I recently got around to seeing the movie "Up In the Air". In this film, George Clooney plays the role of Ryan Bingham, a "terminator". Bingham travels around the country in behalf of companies who apparently don't have the balls to fire workers to their faces themselves and instead hire his employer's services to deliver the news to their sacked employees. Bingham informs the workers that "their positions are no longer available", and then tries to conduct a cliche ridden pep talk/ termination interview. Naturally, all the workers hear is that they have been let go. Nothing else that he says afterwards registers because at the moment nothing else matters. (I know that feeling from personal experience).
The dismissed employees were portrayed as loyal, long term workers who had no idea that their jobs had been in jeopardy in the first place. So naturally their response was shocked disbelief, and they invariably protested that they had invested years of service to their company, that they had mortgages to pay and families to feed. Of course, all this made no difference. Even when a company offers a severance package, which is not always the case, fired is still fired.
The lesson to be learned here is that as a source of income, usually the chief one for most people, employment really is an investment, and a high risk one at that. As such, it can collapse and become worthless at any time. So it behooves workers not to become complacent or get emotionally attached to their jobs and worst of all define their worth by them. No matter how secure an employee thinks that his /her position is, the rug can be pulled out from him at any time, especially under an "at will"condition of employment as is the case for most parts of the U.S .
Since the beginning of the Great Recession, millions of Americans— more than at any time since the 1930's— have learned this the hard way. But looking at job loss in the large sense of the American capitalist /corporate system, this mass unemployment is an inevitable phenomenon. Private companies are not in business to manufacture goods and create jobs in the process. They are in business to make money. period. In order to turn a profit, businesses will pare whatever expenses that they can, including and especially labor. If, for example, they can cut their work force in half and shove off the duties of the terminated staff onto the remaining employees without increasing the latter's pay, (which is typically an option in a non-union environment) they will do so in a heartbeat. This is why America has a very productive work force. People here may resent being required to assume additional responsibilities without a commensurate boost in wages (a practice known as "offloading"), but in the current economy, they will accept the situation and be thankful that they have a job at all. (Also see "Twelve Charts That Will Make Your Blood Boil")
Alternately of course, management may decide that the best way to slash in house payroll costs is to do away with them altogether, such as by outsourcing the work overseas. Did you know that U.S. based companies actually get a tax break for shipping jobs abroad? There is a bill inow in Congress to revoke this incentive, but passage is not a slam dunk as various lobbies and interests are sure to fight it.
On a side note, in other parts of the world, such as Europe and increasingly the Middle East of all places, disenfranchised workers regularly take to the streets in mass protests. But that's not the American way. For the most part people in the U.S. seem to have been brainwashed into considering such demonstrations as unamerican. If that's the case, they obviously don't know their history. The labor movement at one time was one of committed activism in which people gave up their lives for the right to join unions and demand the end to inhumane working conditions. But that was then and this is now.
So what can workers do to protect their interests while they still have jobs? Here are a few suggestions. Acquire as little debt as possible relative to your income and pay off or down whatever financial obligations you currently have as quickly as possible. This way, if you lose your job, you will be able to weather the storm of unemployment from a much more advantageous position and are less likely to make rash decisions due to financial desperation that you may later regret.
While you're employed, scan and save the want ads and Internet postings regularly for recurring job opportunities that sit your employment profile and goals. Keep your references and resumè updated. Network with people in the same line of work at other companies. Keep your feelings about your work private,i.e. avoid posting any displeasure that you might have about your job on social media; ranting on Facebook for example can backfire. Follow the economic news about your employer, especially their financial condition, and whether they're involved in buy-outs or mergers.
Above all, don't assume that you're safe just because you're performing well and your future with the company looks solid. It's that very complacency that can come back to haunt you when you are unexpectedly summoned to a meeting and are greeted by the real life counterpart of Ryan Bingham.
For further ideas on dealing with workplace stress and on controlling personal finances, click here for a link to my website "Green Monday". (Disclosure: that page also includes promotional material for my e-book of the same name.)
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Unsustainable Consumption, Inexhaustible Stupidity
With gas prices once again in the $4 range in various regions of the U.S., I don't feel a bit sorry for American vehicle owners. If big oil is gouging us, it's because decade after decade we let it happen. Despite warnings starting almost 40 years ago beginning with the energy crises in 1973 and 1978 , we continue to drag our feet on making serious improvements in gas mileage. Instead we continue to waste fuel on SUV's , pick-up trucks,and other gas guzzlers and act as if we're entitled to cheap oil ("drill baby drill") instead of seeking alternative sources of energy and being more conservation-minded by demanding greater fuel efficiency in our vehicles. In fact, according to oil tycoon and alternate fuel backer T. Boone Pickens America is the only country in the world without an energy plan
In England and France partly as the result of the high cost of fuel, even though there are numerous automobiles on the road. most of them are small and fuel efficient. To encourage traffic reduction, there is also a congestion tax in London which private vehicles entering the center of city must pay. On the other hand, public transportation in Europe including inter and intra city rail service is extremely advanced. The extensive and well connected subway and bus systems in London and Paris make getting around these cities without a private car a breeze.
But time and time again America has turned its back on or delayed programs to eliminate or reduce our oil addiction, such as through improvement of our own national public transportation network. Now will this alternative along with other infrastructure upgrades wind up deferred indefinitely thanks to the Great Recession, and Republicans' concomitant refusal to pay their fair share of taxes that would support such projects?
Yet America's interstate highway system was developed in the 1950's under President Eisenhower, a Republican. At that time income tax rates for the wealthy were much higher than now, and fuel prices were much lower than at present. But the point is that there was a political will to get the job of national road construction completed. Why can't we invoke that same determination to build a national high-speed rail transit system now? Aside from the fact that other countries are light years ahead of America in this mode of transportation, consider the number of jobs such a project would create, whether conducted as a public or joint public-private endeavor. Moreover, the dreadful state of domestic airline service alone should be an incentive for Americans to push for this alternate and more efficient mode of transportation.
Endless dependence on a finite resource such as oil is an incredibly senseless policy. But even more irrational is for Americans,particularly the Republican right, to think that they have a god-given birthright to this source of energy just to satisfy their profligate lifestyle. Further, that by using whatever means they want and wherever they want to extract it, regardless of environmental damage, this will some how magically extend the supply of oil for as long as they wish to pump it.
And typically, these people who are mostly theists believe that their mythical deity bring a "Day of Reckoning" against others who don't embrace their supernatural religious fables. Yet they themselves refuse to accept the prospect of a real world "Day of Reckoning" for misusing and exhausting our natural resources. Unfortunately, when the oil wells run dry and drilling sites have become ecological basket cases, they won't be the only ones affected.
