Las Vegas

We just got back from Las Vegas. We didn't go there to gamble since we both hate to loose money, but to see that virtual, fantasy world cut out of the desert.

In my last essay I wrote about a ‘spanner in the works’. Well, this was one of those occasions when a spanner had been thrown into the works, disrupting an entire system. It started the day before, on Christmas Day, when a terrorist tried to blow up a plane as it flew into Detroit from Amsterdam. This incident literally threw a monkey wrenched into the travel plans of many because it sparked a higher level of security at airports everywhere, causing lengthy delays. At least it wasn't due to the weather, which might have caused even longer delays. But some of the precautions that were implemented as a result seemed silly and fruitless, like not being able to watch TV on board the plane because the program included a map of our flight, like that would have made a difference.

Anyway, the flight went well and we were only two hours late. But one thing we had to do was remain in our seats the last hour of the flight because that was when the terrorist tried to blowup the plane. You see, he had gone to the washroom in that last hour for a lengthy period of time in order to prepare his explosive. Once in Las Vegas, though, everything went fine, though it was a little cool, but sunny.

The Las Vegas airport is very close to the city center, unlike Toronto where we left from. To give you an idea of how close it was the cab only cost $18 to our hotel, whereas in Toronto it cost about $60 to the airport from where we live.

We stayed at the Bellagio, overlooking Lake Como. It wasn't really Lake Como or the real Bellagio. The names were lifted from the real places in Italy, north of Milan. And that is the thing about Las Vegas, most of it is fantasy and making one feel like they might be somewhere else. For instance, across from our room on 24th floor was the Paris hotel, with a replica of the Eiffel Tower and the Paris Opera House in front. It was quite spectacular. Up the street, north on the Las Vegas Strip, was the Venetian, with its Cantabil Tower in St Mark's Square and the Rialto Bridge spanning a canal with gondolas.

We found the Venetian almost as impressive as our hotel. In side the Venetian we found canals and real gondolas in which people took rides as the gondoliers singing to them. Along the canals were building similar to ones in the real Venice, house boutiques of all kinds. The ceiling of this indoor fantasy was painted so as to look like the sky.

The Day before we had wonder in the other direction and went into the New York-New York casino. There we found streets and building modeled after those in the Soho area of New York City. Again, it was impressive. We had a pizza there, which seemed appropriate.

Prior to going to the New York-New York casino we had wonder through the brand new City Center. It has just opened the week before. The City Center is a redevelopment project literally in the center of all the casinos on the Strip. It was so impressive it even impressed the otherwise hard to impress Las Vegans. It was composed of five are six buildings, all designed by different architects. One was designed by Libeskind, the same Libeskind that designed the extension to our Royal Ontario Museum. His building is also named the Crystal, as it is in Toronto. But in Las Vegas it houses a shopping mall, a very high end one at that. 

The City Center was very impressive. So was its price tag of 8.5 billion dollars. Because of the poor state of the economy it almost went bankrupted. The partnership of MGM and Dubai World built it. Dubai World in the United Emirates has also flirted with bankruptcy.


On our second evening we went to see “O”, one of the many Cirque de Soleil extravagances in Vegas, this one at the Bellagio. Visually it broke the ‘wow’ factor. But I was disappointed in the sound. It sounded canned, which it was, and mono, especially where we were sitting. You’d think that in this day and age they could make artificial sound sound more like a real orchestra.

All the hotels we visited had casinos except the Trump. The Trump looked very understated in comparison to the other hotel. But it did have a New York elegance about it that I understand Trump was wanting to achieve.

Beside the Trump, to the north, there were two hotel projects that had come to a standstill due to the poor economy.  Beyond that, on the other side of the Stripe, was The Fontainebleau hotel project, which also was at a standstill.  Some other hotels and projects had gone into bankruptcy.

