actual response from the President to a letter like that? A HELPFUL response, not just "oh sorry you happened to get squished; by the way use this link for Party contributions."
Actually, I can. But -- I also believe in Magic.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Monday, May 11, 2009
More on Torture
Dick Cheney has come out strongly in favor of what the world considers torture -- he favors a whole slate of "methods" euphemistically known as "enhanced interrogation techniques". These "techniques" are now irrevocably identified with our nation. They had the American Presidential Seal of Approval, and if we had it once, we could have it again. Cheney says that we need these "tools" at our disposal for extreme emergencies; that we only waterboarded a few times.
We have now established that Cheney is the "bad apple" of the "bad apple theory" that still has scapegoat grunt Charles Graner in the brig. Charles Graner and his pyramid pile of naked Iraqis were a long way from Dick Cheney, but there is a direct path from one to the other. We know now from what we've learned about Gitmo and AbuGhraib that an extreme culture of cruel and degrading treatment of other human beings existed in our armed services. I submit that you cannot have one without the other. To have such behavior condoned by the President and the Vice President, despite the advice of men actually educated and experienced in warfare, is to give a wink and a nod to the spread of cruelty downwards. Look at what has occurred and tell me otherwise.
I respect President Obama, and I wonder what he's really thinking about all this, and where they are strategically. Dick Cheney is making a case in the minds of our least educated and most fearful populace that torture/cruelty as a way of doing things is right and lawful and even Christian, and as long as he isn't held accountable in some way there will be a meaningful, even shocking percentage of Americans who think he's right. He must be disgraced so that his belief system is not allowed to stand. I have read too much commentary from the general population in favor of what the rest of the world thinks of as torture, and I hold Cheney as responsible for that. I am hopeful that the natural workings of Law in this country will bring him to account, but I am far, far from certain.
Next door to me lives a Veteran from WWII, and he's disgusted by accounts of waterboarding, etc. "We didn't do any of that," he told me once. They were the heroes! They even treated the enemy decently. What has happened to us? Which "U.S." do we prefer to be? I know my answer. I would like to see the leaders of the past administration discredited in their vigorous defense of ugly, dehumanizing methods. "Do unto others" is one phrase that springs to mind. Does Cheney go to church and call himself a Christian? He shouldn't -- he's a hypocrite. He really is our Darth Vader, and I want his speaking platform taken from him. He doesn't deserve to be speaking as an authority, as he is corrupt and without empathy for the suffering of others. Furthermore, his attempts to undermine the current administration are contemptible. He has gone far beyond the pale, and I would like to see his belief system judged -- say by a collection of his peers -- 12 would do. We MUST define ourselves as Americans in this new Millenium -- who we are and what we aspire to. There should be no forgotten prisoners rotting away in foreign lands -- never again.
We have now established that Cheney is the "bad apple" of the "bad apple theory" that still has scapegoat grunt Charles Graner in the brig. Charles Graner and his pyramid pile of naked Iraqis were a long way from Dick Cheney, but there is a direct path from one to the other. We know now from what we've learned about Gitmo and AbuGhraib that an extreme culture of cruel and degrading treatment of other human beings existed in our armed services. I submit that you cannot have one without the other. To have such behavior condoned by the President and the Vice President, despite the advice of men actually educated and experienced in warfare, is to give a wink and a nod to the spread of cruelty downwards. Look at what has occurred and tell me otherwise.
I respect President Obama, and I wonder what he's really thinking about all this, and where they are strategically. Dick Cheney is making a case in the minds of our least educated and most fearful populace that torture/cruelty as a way of doing things is right and lawful and even Christian, and as long as he isn't held accountable in some way there will be a meaningful, even shocking percentage of Americans who think he's right. He must be disgraced so that his belief system is not allowed to stand. I have read too much commentary from the general population in favor of what the rest of the world thinks of as torture, and I hold Cheney as responsible for that. I am hopeful that the natural workings of Law in this country will bring him to account, but I am far, far from certain.