In England and France partly as the result of the high cost of fuel, even though there are numerous automobiles on the road. most of them are small and fuel efficient. To encourage traffic reduction, there is also a congestion tax in London which private vehicles entering the center of city must pay. On the other hand, public transportation in Europe including inter and intra city rail service is extremely advanced. The extensive and well connected subway and bus systems in London and Paris make getting around these cities without a private car a breeze.
But time and time again America has turned its back on or delayed programs to eliminate or reduce our oil addiction, such as through improvement of our own national public transportation network. Now will this alternative along with other infrastructure upgrades wind up deferred indefinitely thanks to the Great Recession, and Republicans' concomitant refusal to pay their fair share of taxes that would support such projects?
Yet America's interstate highway system was developed in the 1950's under President Eisenhower, a Republican. At that time income tax rates for the wealthy were much higher than now, and fuel prices were much lower than at present. But the point is that there was a political will to get the job of national road construction completed. Why can't we invoke that same determination to build a national high-speed rail transit system now? Aside from the fact that other countries are light years ahead of America in this mode of transportation, consider the number of jobs such a project would create, whether conducted as a public or joint public-private endeavor. Moreover, the dreadful state of domestic airline service alone should be an incentive for Americans to push for this alternate and more efficient mode of transportation.
Endless dependence on a finite resource such as oil is an incredibly senseless policy. But even more irrational is for Americans,particularly the Republican right, to think that they have a god-given birthright to this source of energy just to satisfy their profligate lifestyle. Further, that by using whatever means they want and wherever they want to extract it, regardless of environmental damage, this will some how magically extend the supply of oil for as long as they wish to pump it.
And typically, these people who are mostly theists believe that their mythical deity bring a "Day of Reckoning" against others who don't embrace their supernatural religious fables. Yet they themselves refuse to accept the prospect of a real world "Day of Reckoning" for misusing and exhausting our natural resources. Unfortunately, when the oil wells run dry and drilling sites have become ecological basket cases, they won't be the only ones affected.
Friday, April 15, 2011
No Respite From the Time Clock: A Bleak Future for Older Americans
A startling development has taken place in the U.S. employment picture. According to "Why The Middle Aged Are Missing Out on Jobs" these people (ages 45—54) are having a tough time finding jobs. In itself, that's not unusual as employers are more inclined to hire younger workers (and indeed this age group is experiencing gains in employment) . But the wild card in the deck is that competition is coming from another source: Seniors. Not only are more older employees staying on the job past retirement age, but they are more successful than their middle-aged counterparts in snagging new jobs that have come into existence since 2009 as well. In other words, middle aged employees as a whole are losing jobs faster than seniors are finding new ones.
But all this begs the question. Why are older people staying in the workforce beyond retirement age, such that they and their younger—but not that much younger—counterparts are competing with each other for jobs? According to "Why The Middle Aged Are Missing Out...", in 2001, 33% of seniors were in the workforce. In 2007, the figure was 39%. It's unlikely that the size of the increase can be attributed to many more older folks' suddenly enjoying work so much that they don't want to retire.
For some time now middle age employees despite years of experience have faced being undercut and replaced by people in their twenties or early thirties. And as mentioned, when the former are displaced, they often have a hard time finding new positions often not only because of age discrimination but also because they came from a higher salary level than their younger and less experienced counterparts. So wouldn't it stand to reason that still older workers would face a similar hurdle? Unfortunately, the article doesn't explain this anomaly.
My guess is that seniors are being chosen over middle-aged workers because they will work for less. Many older people lost their nest eggs assets such as 401(k) investments in the Great Recession or otherwise lack the resources for retirement in the first place. But they do receive social security, which however by itself is not enough to survive on. Hence they must stay in the labor force to make up the difference. I know if my wife and I had to repatriate, that would be our lot. We would most likely have to keep working until we drop dead in our traces.
However, many older workers, i.e. those in the age range of 55—62 years of age do not yet qualify for social security. But perhaps out of desperation, they are willing to work for less than their slightly younger counterparts. Regardless, it should never have come to the point that two vulnerable groups, the older and middle aged workers should be pitted against each other this way. And both face the prospect of an uncertain future that people in this age range haven't encountered in many decades, at or near the point in their lives that they should instead be reaping the rewards from their years of service in the labor force..
It's an indictment of the American economic system that such a cruel state of affairs has come to pass.
But all this begs the question. Why are older people staying in the workforce beyond retirement age, such that they and their younger—but not that much younger—counterparts are competing with each other for jobs? According to "Why The Middle Aged Are Missing Out...", in 2001, 33% of seniors were in the workforce. In 2007, the figure was 39%. It's unlikely that the size of the increase can be attributed to many more older folks' suddenly enjoying work so much that they don't want to retire.
For some time now middle age employees despite years of experience have faced being undercut and replaced by people in their twenties or early thirties. And as mentioned, when the former are displaced, they often have a hard time finding new positions often not only because of age discrimination but also because they came from a higher salary level than their younger and less experienced counterparts. So wouldn't it stand to reason that still older workers would face a similar hurdle? Unfortunately, the article doesn't explain this anomaly.
My guess is that seniors are being chosen over middle-aged workers because they will work for less. Many older people lost their nest eggs assets such as 401(k) investments in the Great Recession or otherwise lack the resources for retirement in the first place. But they do receive social security, which however by itself is not enough to survive on. Hence they must stay in the labor force to make up the difference. I know if my wife and I had to repatriate, that would be our lot. We would most likely have to keep working until we drop dead in our traces.
However, many older workers, i.e. those in the age range of 55—62 years of age do not yet qualify for social security. But perhaps out of desperation, they are willing to work for less than their slightly younger counterparts. Regardless, it should never have come to the point that two vulnerable groups, the older and middle aged workers should be pitted against each other this way. And both face the prospect of an uncertain future that people in this age range haven't encountered in many decades, at or near the point in their lives that they should instead be reaping the rewards from their years of service in the labor force..
It's an indictment of the American economic system that such a cruel state of affairs has come to pass.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Why Don't They Get It?
Those heathen Japanese. GOD sent them a warning through that earthquake, tsunami and nuclear contamination to mend their wicked ways, to recognize his supreme powers and to pray to him for forgiveness for their stubborn refusal to accept his might, But do they listen? Oh no, they're too busy digging themselves out of the rubble, working to rebuild the damaged areas and putting their lives back in order rather than spend time beseeching his mercy.
And another thing, in the wake of all the destruction and casualties, why hasn't there been looting and rioting? Just who do those Asians think they are by maintaining law and order without being forced to do so?. You can bet if a catastrophe of this magnitude had befallen an American city, God-fearing people would have been picking the shelves clean, exercising their right to bear arms against anyone who gets in their way, and fighting the National Guard in order to prevent that socialist Obama and the federal government from taking over their lives.