One thing I was impressed with, and there were lots of things to be impressed with in Vegas, was how accessible most everything was. I found it a very open, democratic city, certainly very American and easy going. People from all over the world behaved like they had a lot in common. That was very satisfying to me. And the natives were especially friendly and helpful, and proud of their city.

The Flamingo casino, to the left of our hotel, had a huge poster of Donny and Marie Osmond stuck on the outside of the  building, covering many of its windows. One our trip to The Grand Canyon we met a couple from The Flamingo who said they were in a room that was right in Donny Osmond's hair. That got quite a laugh.

The Grand Canyon was as impressive as Las Vegas. But we might not see the Canyon again like we might Vegas, because Vegas is so unreal. 

Spanner

This post is called "spanner" because of the frustration I have experienced when writing about a complex subject. It seems like a strange connection but bear with me.

I am recalling the expression "throwing a spanner into the works", a metaphor attributed to P. G. Wodehouse. It's meant to conjure the image of a mechanism or a system being jammed by a spanner or a wrench thrown into it. It also suggest the posing of an obstacle. (On the other hand, I can see a spanner being deliberately thrown into the mechanism/system out of sheer frustration with it not working properly.)

My recent frustration with writing has come from an essay about pluralism in the sociopolitical world. It is a complex subject, quite abstract. Anyway, I came up with what I believe are good examples of pluralism to make a plausible essay on the subject. But then I discovered a new example of it, which changed the whole flow and tone of the essay, throwing it out of whack. It thus necessitated a rework, hence my sensing a spanner in the works and my being frustrated.

I just realized that pluralism itself can be a spanner in the works. Why, in the sociopolitical world pluralism can be a preverbal spanner. A spanner like pluralism and the tension it induces can upset the sociopolitical apple cart and the best laid plans for governing people. It can ruin one's metaphysical notions of the world, of absolute principles and how the world should be run. What can be irritating about pluralism in governance is that it produces alternatives in doing things and brings about the change many of us dread. It causes upheavals in society and to governing systems.

An example of pluralism throwing a spanner into the works occurred right here in Canada, between Canada's two founding cultures, the English and the French. The English, being the dominant culture, thought they were the works and could rule the country monistically, according to their ways. Then the French started flexing their muscles, demanding equal representation. The action of French literally threw a spanner in the proceedings by challenging and interfering with the core of Canadian politics. Fortunately, the power that be wisely choose to compromise, to be more inclusive and pluralistic in its construct, from the halls of government to the ways of business. Perhaps there was no choice But because of this change the country literally went through a political revolution. In this case the spanner proved to be an incremental instrument that agitated the system and then corrected a perceived injustice, which saved the country from breaking-up.

"Pluralism is the most serious problem facing liberal democracies today”. The person who said that I am sure sees pluralism like a big spanner in the works, as well as a threat to liberal democracy. I would venture to guess that person views pluralism as destroying the social cohesion liberal democracy needs to govern successful. For instance, pluralism encourages multiculturalism, an institution many see as divisive and ruinous to democracy because it perceivably doesn't encourage unity so that a society can live harmoniously.

Although I have railed against the spanner that has upended my essay on pluralism I am quite in favor of it when it cans to human governance. I think the spanner of pluralism in human governance is a salvation. It is the agitation that keeps governance vital and legitimate. In contrast to the opinion above I don't think pluralism is such a serious problem to liberal democracy. On the contrary. I think it is what keeps it alive and healthy.

Pluralism does make liberal democracy more complex but that complexity has made it more durable and resilient, as shown by 9/11, from which it recovered and continued to expand. Moreover, the competing interests of pluralism have served to make liberal democracy more sophisticate and agile. In comparison, liberal democracy's rival communism collapsed because it lacked the energizing push and pull of pluralism that could have helped rejuvenate and keep it relevant. Why, even liberal democracy's name resonates pluralism in the fact that it is constructed out of two competing theories of human governance (forming a kind of DNA of human governance), one being liberal which promotes free market competition and an inequality, and the other democracy, based more on cooperation and equally.