Next door to me lives a Veteran from WWII, and he's disgusted by accounts of waterboarding, etc. "We didn't do any of that," he told me once. They were the heroes! They even treated the enemy decently. What has happened to us? Which "U.S." do we prefer to be? I know my answer. I would like to see the leaders of the past administration discredited in their vigorous defense of ugly, dehumanizing methods. "Do unto others" is one phrase that springs to mind. Does Cheney go to church and call himself a Christian? He shouldn't -- he's a hypocrite. He really is our Darth Vader, and I want his speaking platform taken from him. He doesn't deserve to be speaking as an authority, as he is corrupt and without empathy for the suffering of others. Furthermore, his attempts to undermine the current administration are contemptible. He has gone far beyond the pale, and I would like to see his belief system judged -- say by a collection of his peers -- 12 would do. We MUST define ourselves as Americans in this new Millenium -- who we are and what we aspire to. There should be no forgotten prisoners rotting away in foreign lands -- never again.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Should the U.S. Torture? Why Did We?
Oh my god. I cannot believe that as a civil society -- or one that pretends to be a civil society when it is convenient -- we are even having this discussion. Pursuant to the adoption of the Geneva Conventions, a thorough airing of this subject was had, and it included an examination of all the methods used by the Nazis, Japanese, etc. At that point we still had a strong mythological sense of ourselves as "the good guys", and as a Nation that was our high point. "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave" -- I still remember believing that. When the Conventions were adopted, the U. S. agreed with most of the world that we would not practice such things as Waterboarding, with its roots in the Spanish Inquisition. We even executed at least one person for practicing it!
When we began to "practice" this form of torture, apparently we did it so badly I hear they routinely drowned detainees. They eventually got the bright idea of having doctors monitor their tormentees, thereby subverting those doctors relationships with the Hippocratic Oath. I've been cruising around looking at politically neutral websites and I am disheartened to see how many people in this country favor torture. My friends laugh at my naiveté. Always have, always will. So who cares -- this is what I think.
There are at least two basic concerns. One is that of the pragmatist, who simply says that the information gained by cruel methods will produce unreliable information. This is a given, a fact told to us by respected Military professionals worldwide. You might get a correct answer along with all the screaming and gasping and near-drowning, but you won't know and you'll waste time. Professionals know this.
This leads me to believe that there are those in high places that tortured because they could. Some people probably enjoyed it. Some did as they were told. But pragmatically, if it doesn't work, why bother? And if they were told by leading military authorities before-hand that it didn't work, why did they insist upon using such obscene methods? Personally, among the gang that was BushCo -- let's include W, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and Rice.
I believe there is the possibility that at least one was a psychopath -- a person incapable of empathy -- and there were at least a few sociopaths. They ALL seem like sadists. Now I admit to arm-chair analysis, but I'd love to hear an eminent psychiatrist or two analyze THESE guys. I was relieved to hear one of Condoleeza's Legal guys say that State was anti-torture and argued against it -- but she signed off on it, so what can you say? She'll have to live with whatever her culpability is -- I doubt the others have any capacity to feel remorse. They still think that "enhanced methods of interrogation" work.
Experts know that relationship-building is a far better method for purposes of information gathering than the infliction of pain. If you are dealing, for example, with a Muslim prisoner -- far better to call in the highest Imam or spiritual counselor of HIS brand of Islam (no Sunnis for Shi'ites!) and let the Imam remind the prisoner that Islam not a violent religion, and in this fashion gain the confidence of the man. This method is one that has been used successfully far more often than getting somebody's resistance up by slamming them around as though we were no better than gorillas.
The other consideration is moral. A FOX (!) journalist put it best when he said (loose quote), slamming his fists on the table "I don't give a rat's a** if it works. We are AMERICA!! We don't f*cking torture!" And that is how I feel. We are better than that. Or we should be. If Americans get so worked up about their religions -- and we do -- then why are we so ambivalent about the issue of torture?
If you want to know what Jesus would do -- ask yourself and I think the answer will come very quickly. Torture is against all laws of Spiritual Man and also Religious Man. It is against the very Laws of Man as we have devised them in our current day Code of Law, as represented by the Geneva Conventions. War is a loathsome and primitive way of settling earthly squabbles. But since we ARE still that stupid, let's at least play fair. And that means not creating an entire subculture of goons who will scorch your testicles for fun -- these guys will end up on our local police squad or as prison guards.