And you know what really gets me? The Japanese are just too progressive and diligent. By planning in advance for the natural disasters like this one, for all the lives that were lost thousands more were saved unlike in other countries that pray and cut corners instead of prepare in advance. And can you imagine that they had the nerve to apply geology and other sciences to gain an understanding of their environment instead of relying on the Bible and putting themselves in the hands of the LORD to carry them through times of tragedy?
I could go on but why bother? Those people are hopeless. They may have such traits as courage, patience, and a sense of community on their side, but we Americans have GOD on ours.
And another thing, in the wake of all the destruction and casualties, why hasn't there been looting and rioting? Just who do those Asians think they are by maintaining law and order without being forced to do so?. You can bet if a catastrophe of this magnitude had befallen an American city, God-fearing people would have been picking the shelves clean, exercising their right to bear arms against anyone who gets in their way, and fighting the National Guard in order to prevent that socialist Obama and the federal government from taking over their lives.
And you know what really gets me? The Japanese are just too progressive and diligent. By planning in advance for the natural disasters like this one, for all the lives that were lost thousands more were saved unlike in other countries that pray and cut corners instead of prepare in advance. And can you imagine that they had the nerve to apply geology and other sciences to gain an understanding of their environment instead of relying on the Bible and putting themselves in the hands of the LORD to carry them through times of tragedy?
I could go on but why bother? Those people are hopeless. They may have such traits as courage, patience, and a sense of community on their side, but we Americans have GOD on ours.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Infestations
There is a series on "The Animal Planet" television network titled "The Monsters Inside Me" which focuses on various parasites that invade and feed off the human body. The program vividly dramatizes the horrible experiences of people who have been infected by some of these organisms. Yet according to theists, as destructive as these forms of life might be, they were created by God who has a purpose for everything that he does. Following this line of reasoning, if they were made by God, as were other other noxious beings whose very existence is a threat to humankind, from cancer cells cells to eye worms (the latter have no other way of survival but by eating the eyes of living humans) we should not question their existence. In fact carrying the logic a step further, man should not attempt to exterminate them as this runs counter to God's will in having created them in the first place.
One Christian viewpoint is that these disagreeable creatures were not always dangerous but became so as the result of original sin(!). Because Adam and Eve disobeyed God and caused Man's fall, people including infants, especially those in remote corners of the world must be made to suffer from horrible diseases and parasites because they have not received God's grace (by accepting Jesus) as their savior. One would think that God would find a faster way to send them the message than by making them wait for missionaries.
In the more advanced cultures, humankind has effectively eradicated many destructive diseases. But in certain cases, some bacteria, such as streptococcus that were hardy enough to withstand antibiotics have mutated into new strains--"superbugs" that are resistant to treatment. One such germ is the flesh-eating bacteria, which was once rare but has become increasingly common.
Well, maybe there's some logic to God's allowing these creatures to endanger people, given his track record. Even in the Torah which does not embrace the doctrine of original sin, he does some pretty nasty stuff when people offend him. For example, most of us know the biblical tale of the great Flood in which God destroyed almost all life on Earth (an act which I call biocide). In fact since life began, most species have not survived the cut. God creates them then destroys them--giving and taking away carried to its ultimate conclusion. He seems to have an acute case of attention deficit syndrome.
However, if we re-frame the discussion regarding the existence of parasites, superbugs, and other dangerous critters (well, dangerous to Man anyway) in the context of natural selection and remove an arbitrary supreme being from the mix, then it all begins to make sense in a way that a creationist /theistic explanation could never begin to. This is why for example I find it hard to understand how those medical professionals who believe in literal interpretation of the scriptures over the theory of evolution can reconcile their scientific training with their creationist convictions regarding the mutant strains of germs which become resistant to antibiotic treatment. The only method that I can see for their coping with this contradiction is compartmentalization. But even so the cognitive dissonance must be a strain.
It's easy to see why parasitic infections and other pest related illnesess are common in poor and backward areas of the world where people are uneducated and lack awareness of basic hygiene, let alone science. Yet if Christian fundamentalists continue to undermine the teaching of theory of evolution in American schools and instead allow creationist doctrine is allowed to prevail, the gains that science has made made in understanding and eradicating these diseases in the U.S. could be seriously affected. We've already seen what happens when the Republican Party, the political arm of the religious right runs the show. During the Bush years, funding for the enforcement of food safety laws was drastically cut, and the incidence of microbe related food borne illnesses and deaths in the U.S. soared. In that era the conservative Republicans' contempt for conducting scientific studies in other health related issues also manifested itself in their fight against stem cell research.
Right-wing fundamentalists' domination of social-political values must be stopped. Failure to end their anti-life policies is hazardous to America's health.
One Christian viewpoint is that these disagreeable creatures were not always dangerous but became so as the result of original sin(!). Because Adam and Eve disobeyed God and caused Man's fall, people including infants, especially those in remote corners of the world must be made to suffer from horrible diseases and parasites because they have not received God's grace (by accepting Jesus) as their savior. One would think that God would find a faster way to send them the message than by making them wait for missionaries.
In the more advanced cultures, humankind has effectively eradicated many destructive diseases. But in certain cases, some bacteria, such as streptococcus that were hardy enough to withstand antibiotics have mutated into new strains--"superbugs" that are resistant to treatment. One such germ is the flesh-eating bacteria, which was once rare but has become increasingly common.
Well, maybe there's some logic to God's allowing these creatures to endanger people, given his track record. Even in the Torah which does not embrace the doctrine of original sin, he does some pretty nasty stuff when people offend him. For example, most of us know the biblical tale of the great Flood in which God destroyed almost all life on Earth (an act which I call biocide). In fact since life began, most species have not survived the cut. God creates them then destroys them--giving and taking away carried to its ultimate conclusion. He seems to have an acute case of attention deficit syndrome.
However, if we re-frame the discussion regarding the existence of parasites, superbugs, and other dangerous critters (well, dangerous to Man anyway) in the context of natural selection and remove an arbitrary supreme being from the mix, then it all begins to make sense in a way that a creationist /theistic explanation could never begin to. This is why for example I find it hard to understand how those medical professionals who believe in literal interpretation of the scriptures over the theory of evolution can reconcile their scientific training with their creationist convictions regarding the mutant strains of germs which become resistant to antibiotic treatment. The only method that I can see for their coping with this contradiction is compartmentalization. But even so the cognitive dissonance must be a strain.
It's easy to see why parasitic infections and other pest related illnesess are common in poor and backward areas of the world where people are uneducated and lack awareness of basic hygiene, let alone science. Yet if Christian fundamentalists continue to undermine the teaching of theory of evolution in American schools and instead allow creationist doctrine is allowed to prevail, the gains that science has made made in understanding and eradicating these diseases in the U.S. could be seriously affected. We've already seen what happens when the Republican Party, the political arm of the religious right runs the show. During the Bush years, funding for the enforcement of food safety laws was drastically cut, and the incidence of microbe related food borne illnesses and deaths in the U.S. soared. In that era the conservative Republicans' contempt for conducting scientific studies in other health related issues also manifested itself in their fight against stem cell research.