The spanner in the works is frustrating. It causes problems. But as an economist once said, we need problems because they make us better. The spanner as problem forces us to question, think and come up with solutions, thus expanding and enhancing us.

Venice

Last year we had a wonderful trip on the Queen Victoria that started in Venice. Here is a picture of that splendid city.

Are Philosophers Responsible?

Someone asked in an article, "Are Philosophers Responsible for Global Warming?"

This writer listed a few people who in the late 19th and early 20th century warned about the dangerous effects of burning fossil fuels on the environment. The writer thinks that those warnings should have been heeded earlier and concern for the environment should have been made instantly part of our cultural mindset. In other words, philosophers should have taken up the task of making the conversation about global warming sooner, like forcing the issue into the media and making it part of the educational curriculum years ago. If so, we could have avoided the environment problems we face today. The writer believes that since we didn't listen up and act earlier the environment today is suffering unnecessarily.

My response as to why the environment hadn't become an issue or a movement earlier is because humankind had other things on its mind, like still figuring out what it wanted to be, democratic or communist. Back then humankind was also still preoccupied in fighting wars. Humankind then was also too divided to come together to be concerned about the environment. Philosophers could have screamed at the top of their lungs about the problem but not enough people would have listened to make a difference. Moreover, people had not yet experienced enough about the environment to make a difference. In other words, a critical mass of concern had not yet developed back then for the environment to become a central issue.

Anyway, from that question I made up my own question. I wonder whether philosophers can be held responsible for our present economic crisis. Of course not, I say. However, perhaps they are responsible. Take, for instance, Milton Friedman. He was an economist. But he was also a philosopher. What made him a philosopher, as opposed to a scientist, is that he didn't deal with definite matter, although he liked to think so. He dealt with hypotheses, often speculating in intangibles and ideas. His hypotheses and ideas about economics became mainstream and the economic mantra of the last 30 years, a source of today's economic problems.

Friedman was very vocal about the virtues of free market and that government participation in it should be minimal. Governments all over the world took his philosophy to heart, implementing Friedman's free market principles all over the place, with major successes. His free market principles helped bring down communism, because they helped accentuated communism's failures.

However, the free market has caused us a lot of headaches recently. But was it the philosopher Friedman's fault that this crisis occurred, because actually, it can be argued, many of Friedman's ideas were manipulated and abused by others. It is a shame that he hadn't spoken up about the abuses that occurred in his name before he died in 2006. Why, his opposite number, John Galbraith, had railed for years about the excesses of the unfettered free market. But the majority of people chose not to listen to his philosophy about a possible economic catastrophe if governments didn't work to modify and temper the free market.

So every question has its dueling philosophers. Economics had Friedman and Galbraith. So in a sense you can't blame philosophers for anything. They offer us advice and possible scenarios, and try to help the rest of us figure things out. Philosophers don't make policy. Then, It is the policy makers and implementers who take philosopher's theories and ideas whom we should blame.

We are all responsible, in some way. Guilty by association!

Photograph

I am looking at what I consider a very striking and revealing photograph. Not only is it conceptually and aesthetically pleasing but it reminds me of events that caused untold financial damage. It’s a picture I took in New York City, in 1997, of two buildings that, it subsequently dawned on me, house two financial companies that are now notorious for losing billions of dollars for their clients. One of those firms is no longer in business because of the extent of its wrongdoing.

It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. This one certainly is because of what it also inadvertently represents. I took the picture while waiting for a bus. It's a photo of two imposing buildings juxtaposing one other, the Citigroup Center on Lexington Avenue and the so-called Lipstick Building on Third Avenue. (It was nicknamed the Lipstick because of its color and resemblance to a lipstick container.) The Citgroup building, in the foreground, stands about ten stories above the ground on four columns and a central core, creating an open space beneath it's towering fifty stories above. (In the photo I just captured two columns and the lighted underside of its fifty stories above.) The open space created by the columns acted like a window through which I could see the Lipstick Building behind. It’s really a striking composition of two contrasting architectural structures. I obviously was enamored with the view, hence my taking the picture, and for the fact that I like tall buildings. There is also a kind of irony about the picture in that it shows two very solid structures that housed two firms whose foundations later turned to sand.