Has anyone thought about that? What happens to the men and women who have, in the words of one soldier (profiled in an early article about the Iraq War in Rolling Stone magazine), done things in Iraq they'd be put in jail for the rest of their lives for in regular society? Especially the ones who develop a taste for torture? I can see them now, spreading their wisdom throughout the already hideous penal system. We absolutely MUST continue to support the International Laws that govern our behavior relative to the rest of the world. We like to pretend that we are heroic -- in between bombings of Hiroshima and fiddling around down in Latin America. Supporting such "methods" of interrogation gives the lie to that myth. I rather liked the America of my youth and innocence -- what happened to all that?
When we began to "practice" this form of torture, apparently we did it so badly I hear they routinely drowned detainees. They eventually got the bright idea of having doctors monitor their tormentees, thereby subverting those doctors relationships with the Hippocratic Oath. I've been cruising around looking at politically neutral websites and I am disheartened to see how many people in this country favor torture. My friends laugh at my naiveté. Always have, always will. So who cares -- this is what I think.
There are at least two basic concerns. One is that of the pragmatist, who simply says that the information gained by cruel methods will produce unreliable information. This is a given, a fact told to us by respected Military professionals worldwide. You might get a correct answer along with all the screaming and gasping and near-drowning, but you won't know and you'll waste time. Professionals know this.
This leads me to believe that there are those in high places that tortured because they could. Some people probably enjoyed it. Some did as they were told. But pragmatically, if it doesn't work, why bother? And if they were told by leading military authorities before-hand that it didn't work, why did they insist upon using such obscene methods? Personally, among the gang that was BushCo -- let's include W, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and Rice.
I believe there is the possibility that at least one was a psychopath -- a person incapable of empathy -- and there were at least a few sociopaths. They ALL seem like sadists. Now I admit to arm-chair analysis, but I'd love to hear an eminent psychiatrist or two analyze THESE guys. I was relieved to hear one of Condoleeza's Legal guys say that State was anti-torture and argued against it -- but she signed off on it, so what can you say? She'll have to live with whatever her culpability is -- I doubt the others have any capacity to feel remorse. They still think that "enhanced methods of interrogation" work.
Experts know that relationship-building is a far better method for purposes of information gathering than the infliction of pain. If you are dealing, for example, with a Muslim prisoner -- far better to call in the highest Imam or spiritual counselor of HIS brand of Islam (no Sunnis for Shi'ites!) and let the Imam remind the prisoner that Islam not a violent religion, and in this fashion gain the confidence of the man. This method is one that has been used successfully far more often than getting somebody's resistance up by slamming them around as though we were no better than gorillas.
The other consideration is moral. A FOX (!) journalist put it best when he said (loose quote), slamming his fists on the table "I don't give a rat's a** if it works. We are AMERICA!! We don't f*cking torture!" And that is how I feel. We are better than that. Or we should be. If Americans get so worked up about their religions -- and we do -- then why are we so ambivalent about the issue of torture?
If you want to know what Jesus would do -- ask yourself and I think the answer will come very quickly. Torture is against all laws of Spiritual Man and also Religious Man. It is against the very Laws of Man as we have devised them in our current day Code of Law, as represented by the Geneva Conventions. War is a loathsome and primitive way of settling earthly squabbles. But since we ARE still that stupid, let's at least play fair. And that means not creating an entire subculture of goons who will scorch your testicles for fun -- these guys will end up on our local police squad or as prison guards.
Has anyone thought about that? What happens to the men and women who have, in the words of one soldier (profiled in an early article about the Iraq War in Rolling Stone magazine), done things in Iraq they'd be put in jail for the rest of their lives for in regular society? Especially the ones who develop a taste for torture? I can see them now, spreading their wisdom throughout the already hideous penal system. We absolutely MUST continue to support the International Laws that govern our behavior relative to the rest of the world. We like to pretend that we are heroic -- in between bombings of Hiroshima and fiddling around down in Latin America. Supporting such "methods" of interrogation gives the lie to that myth. I rather liked the America of my youth and innocence -- what happened to all that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