Right-wing fundamentalists' domination of social-political values must be stopped. Failure to end their anti-life policies is hazardous to America's health.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Facing Our Mortality
Many if not most theists are under the impression that in a life-threatening crisis, atheists will see the "error of their ways" and turn to God for help. However, that is an erroneous assumption. Like many other non-believers, I know this from personal experience. I recently came through a personal (health) crisis involving what appeared to be a possibly life threatening medical condition. But fortunately, the test came back negative.
During this time not once did I waiver in my position that there is no evidence for the existence of a supreme being to save me, especially one who requires prayer (groveling) to consider intervention and who then may or may not intercede depending on what kind of a mood he's in and on whether or not I've said the magic words and in the right way.
Of course, while waiting for the examination and then its outcome I was very distressed as I don't handle uncertainty very well. But my biggest concern is how would I tell my wife if the results turned out positive. In short a sky daddy was hardly on my radar during this period. In 2002 I wasn't so lucky and was in fact diagnosed with a severe illness but made a full recovery. At that time I likewise "kept the non-faith".
Yet what I've experienced is nothing compared to that of noted author Christopher Hitchens who is is suffering from esophageal cancer. Hitchens is a prominent atheist and has remained steadfast in his non-belief. In spite of his ill health, he participated in a debate with Tony Blair in November about whether or not religion is a force for good in the world and proceeded to clean Blair's clock.
Regarding his illness, Hitchens has said that if his condition deteriorates and as a result, he become a theist, let it be known now that he would not be in his right mind for doing so.
In the final analysis people like Hitchens are not only an inspiration in a society that for the most part is guided by irrationality regarding religion. He is a reminder to believers that there certainly are atheists in the proverbial fox holes after all and when the going gets tough, the tough use reason.
During this time not once did I waiver in my position that there is no evidence for the existence of a supreme being to save me, especially one who requires prayer (groveling) to consider intervention and who then may or may not intercede depending on what kind of a mood he's in and on whether or not I've said the magic words and in the right way.
Of course, while waiting for the examination and then its outcome I was very distressed as I don't handle uncertainty very well. But my biggest concern is how would I tell my wife if the results turned out positive. In short a sky daddy was hardly on my radar during this period. In 2002 I wasn't so lucky and was in fact diagnosed with a severe illness but made a full recovery. At that time I likewise "kept the non-faith".
Yet what I've experienced is nothing compared to that of noted author Christopher Hitchens who is is suffering from esophageal cancer. Hitchens is a prominent atheist and has remained steadfast in his non-belief. In spite of his ill health, he participated in a debate with Tony Blair in November about whether or not religion is a force for good in the world and proceeded to clean Blair's clock.
Regarding his illness, Hitchens has said that if his condition deteriorates and as a result, he become a theist, let it be known now that he would not be in his right mind for doing so.
In the final analysis people like Hitchens are not only an inspiration in a society that for the most part is guided by irrationality regarding religion. He is a reminder to believers that there certainly are atheists in the proverbial fox holes after all and when the going gets tough, the tough use reason.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
How Religious Indoctrination Undermines Higher Education
Beyond preparing students for their chosen professions, I believe that the purpose of a secular college education should be the development of their reasoning skills. Examples of subjects leading to this end are critical thinking, philosophy (including the Socratic method), history, and the natural sciences. Ideally, students who successfully complete these course and take them to heart even thought they may not finish their degree (as in my case) will be less inclined towards superstition and will be more apt to question religious beliefs by which they were brought up. However, if despite this exposure, a college graduate still clings to theistic convictions, at least it's almost certain that (s)he was provided with an opportunity and the intellectual tools to take a different intellectual path.
Such is not the case for a religion-affiliated college. This type of a school is typically founded with an agenda of indoctrinating its students in an often authoritarian environment. Uppermost in such an institution is the dogma that the existence of a supreme being is a foregone conclusion. The school administrators then shoehorn unsubstantiated "proof" in the form of scripture or doctrine to support this assumption into a required curriculum of religious study courses alongside with training in the student's major. Honing of analytical skills is replaced by or subordinated to rote learning. This kind of education, of course, stands the principles of sound logic on their head. But as will be seen later, it is nevertheless a highly effective means of turning out generation after generation of competent—even brilliant—professionals who are staunch theists for life
An example of such a school is the University of Santo Tomas in the Philippines, a country, incidentally, where society holds a college degree in high regard (albeit more for reasons of status than of knowledge). Although this institution was founded by the Dominican Order, at this point I want to make it clear that I'm not singling out Catholic universities for special criticism. The same principle applies to most other religion-based tertiary level schools throughout the world as well. It's just that based on the negative experience of my wife Lydia as a student at UST many years ago plus my own awareness of some recent events there, Santo Tomas serves as example to illustrate how a sectarian institution, even one that is 400 years old, is one of the largest Catholic universities in the world, and has a premier medical school, can still mis-educate its enrollees, warp their reasoning abilities into accepting and embracing unreasonable tenets of faith, and as a result inflict damage on the nation's culture.
For example overpopulation is a serious problem in the Philippines thanks to the Catholic Church's historic opposition to artificial means of birth control and family planning even though an overwhelmingly majority of Filipinos, including Catholics, now favor the Reproductive Health Act which for the first time in this country would remove obstacles to these choices. This proposed legislation was vetoed by the former President of the Philippines, Gloria Arroyo, but is up again for consideration by Congress and has the backing of current President, Benigno Aquino III. However, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines which functions as the political lobby of the Church, opposes this bill and has hinted at excommunication for Aquino and members of Congress if they vote for it, although the head of the CBCP later denied making this threat.
Nevertheless, the UST student newspaper The Varisitarian, recently vehemently denounced 14 professors at Ateneo de Manila (a nearby university, also a Catholic institution), for advocating passage of the RH Act, which the paper said violated Church teachings. The writer of the editorial certainly lived up to the meaning of "Dominican" which is Latin for the "hounds (attack dogs) of God".
In another incident of almost to cult-like devotion Church liturgy on December 8, over 20,000 people, mostly UST students and staff formed "The Grand Living Rosary" on the campus in honor of the Virgin Mary to thank her for guiding the school's mission to educate the young(!). Some of the participants choreographed a formation of the words "Ave Maria" and all chanted the rosary in unison. If this exercise by a supposed center of learning is not symbolic of of subordinating the intellectual to the irrational, I don't know what is. No wonder so many alumni from UST and other Catholic universities, even members of the elite socioeconomic class, who were exposed to such indoctrination and are now in government office can not make rational decisions or form coherent public policy, especially in the matter of planning. Due to their upbringing and religious training, when it comes to matters of faith many of these people are as blindly devout as the uneducated and undereducated masses at the other end of the social spectrum. A prominent columnist in today's "Philippine Star" newspaper claimed that even the more superstitious practices of religion are superior to the alternative of atheism as long as they lead to a better understanding of faith!