As I said, what makes the photograph also noteworthy is that it captures two buildings that housed firms that were instrumental in bringing unprecedented financial turmoil, inflicting much pain on individuals and institutions that invested with them. The most notorious of the two companies is Madoff Securities which operated from the Lipstick Building. Bernie Madoff, its president, is now infamous, and in jail, for perpetrating the largest Ponzi, pyramid scheme in history. Citigroup is famous for being one of the largest participants in the subprime financial market, which contributed to an unprecedented real estate bubble that eventually exploded. What also sunk both firms is the ethos of the day, and that they got ensnared in exotic financial instruments and the extreme leveraging of capital that had been sweeping the financial markets.

In a sense I find it extraordinary and poignant that I have this picture of two of New York’s most famous and noted buildings, historically and architecturally. They are not only famous for their design and presence but for the two firms they housed, two firms that embodied much of the excesses of capitalism that eventually overwhelmed America, New York City and the world.

Traditionalism

I find it interesting that conservatives and traditionalists can accept Darwin's theory of evolution when it comes to free market economics but not when it comes to how humans and nature came to be.

But, then, there is a salient, striking hypocrisy in traditionalism. For instance, traditionalists are against abortion but then are willing to see growing children sink into an abyss because they weren't born on the 'right side of the tracks' or not onto a 'level playing field' like they were. (Basically, their thinking is that they are not one of us.) They aren't willing to help foster such children along with decent healthcare and education. To their way of thinking such children should be treated like business - survival of the fittest, which, ironically, is Darwinian logic.

Traditionalists believe in a Creator and creationism. But when it comes to free market economics they do not. But something had to create the market and nurture it along. Something had to create the environment in which it flourishes. Yes, something did, imaginative governing bodies and imaginative people. It has been a concerted, cooperative effort. But now that the economy is in crisis, traditionalists cannot abide such cooperation, insisting that government should deliberately let the market find its own level, despite the potentially universal destructive nature of the crisis. They don't want any interference from government, especially if it becomes mutually beneficial. Instead, they are willing to sacrifice everything and go back to how things were, in the 19th century, when the divide between rich and poor was providence, according to them.

These traditionalists don't think in terms of what can be beneficial to the whole. They don't understand that if you help give a leg up to society's weaker members you are enhancing the whole, as well as their own security. People who are denied a fair shake by traditionalist can become potential revolutionists and threatening, like they became in the 60's. People who felt excluded rioted and destroy cities and communities in those years, as traditionalist well remember but didn't seem to learn from.

Traditionalist, like fundamentals, would like to inject more religious dogma into government. We saw this attempted during the Bush administration. But with that imposition traditionalists would threaten the very nature of democracy. Democracy requires a bifurcation of authority, a secularism, a separation between Church and State, which even Thomas Jefferson said was essential so that no autocracy could take hold in America. Ironically, in their pressure to have more religious influence in government, traditionalist would been embarking on a road something akin to an Islamic state where there is no separation between Church and State, and no democracy. Such an attempt would push America back into a darker era.

How can traditionalists live with this kind of hypocrisy.

Pragmatism

I have noticed the word pragmatic in use more often recently. Perhaps that is because I have become more aware and interested in it. But I do think its usage has increased due to the difficult economic times we live in. It has been used to convey the idea that we should be patient and practical in how we approach these difficult times, that we should endeavor to seek practical and utilitarian solutions to our economic problems and not throw the baby out with the bath-water, so to speak. For instance, we shouldn’t be too hasty or heavy handed in dealing with the banks who caused the crisis, but instead take a balanced, practical approach so that we don’t further damage the industry out some sense of injustice or wanting revenge. Pragmatism is telling us that we should be cautious and realistic in how we deal with the financial institutions that failed us because, after all, we need them for our economic recovery.