Lydia was not surprised about these events. To this day she vividly remembers and still resents some incidents from her own time at Santo Tomas over 50 years ago. One was the ridiculously stringent discipline imposed by professors who treated students like children by demanding unquestioning obedience, some going so far as to require their students keep "eyes front" at all times or be expelled from the class. Another was the compulsory 32 units of religious subjects imposed on undergraduates which were ultimately worthless not only for content but for credit transfer. Most of all Lydia recalls being publicly chastised and embarrassed by UST priests for petty dress code violations such as being denied communion just for wearing a sleeveless blouse.
After receiving her degree from UST and emigrating to the U.S., Lydia later tried to register as a graduate student in the U.S.at California State University Los Angeles, only to discover that CSULA would not recognize the religion and other courses. So she had to enroll as undergraduate first and replace the missing credits. But in doing so, Lydia says that she's glad for that experience because of the huge difference in the manner with which the faculty at public universities interact with students vs.that at a religious institution. She had felt so stifled at UST that she graduated there with the equivalent of a B average. However, encouraged by the freer intellectual environment of Cal State, she completed her studies there cum laude in both her B.A. and M.A. degrees. How many other good minds are being similarly kept from reaching their full potential by repressive religious conditioning?
But America is not immune from attempts by religious interests to control the educational school system. Note how Christian fundamentalists and right wing ideologues have taken over school boards in various locales and have undermined public education by trying to impose the teaching of creationism over the theory of evolution, along with requiring the use of revisionist history textbooks and social studies curricula to fit their reactionary agenda in the public school districts where these groups constitute a majority. Will pupils in these districts come away from their secondary educational experience with closed minds that even at secular university can't open? Lydia and I both recall from our respective CSULA days a few of our classmates who were Christian fundamentalists and who became upset, even going so far as to file complaints just because their professors criticized religion.
And speaking of religious agitation at the higher education level, Under the Bush administration Protestant fundamentalists and Catholics were responsible for the blocking of funds for university stem cell research. Christian evangelist cadets have been proselytizing classmates at the U.S. Air Force Academy for years despite attempts civil liberty groups to halt this practice; and in 2009, Muslims intimidated Yale with violence from publishing cartoons that display Mohammed.
As I mentioned in the beginning of this post a secular-based college education doesn't guarantee critical thinking towards religion. But a theistic centered one will almost certainly prevent it. So the lesson is clear. When religious interests gain control of an educational system, the learning process becomes one of being taught what to think rather than how to think. And the consequences can only have a detrimental effect on society.
Such is not the case for a religion-affiliated college. This type of a school is typically founded with an agenda of indoctrinating its students in an often authoritarian environment. Uppermost in such an institution is the dogma that the existence of a supreme being is a foregone conclusion. The school administrators then shoehorn unsubstantiated "proof" in the form of scripture or doctrine to support this assumption into a required curriculum of religious study courses alongside with training in the student's major. Honing of analytical skills is replaced by or subordinated to rote learning. This kind of education, of course, stands the principles of sound logic on their head. But as will be seen later, it is nevertheless a highly effective means of turning out generation after generation of competent—even brilliant—professionals who are staunch theists for life
An example of such a school is the University of Santo Tomas in the Philippines, a country, incidentally, where society holds a college degree in high regard (albeit more for reasons of status than of knowledge). Although this institution was founded by the Dominican Order, at this point I want to make it clear that I'm not singling out Catholic universities for special criticism. The same principle applies to most other religion-based tertiary level schools throughout the world as well. It's just that based on the negative experience of my wife Lydia as a student at UST many years ago plus my own awareness of some recent events there, Santo Tomas serves as example to illustrate how a sectarian institution, even one that is 400 years old, is one of the largest Catholic universities in the world, and has a premier medical school, can still mis-educate its enrollees, warp their reasoning abilities into accepting and embracing unreasonable tenets of faith, and as a result inflict damage on the nation's culture.
For example overpopulation is a serious problem in the Philippines thanks to the Catholic Church's historic opposition to artificial means of birth control and family planning even though an overwhelmingly majority of Filipinos, including Catholics, now favor the Reproductive Health Act which for the first time in this country would remove obstacles to these choices. This proposed legislation was vetoed by the former President of the Philippines, Gloria Arroyo, but is up again for consideration by Congress and has the backing of current President, Benigno Aquino III. However, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines which functions as the political lobby of the Church, opposes this bill and has hinted at excommunication for Aquino and members of Congress if they vote for it, although the head of the CBCP later denied making this threat.
Nevertheless, the UST student newspaper The Varisitarian, recently vehemently denounced 14 professors at Ateneo de Manila (a nearby university, also a Catholic institution), for advocating passage of the RH Act, which the paper said violated Church teachings. The writer of the editorial certainly lived up to the meaning of "Dominican" which is Latin for the "hounds (attack dogs) of God".
In another incident of almost to cult-like devotion Church liturgy on December 8, over 20,000 people, mostly UST students and staff formed "The Grand Living Rosary" on the campus in honor of the Virgin Mary to thank her for guiding the school's mission to educate the young(!). Some of the participants choreographed a formation of the words "Ave Maria" and all chanted the rosary in unison. If this exercise by a supposed center of learning is not symbolic of of subordinating the intellectual to the irrational, I don't know what is. No wonder so many alumni from UST and other Catholic universities, even members of the elite socioeconomic class, who were exposed to such indoctrination and are now in government office can not make rational decisions or form coherent public policy, especially in the matter of planning. Due to their upbringing and religious training, when it comes to matters of faith many of these people are as blindly devout as the uneducated and undereducated masses at the other end of the social spectrum. A prominent columnist in today's "Philippine Star" newspaper claimed that even the more superstitious practices of religion are superior to the alternative of atheism as long as they lead to a better understanding of faith!
Lydia was not surprised about these events. To this day she vividly remembers and still resents some incidents from her own time at Santo Tomas over 50 years ago. One was the ridiculously stringent discipline imposed by professors who treated students like children by demanding unquestioning obedience, some going so far as to require their students keep "eyes front" at all times or be expelled from the class. Another was the compulsory 32 units of religious subjects imposed on undergraduates which were ultimately worthless not only for content but for credit transfer. Most of all Lydia recalls being publicly chastised and embarrassed by UST priests for petty dress code violations such as being denied communion just for wearing a sleeveless blouse.
After receiving her degree from UST and emigrating to the U.S., Lydia later tried to register as a graduate student in the U.S.at California State University Los Angeles, only to discover that CSULA would not recognize the religion and other courses. So she had to enroll as undergraduate first and replace the missing credits. But in doing so, Lydia says that she's glad for that experience because of the huge difference in the manner with which the faculty at public universities interact with students vs.that at a religious institution. She had felt so stifled at UST that she graduated there with the equivalent of a B average. However, encouraged by the freer intellectual environment of Cal State, she completed her studies there cum laude in both her B.A. and M.A. degrees. How many other good minds are being similarly kept from reaching their full potential by repressive religious conditioning?
But America is not immune from attempts by religious interests to control the educational school system. Note how Christian fundamentalists and right wing ideologues have taken over school boards in various locales and have undermined public education by trying to impose the teaching of creationism over the theory of evolution, along with requiring the use of revisionist history textbooks and social studies curricula to fit their reactionary agenda in the public school districts where these groups constitute a majority. Will pupils in these districts come away from their secondary educational experience with closed minds that even at secular university can't open? Lydia and I both recall from our respective CSULA days a few of our classmates who were Christian fundamentalists and who became upset, even going so far as to file complaints just because their professors criticized religion.
And speaking of religious agitation at the higher education level, Under the Bush administration Protestant fundamentalists and Catholics were responsible for the blocking of funds for university stem cell research. Christian evangelist cadets have been proselytizing classmates at the U.S. Air Force Academy for years despite attempts civil liberty groups to halt this practice; and in 2009, Muslims intimidated Yale with violence from publishing cartoons that display Mohammed.
As I mentioned in the beginning of this post a secular-based college education doesn't guarantee critical thinking towards religion. But a theistic centered one will almost certainly prevent it. So the lesson is clear. When religious interests gain control of an educational system, the learning process becomes one of being taught what to think rather than how to think. And the consequences can only have a detrimental effect on society.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Ending Christmas as an Official American Holiday
When I was attending California State University Los Angeles in the 1990's, there was a year (I forget exactly which one) when the first day of classes for the school quarter fell on the same day as Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year and a significant holiday in the Jewish calendar. This coincidence placed Jewish students (and faculty members) who wanted to observe the holiday at a sharp disadvantage if they intended to be absent that day. In terms of importance, the first session of class is one of the most critical, probably second only to final exams. Yet this made no difference to the CSULA administration when the quarter calendar was set up for that year, no matter how upsetting this apparent insensitivity would be to those who were affected. However, another way of looking at the matter is that the school acted correctly because a public institution should follow a policy of neutrality in matters regarding religion including—and especially—holiday observances.
So carrying this line of thought to its logical conclusion, why then should Christmas be treated any differently? Yet can you imagine the fuss that Christians would make if American public schools scheduled classes and private companies and government conducted business as usual on that day? One might argue that there's a difference: Christmas is a legal holiday, and Rosh Hashanah isn't. But that's exactly my point. Christmas was enacted as an official American holiday even though it has meaning and importance only for followers of a particular religion. Or to put it another way, Christianity is the only religion in the U.S. that gets its own federal holiday. That is a direct violation of the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution and is a glaring manifestation of Christian privilege in America. Yet as such, it is the elephant in the middle of the living room whose existence few Americans care to acknowledge.
For what it's worth from an historicalperspective , Christmas did not become a federal holiday until 1870 through an act of Congress. In fact the first English settlers in America, the Puritans even frowned upon celebrating that day. So to that extent, this holiday is not woven into the very fabric of the American narrative. But even if it were, Christmas is exclusionary against Americans who are not Christians. Thus as a day of observance it is discriminatory and hence undeserving of government endorsement. And incidentally, not all Christians mark this holiday on December 25. The Eastern Orthodox Church observes it on January 6. That leads to the question as to how Jesus could have two birth dates. This gives a whole new meaning to" "born again". But I digress.
Naturally, I would like to see Christmas disestablished as a legal holiday in the U.S., but if that ever happens, it will likely not be until many decades from now. The biggest obstacle of course would be vociferous opposition by conservative Christians whose response would no doubt be that secularists want to "outlaw" Christmas. Then there is the consideration that for most workers in both the public and private sphere, Dec. 25 is traditionally a day off. Wouldn't they lose this benefit if the Christmas holiday were abolished? Not necessarily. A replacement holiday could be declared on some other day in December as a substitute. Or perhaps Dec. 25 could remain as a holiday but designated with a secular name and theme. That way, those who want to celebrate Christmas on that date could do so, but they would no longer "own" the date as a religious occasion (over the past couple years more businesses seem to have begun operating on that day anyway.) On the other hand, this alternative may be just creating an elaborate fiction that papers over the issue without really solving it.
However resolved, it seems very unlikely the end of Christmas as an American legal holiday will ever come about unless those who fully support the Constitution are willing to bring the matter to light and make the effort to raise the American consciousness that this is a truly First Amendment issue which needs to be addressed. Despite what many fundamentalists claim, the U.S. is not a" Christian nation", but only to the extent that we do not allow followers of that faith to dominate American culture.
So carrying this line of thought to its logical conclusion, why then should Christmas be treated any differently? Yet can you imagine the fuss that Christians would make if American public schools scheduled classes and private companies and government conducted business as usual on that day? One might argue that there's a difference: Christmas is a legal holiday, and Rosh Hashanah isn't. But that's exactly my point. Christmas was enacted as an official American holiday even though it has meaning and importance only for followers of a particular religion. Or to put it another way, Christianity is the only religion in the U.S. that gets its own federal holiday. That is a direct violation of the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution and is a glaring manifestation of Christian privilege in America. Yet as such, it is the elephant in the middle of the living room whose existence few Americans care to acknowledge.
For what it's worth from an historical
Naturally, I would like to see Christmas disestablished as a legal holiday in the U.S., but if that ever happens, it will likely not be until many decades from now. The biggest obstacle of course would be vociferous opposition by conservative Christians whose response would no doubt be that secularists want to "outlaw" Christmas. Then there is the consideration that for most workers in both the public and private sphere, Dec. 25 is traditionally a day off. Wouldn't they lose this benefit if the Christmas holiday were abolished? Not necessarily. A replacement holiday could be declared on some other day in December as a substitute. Or perhaps Dec. 25 could remain as a holiday but designated with a secular name and theme. That way, those who want to celebrate Christmas on that date could do so, but they would no longer "own" the date as a religious occasion (over the past couple years more businesses seem to have begun operating on that day anyway.) On the other hand, this alternative may be just creating an elaborate fiction that papers over the issue without really solving it.