Pragmatism is from the Greek meaning 'a doing' - action. However, pragmatism in today’s usage denotes more the sense of practicality than action. So how did pragmatism come to mean practicality from the original meaning of action? I think that the idea of practicality comes from one's experience, noting that one can’t have practice or experience without action or doing first.

It is not surprising that the philosophy of pragmatism emerged in first America, because from its start America was a nation of doers and plenty of activity. And when it came to governance, America’s government was the first to be openly active and engaged with its people, getting involved in nation and social building in a big way, through an active legal system and an educational curriculum that was relevant to the people. The first true experiment of democracy America embarked on could not have transpired without a sense of pragmatism, of compromise and cooperation among its founding members. This nation building and activism the American government and its people adopted certainly reflected the spirit of what the Greeks called pragma.

In "The Sociology of Philosophies" Randell Collins writes, "Pragmatism was the product of interaction between religious Idealism and the research sciences fostered by American university reform". (The university reform was provoked and by the new and appealing evolutionary theory of Darwin.) From this one can conclude that pragmatism was born as a means of bridging the growing divide between those who chose to remain religious - traditionalists, and those who chose to believe in evolution and science - modernists. To this day America remains a divided country, where a majority still don't believe in evolution. However, America's philosophy, pragmatism, is a philosophy of compromise and reconciliation. It is a philosophy that puts theory into practice - walks the talk, becoming an operational philosophy as John Dewy believed philosophy should be. Through deeds and action, this philosophy cultivated a middle, practical ground in law and education.

If pragmatism hadn't been invented America may have been torn apart by its contradictory camps of traditionalists and modernists, as it was by the Civil War. Instead, pragmatism laid the common ground on which differences could coexist. Ironically, the philosophy of pragmatism began to take root after the Civil War, perhaps as a spirited means of healing the rift that was exposed by the war. With pragmatism America invented its own truth, that people from all walks of life and beliefs can live together - a rationale that had never been tested before in human governance. And to this day that truth still binds together people who are not always like-minded. Pragmatism, in how it traverse the divide, is what makes the illusion of equality a reality.

Rude awakening.

"Anyone who believes that politicians can do a better job constructing a healthy economy than the people they want to replace or manipulate in the financial world is in for a very rude awakening.”

That opinion was directed at the Obama administration, which is using government people and resources to fix the sick American economy. Our commentator also mentioned a ‘rude awakening’, which seems to be misplaced.

Today’s politicians, let alone the Obama administration, don’t and didn’t want the responsibility of constructing a healthy economy. That job belongs to the people because they are recognized as the best capable in doing it. The Obama team just wants to reestablish the environment in which ordinary people will themselves recreate a healthy economy, by bringing back trust and confidence to the system, and by reinvigorating the banking system that insiders destroyed. Throughout American history it has been government that has initially established the favorable circumstances, and common sense, in which a healthy economy can grow and flourish. There is no exception this time around and the Obama team recognizes its responsibility.

I was inspired to write this piece not only by the quote above but because of a book written by Felix Rohatyn: “Bold Endeavors: How Our Government Built America, and Why It Must Build Now”. Mr. Rohatyn is the former investment banker who helped rescue New York City from bankruptcy in the 1970’s, with the help of government aid. History knows that NYC recovered and paid back the government loans. From that government help, NYC went on to be better than ever. Nobody wanted to think what NYC could have become if it hadn’t gotten government assistance.

In his book Mr. Rohatyn also mentioned other great endeavors the government instigated over the years that expanded America’s economic vitality and prowess, projects that no single private corporation could have imagined or was willing to take on. There was the building of the Erie Canal, the Louisiana Purchase, the building of the Panama Canal, the government facilitation of the transcontinental railway, support for the Interstate highway system, NASA and the GI Bill. The government also laid the groundwork for today’s communication system and the Internet. In most cases the institutions the government inspired eventually were privatized. And let’s not forget the security government affords us so that we can go about doing our business.