However resolved, it seems very unlikely the end of Christmas as an American legal holiday will ever come about unless those who fully support the Constitution are willing to bring the matter to light and make the effort to raise the American consciousness that this is a truly First Amendment issue which needs to be addressed. Despite what many fundamentalists claim, the U.S. is not a" Christian nation", but only to the extent that we do not allow followers of that faith to dominate American culture.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Confronting the Time Clock Theists
As an American Jewish atheist it's ironic that the country to which I've expatriated, the Philippines, is one that is predominantly (85%) and devoutly Roman Catholic. However, it's my wife's place of birth and a cheap place to retire comfortably on our modest social security income. Also, the country is a constitutional democracy and does not force the majority's beliefs on others; so I don't feel uncomfortable with or socially imposed upon by the culture at all. (Besides there is a small Jewish Association here and an online forum for local atheists as well). In fact if I were to weigh my exposure to the theistic beliefs and customs here against a particular environment of religious intolerance with which I had to cope in the U.S., the latter would tip the scales. I'm referring to the workplace. Based on my experience this was the most common point of non-optional contact and interaction with fundamentalist Christians.
Beginning mainly (but not exclusively) in the 1990's when evangelical Christians started becoming more numerous and more vocal, not surprisingly their presence on the job site also grew. And for some strange reason, starting in that era until the time I retired in 2005, the companies where I worked, finance company call centers, seemed to have a disproportionate number of these people. In two such organizations, each with a staff of more than 100, I was the only (token?) Jew at one of them and one of two at another. There may have been other atheists at these companies, but I wasn't aware of them.
In keeping with my opinion that matters regarding religion are inappropriate topics for discussion at work, I tried to keep quiet about my own beliefs, However, in those instances where I spoke up as a Jew and /or an atheist, such as in response to a bigoted or other ignorant remark, naturally I would get an angry reaction from some of my co-workers. But even when I said nothing, the environment that the fundamentalists created in the office was often uncomfortable, with their God / Jesus-talk, the aforementioned hostile comments about non-believers and non-Christians, and even a proposal for a lunch hour bible study group for which management was willing to furnish a conference room. The laws that bar discrimination in hiring on the basis of religion or non-religion don't seem to hold much sway once you become employed.
Of course, for many non-Christians in the work place, the Christmas season is even more of a time of alienation. Anti-discrimination laws don't seem to prohibit Christmas decorations, caroling, gift exchanges, parties, "merry Christmas" greetings, etc in the office. And regarding the latter, there is one point about which I agree with fundies regarding that holiday season: Christmas is literally "Christ-mass", a celebration of the birth of the Christian "savior" and not some vague amalgamation of festivals that also includes Solstice, Hanukkah, and Kwanza as the politically correct multiculturalists like to pretend. At one such supposedly non-sectarian "holiday" party in which I participated many years ago, as we were about to start eating, the department supervisor turned to one of my co-workers, a lay preacher, and asked him to offer a Christmas prayer, a request to which he eagerly consented. These two did this knowing that I was the only Jew in the department and asked me if I would like to leave the room and return when the grace was finished. Because I was totally blind-sided, I complied. They never did realize—or didn't care about—what an awkward position they put me in. But at the time I wasn't sure how to handle the matter. Perhaps I should have complained to the department manager or to personnel. Instead, out of pride I let the matter drop. But to this day I recall the incident with a mixture of embarrassment and anger.
Yet it doesn't have to be this way in a work setting. My wife once taught at a preschool that prohibited religious displays on the premises, and where no holidays were celebrated. It was a completely neutral environment. The staff was a mixture of Christians and Muslims, and at least one atheist (my wife). But in accordance with the rules, nobody tried to impose her or his beliefs on anybody else, especially on the pupils.
It's just too bad all employers aren't legally mandated to have a policy requiring that employees leave their personal beliefs in the parking lot. And although those difficult days are behind me now, such is not the case for the non-Christians in the U.S.who are currently in the work force (If they're lucky enough to have a job in the present economy) and who face the prospect of harassment and reprisals if they object to Christian privilege at their places of employment. So in the end it's a case of go along to get along. or if they dissent, to be treated just like I was, as second class citizens.
Beginning mainly (but not exclusively) in the 1990's when evangelical Christians started becoming more numerous and more vocal, not surprisingly their presence on the job site also grew. And for some strange reason, starting in that era until the time I retired in 2005, the companies where I worked, finance company call centers, seemed to have a disproportionate number of these people. In two such organizations, each with a staff of more than 100, I was the only (token?) Jew at one of them and one of two at another. There may have been other atheists at these companies, but I wasn't aware of them.
In keeping with my opinion that matters regarding religion are inappropriate topics for discussion at work, I tried to keep quiet about my own beliefs, However, in those instances where I spoke up as a Jew and /or an atheist, such as in response to a bigoted or other ignorant remark, naturally I would get an angry reaction from some of my co-workers. But even when I said nothing, the environment that the fundamentalists created in the office was often uncomfortable, with their God / Jesus-talk, the aforementioned hostile comments about non-believers and non-Christians, and even a proposal for a lunch hour bible study group for which management was willing to furnish a conference room. The laws that bar discrimination in hiring on the basis of religion or non-religion don't seem to hold much sway once you become employed.
Of course, for many non-Christians in the work place, the Christmas season is even more of a time of alienation. Anti-discrimination laws don't seem to prohibit Christmas decorations, caroling, gift exchanges, parties, "merry Christmas" greetings, etc in the office. And regarding the latter, there is one point about which I agree with fundies regarding that holiday season: Christmas is literally "Christ-mass", a celebration of the birth of the Christian "savior" and not some vague amalgamation of festivals that also includes Solstice, Hanukkah, and Kwanza as the politically correct multiculturalists like to pretend. At one such supposedly non-sectarian "holiday" party in which I participated many years ago, as we were about to start eating, the department supervisor turned to one of my co-workers, a lay preacher, and asked him to offer a Christmas prayer, a request to which he eagerly consented. These two did this knowing that I was the only Jew in the department and asked me if I would like to leave the room and return when the grace was finished. Because I was totally blind-sided, I complied. They never did realize—or didn't care about—what an awkward position they put me in. But at the time I wasn't sure how to handle the matter. Perhaps I should have complained to the department manager or to personnel. Instead, out of pride I let the matter drop. But to this day I recall the incident with a mixture of embarrassment and anger.
Yet it doesn't have to be this way in a work setting. My wife once taught at a preschool that prohibited religious displays on the premises, and where no holidays were celebrated. It was a completely neutral environment. The staff was a mixture of Christians and Muslims, and at least one atheist (my wife). But in accordance with the rules, nobody tried to impose her or his beliefs on anybody else, especially on the pupils.
It's just too bad all employers aren't legally mandated to have a policy requiring that employees leave their personal beliefs in the parking lot. And although those difficult days are behind me now, such is not the case for the non-Christians in the U.S.who are currently in the work force (If they're lucky enough to have a job in the present economy) and who face the prospect of harassment and reprisals if they object to Christian privilege at their places of employment. So in the end it's a case of go along to get along. or if they dissent, to be treated just like I was, as second class citizens.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Just Another Brick In The Wall
I have not been a home buyer for many years and will likely never be one again, at least as a borrower. Furthermore, as an expatriate I no longer reside in the U.S. So why should I be so interested in the unfolding drama of "Foreclosure-Gate" and the massive number of fraudulent and defective property titles throughout the country that are being brought to light and are fueling this scandal? There are two reasons. One is my own negative experience with a real estate loan. The other is a reaction of horror and fascination regarding the unfolding crisis similar to that one experiences when witnessing an imminent train wreck: It's a terrible thing to behold, but I'm powerless to stop it. Yet at the same time the crash is inevitable, given the faulty signals and incompetent crew.
I have read several articles about how such exotic financial innovations as securitizations created an incentive for the defective titles and lender-forged or missing documents that led to the scandal. I had intended to try to analyze the issue further and write a lengthy post about my own conclusions. But why bother? Many experts—and I am certainly not one myself—have already examined and reported on the matter six ways from Sunday. (For a beautifully concise background on the matter, see "Foreclosure Moratorium: Cracking Down on Liar Liens".) Suffice to say that in my opinion if the financial institution regulations for governing mortgage loans that were in place 30 years ago had been left intact along with strict accounting standards for businesses and if banking safeguards such as the Glass-Steagall Act not removed, the prospect of homeownership and decent wages would still be opportunities available to the middle class (or what's left of it) any and not just for the wealthy few who have hijacked the economy.
During the 1980's when my wife and I bought a home in California, we wound up on the receiving end of the real estate lending irregularities that were a dress rehearsal for the current real estate crash and its attendant deceitful practices, one of which was our being saddled with an adjustable rate mortgage. At the time the ARM was a fairly new type of loan innovation, and for many borrowers it turned out be a disaster by creating the phenomenon of negative amortization. This was around the time of the Glendale Savings and Loan collapse and the indictment of Charles Keating--a harbinger for the depredations of deregulation that were to be unleashed on the American public in the following years.
In our case, we were able to refinance our mortgage into a conventional fixed rate loan. Nevertheless, we were soon under water on our note as the neighborhood deteriorated due to the near collapse of property values in our locale. It took 16 miserable years for their worth to recover such that we could finally sell our home just a little above the break even point. During those years, our mortgage changed hands a couple times. In the course of these transactions, some of our original documents and payments went missing. (Does that sequence of events sound familiar?) Fortunately, they were eventually recovered.
Yet for all the grief caused by deregulation, the current real estate bust, the futile bailouts, and the collapse of the economy all of which had their roots in the Reagan years and which came to a head during the Bush Administration, as we approach the mid-term elections, indications are that that the majority of voters want to return the Republicans to power in Congress as well as to some state and local offices. It's true that the President Obama has blown many opportunities and failed to deliver on most of his stated goals. But much of this has been the result of Republicans', the party of "No", refusal to co-operate in the attempts at bipartisanship that Obama has repeatedly extended to the point of self-debasement.
In other words, "Foreclosure-Gate" is the result of a warped economic system. that could not have happened without deregulation and the resulting fraudulent real estate transactions especially during the Bush years. And if the Republicans win the mid-terms elections, the voters who make this possible evidently want more of the same which makes them suckers at best and co-conspirators at worst. In either case, when the next great Republican-generated swindle comes down the pike that once again privatizes the profits and socializes the costs, they will have no one to blame but themselves. However, given the way Republican politicians love to dodge taxes and social responsibility, the rest of us will be the ones to pick up the tab for their followers' gullibility.
So back to the defective title / missing document story, if you have a real estate mortgage on your home that was sold bySo back to t he defective title / missing document story, if you have a real estate mortgage on your home that was sold by the original issuer to another lender who in turn did likewise with your note, I will bet that the more companies that your loan has gone through, the greater the chances are that the current holder can't prove ownership of that mortgage. So if you are faced with foreclosure or even if you're loan is current , I suggest that you demand proof that the current payee is in fact the legitimate holder in due course of your mortgage and can produce the title and all supporting documents. If they can't or won't do so, seek legal advice. They may have no business accepting your money and may never had that authority to begin with.
I have read several articles about how such exotic financial innovations as securitizations created an incentive for the defective titles and lender-forged or missing documents that led to the scandal. I had intended to try to analyze the issue further and write a lengthy post about my own conclusions. But why bother? Many experts—and I am certainly not one myself—have already examined and reported on the matter six ways from Sunday. (For a beautifully concise background on the matter, see "Foreclosure Moratorium: Cracking Down on Liar Liens".) Suffice to say that in my opinion if the financial institution regulations for governing mortgage loans that were in place 30 years ago had been left intact along with strict accounting standards for businesses and if banking safeguards such as the Glass-Steagall Act not removed, the prospect of homeownership and decent wages would still be opportunities available to the middle class (or what's left of it) any and not just for the wealthy few who have hijacked the economy.
During the 1980's when my wife and I bought a home in California, we wound up on the receiving end of the real estate lending irregularities that were a dress rehearsal for the current real estate crash and its attendant deceitful practices, one of which was our being saddled with an adjustable rate mortgage. At the time the ARM was a fairly new type of loan innovation, and for many borrowers it turned out be a disaster by creating the phenomenon of negative amortization. This was around the time of the Glendale Savings and Loan collapse and the indictment of Charles Keating--a harbinger for the depredations of deregulation that were to be unleashed on the American public in the following years.
In our case, we were able to refinance our mortgage into a conventional fixed rate loan. Nevertheless, we were soon under water on our note as the neighborhood deteriorated due to the near collapse of property values in our locale. It took 16 miserable years for their worth to recover such that we could finally sell our home just a little above the break even point. During those years, our mortgage changed hands a couple times. In the course of these transactions, some of our original documents and payments went missing. (Does that sequence of events sound familiar?) Fortunately, they were eventually recovered.
Yet for all the grief caused by deregulation, the current real estate bust, the futile bailouts, and the collapse of the economy all of which had their roots in the Reagan years and which came to a head during the Bush Administration, as we approach the mid-term elections, indications are that that the majority of voters want to return the Republicans to power in Congress as well as to some state and local offices. It's true that the President Obama has blown many opportunities and failed to deliver on most of his stated goals. But much of this has been the result of Republicans', the party of "No", refusal to co-operate in the attempts at bipartisanship that Obama has repeatedly extended to the point of self-debasement.
In other words, "Foreclosure-Gate" is the result of a warped economic system. that could not have happened without deregulation and the resulting fraudulent real estate transactions especially during the Bush years. And if the Republicans win the mid-terms elections, the voters who make this possible evidently want more of the same which makes them suckers at best and co-conspirators at worst. In either case, when the next great Republican-generated swindle comes down the pike that once again privatizes the profits and socializes the costs, they will have no one to blame but themselves. However, given the way Republican politicians love to dodge taxes and social responsibility, the rest of us will be the ones to pick up the tab for their followers' gullibility.
So back to the defective title / missing document story, if you have a real estate mortgage on your home that was sold by
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)