I am thinking of Reaganomics, which virtually laid the groundwork for today’s economic fiasco, with it supply-side economics. It started the ball rolling towards the excesses that now hobble the economy. Reagan used to say, sardonically, that government was the problem. Ironically, though, he was correct because his hands-off, lax governing style, a style that gained acceptance over the years, was in part responsible for the events of today, the economic culture of imbalances and excesses that brought America to its knees. Rightly so, then, government is the problem if it neglects its governing and oversight duties.

Our commentator is right about one thing, about a rude awakening descending on us. But the rude awakening is courtesy of the last administration and not this one as suggested. This awakening, delivered via the Bush&Co, finally convinced the American people the importance of government and what negligence of duty on behalf of it can do to help destroy an economy. This rude awakening has also shown the America people that unfettered capitalism is, in the long run, a dangerous and destructive force. Now, it is only government that can pick up the pieces because it is, like most times, the savior of last resort.

It seems difficult for some people to understand that the economy is a concerted effort between two sectors, private and public. However, those sectors should remain autonomous from each other for best results. Unfortunately both sectors became a bit too chummy with each other over the years, effecting the economy’s honesty and efficiency. What the present administration is attempting to do is go back to when things worked better. However, because of the big mess the economy is in it is going to take a lot of aid and upheaval to do it, something some people are having difficulty accepting.

Capitalists always want governments to keep out of the way, especially in good times. But when things truly get rough, guess who they go to, crying cap in hand? Government! Government is the savior of last resort. And that, as Al Gore would say, is an inconvenient truth.

"Will things get worse?"

It bothers me that people think that the economic mess we are in is fueled by negative thinking on the part of the media and consumers. It follows that if we think this way the economy will naturally get worse and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. However, the argument goes, if we begin to think positively things will improve. To my way of thinking nothing could be further from the truth.

Recently an article in The Toronto Star argued such a point, that it's our collective negativity that is causing economic pain and making a recession a self-fulfilling prophecy. Its author is David Olive. Here is my response to his argument, which the paper published, edited of course:

David Olive overlooked today's precarious economic fundamentals, particularly in banking. Never have we seen such a calamity in banking caused by financial instruments that took on a life of their own. Derivatives have become contagions, so unpredictable that financial markets are frozen, continually waiting for the next shoe to drop.

Because of this there has been a lack of liquidity due to a lack of trust and confidence between financial institutions. And banks became over-leveraged to a point that became unsustainable. This was eventually exposed by the real estate bubble those financial institutions happily enabled.

Never have we seen large corporations like GM, Citigroup and GE, the backbone of the U.S. economy, in such dire straits. This alone is creating a "self-fulfilling prophecy."

At the root of the problem is excess – from over production to over capacity. There were too many stores, too many buildings, too many car producers. Eventually the economy became saturated; people could only buy and absorb so much.

Supply-side economics – "If you build it they will come" – got too far ahead of itself. Perhaps if money hadn't been so cheap this would not have happened.

Will things get worse? Most likely. But because of economic fundamentals that still need fixing, not people's misdirected psychology.

Bush the conservative

Somebody was wondering why people insist on calling Bush a conservative when he really didn't behave like a conservative while in office. For instance, if he really were a conservative he wouldn't have increased the size of government or its budget deficit as he did. True conservatives believe in small government and manageable budgets.

Well, George Bush declared himself a conservative, a passionate conservative at that, and we took him at his word. Many of his foreign policy decisions were conservative in comparison to the previous liberal-progressive administration of Bill Clinton. Bush’s core beliefs, notwithstanding, were conservative, especially in foreign policy, social issues and labor relations. His hands-off approach to his government’s rebuilding New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina was a typical conservative response. Another truly conservative position he took was his laissez-faire, unfettered one to capitalism.

What also made Bush conservative, although not exclusively, was his reliance on religion, faith and ideology. He stuck to those beliefs at the expense of empiricism and pragmatism, the true ways of America. However, over the years he may have lost his conservative streak due to the quagmires he got himself into, like the war on terror and the economy, that necessitated he release himself from the yoke of conservatism. Ironically, he more than most presidents socialized the American economy due to the blunders his administration committed. For instance, at the end of his term he had to enact socialistic policies to rescue the economy.

I think the main reason why conservatives can never truly remain conservative in their policies is because the world and reality tugs in a different direction – towards liberalism. The thing is, in their attempts to remain conservative conservatives make things worse, as Bush did. If only they could learn to be more balanced and pragmatic.

Bush relied on faith at the expense of experience. There is nothing wrong with religion and prayer. However, Bush often used religion and his faith to make policy decisions, which led to bad decisions. Because of his religion and faith he ignored science and its development, which could have help the economy. Because of a religious faith he blundered in the Middle East. It is the way Bush used religion that made him conservative, with his fundamental and absolutist beliefs. He is a creationist and doesn’t believe in evolution.

Another reason I think Bush was basically conservative in his presidency is because he thought simply and narrowly, a hallmark of conservatism. He himself said he didn’t nuance. Conservatives don’t do nuance. They think in black and white. He thought and talked like that when he mentioned good and evil and ‘either you are with us or against us’. Liberals don’t talk that way. Had he done some nuancing during his tenure perhaps the economy wouldn't be in such bad shape.

A major reason, and by no means the only reason, why the American financial system is in such distress is because of the collusion that was allowed to develop between the rating and regulatory agencies, both private and public, and the industries they were supposed to monitor. A monopolistic, crony system was allowed to develop between sectors that were supposed to be autonomous. For instance, government agencies that were designed to protect the people’s economic interests were instead working to enhance corporate interests.

One thing that has made democracy and capitalism a success is the bifurcation of authority and

an arms length relationships between sectors. During the Bush administration the bifurcation needed to prevent collusion and corruption was allowed to deteriorate between financial sectors, hence the economic and financial mess we are in to day. So I was thinking, America could have been in a far worst mess in its governance if conservatives like Bush were allowed to undermine the separation between Church and State as they wanted to do. That could have endangered American secularism, a stalwart of democracy. If that had occurred America might have become a theocratic state like may in the Muslim world.

On a related matter, I heard some good news. The King of Saudi Arabia has picked the first woman to be on the governing council of that Islamic nation. That is a ‘liberal’ act done by a very conservative regime. I am thinking that in doing this the King was bowing to the liberal currents that are churning in the world. And he knows that if his kingdom wants to keep up with the modern world it has to change and become more flexible and accommodating.

The Bush Legacy

A lot of people think that the financial crisis America faces today started before Bush, that the seeds of it were sown years ago. There is some truth to that. But really, it took on life after 9/11 when Bush told Americans to go shopping and spend, and make happy, because otherwise "the terrorists will have won". Allen Greenspan obliged by making credit as cheap as possible, enabling the subprime and the financial derivatives that are sinking America today.

The terrorists of 9/11 were hoping to disrupt and upend the American way of life, as America, in the terrorist's view, had disrupted and upended the Islamic world. Well, in a way the terrorist have won because of the financial turmoil the US is in today. With Americans heeding Bush's words after 9/11 they went out on a spending spree, jeopardizing the country with a massive debt and the worst economic crisis since the Depression. (That spending spree created unsustainable 'supply-side' economics, with too much capacity.) The terrorist couldn't have hoped for a better calamity to strike the US.

Also, the terrorists managed to draw Bush&Co. into two wars that have caused a financial burden that has put the US at further risk of loosing its status as the mainstay of the world. And it didn't helped that Bush didn't ask American's to sacrifice anything for the war effort.

But on reflection, Bush did get Americans to sacrifice for the war on terror, more than he could have imagined, by putting them and the country into hawk for years to come.

Perhaps Bush already has dementia, thinking that history will be kind to him by giving him a decent legacy.

Media bias?

I just read an article entitled "The Year of living Gloomily". It was about the media’s economic reporting over the past year. Its author thinks that in reporting on the economy the media has taken a bias, gloomy outlook. He thinks that the media’s gloomy reporting has made the economy worse and that its bias has led to a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. In other words, if the media had been more upbeat in it’s reporting the economy wouldn’t be as bad as it is.

The argument is that bad, gloomy news sells. In general that is the case. Ironically, though, the media’s so-called bias and gloomy economic reporting may have also hurt it. The bad economic conditions that are going around have also affected the profitability of the news media, with news services cutting staff dramatically to stay in business or going bankrupt. So one would wonder, why would the news media deliberately sound gloomy on the economy if they were also the ones to be affected by such gloom? It sounds like the media is ‘cutting off its nose to spite its face’.

It seems the media can't win. The author is not saying that in it’s reporting the media helped create the economic panic or turmoil we face today. But by sounding negative about it he suggested that the media has compounded the problem. However, a similar argument about the media can be made at the other end: it helped drive up economy activity, to such dizzying heights that it helped created the economic bubble of investment that now has burst, spraying us with the toxic financial fallout we face today. As the economy was going up the media fed us stories that made us feel like losers if we didn't participate in it. Media hype drove speculation in the stock market, housing and other commodities. Wasn't the media equally bias when it failed to report more thoroughly on the abuses that were being perpetrated in the name of free enterprise?

Why would the media want to make the economy worse? The media and the press are supposed to report facts. If companies are having business problems and going bankrupt it is the duty of the media to tell us about it, not hide it from us or gloss it over. Likewise, if people are loosing their jobs or having problems paying their bills it should be reported. Under those circumstances, if the media choose instead to report that the economy was doing fine it would be negligent in its duty and be postponing the inevitable, and make things worse. That kind of gloss-over reporting was done in the Soviet Union, where the press was intimidated and manipulated by autocrats. That media manipulation and cover-up of a bad economy is what eventually led to the Soviet Empire’s collapse.

As I read this article I thought of Marshall McLuhan, the famous Canadian sociologist that studied the media. His most famous pronouncement and subsequent book title was "The Media is the Message". As the dictionary describes him, "He holds that the chief technology of communications in a society has a determining effect on everything important in that society, even the thought process of individuals".

I wonder how McLuhan would have reacted to this article about media bias? If the media is the message as he said it is, then, isn’t the bias of the media as much a part of it? Often the media is accused of having a liberal bias. So that should mean that being liberal is the media. In a free society the media is liberal, inherently so because if it wasn't it wouldn’t lead to a ‘free press’. If the media were anything else but liberal it would then be a suppressed and hamstrung one like it was in the Soviet Union. An open, democratic society must think liberal to be so. In its liberal bias the media, in the way of McLean’s thinking, works to reinforce that in the thought process of individuals.

Whether the media is considered leaning in one direction or another is not the point. Whichever way the media leans it is still getting out a message. In its recent ‘bias’ the media has been working to get the message out that the economy is in terrible shape. If it didn’t take that so-called bias stance, in a comprehensive way, people would not pay the necessary attention and alter their ways. People all across the board have been consuming far more than they have been producing. It’s time to pay the piper. Now, if the press didn’t take issue with that and exaggerate the point, in a bias way, people would not pay attention.

In other words, the press must act in a bias manner so as to get the message out, a message that would otherwise go unheeded, allowing for worse things to happen in the future. The media's job in bad times is to whip up a frenzy so as to get people to act before it's to late and alter their course. If people were more rational and acted more prudently from the beginning then the media would not have to act in such a bias, perverse manner, so as to motivate people to change their destructive ways, before it's to late.