A Time for Exploration

That’s what the past many months and the near future is all about: exploring.  New ideas, new foods and dishes, new exercise regimens, new ways of relating to one another, along with a healthy dose of appreciation for life’s blessings.  Times are good personally, despite feeling mightily humbled in knowing times aren’t so good for plenty of others, a few my own friends.  My heart goes out to them.  Not to sound crass, but things could always be worse, this I do believe.

Makes me feel kinda guilty to be this happy when everybody else seems blue.  Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment

China attacks dollar’s dominance

By: George Parker and Guy Dinmore in L’Aquila, Krishna Guha in Washington and Justine Lau in Hong Kong

Published: July 9 2009 19:03 | Last updated: July 9 2009 19:03

[Read at Financial Times]

China has launched its highest-profile criticism of the dominant role of the US dollar as a global reserve currency at a meeting of the world’s biggest economies.

Dai Bingguo, Chinese state councillor, raised the issue on Thursday when he joined the leaders of four other emerging economies for talks with the leaders of the Group of Eight industrialised nations – including US President Barack Obama – in the earthquake-damaged Italian town of L’Aquila.

The remarks, in front of Mr Obama, caused concern among western leaders, some of whom fear that even discussion of long-term currency issues could unsettle markets and undercut economic recovery.

Gordon Brown, Britain’s prime minister, said he did not remember Mr Dai making the remarks. But he said the focus should be on moving the world out of recession.

“We don’t want to give the impression that big change is around the corner and the present arrangements will be destabilised,” said Mr Brown.

”We should have a better system for reserve currency issuance and regulation, so that we can maintain relative stability of major reserve currencies exchange rates and promote a diversified and rational international reserve currency system,” said Mr Dai, according to the Chinese foreign ministry.

While he did not name the dollar, Mr Dai was unequivocal in calling for the world to diversify the reserve currency system and aim at relatively stable exchange rates among leading currencies.

The dollar weakened in subsequent trading, although it was difficult to tell whether this was due to the Chinese remarks or cross-currents in risk appetite and economic data.

Analysts said Mr Dai’s comments – which follow earlier statements by the People’s Bank of China in March – appeared mostly political in nature. While China desires in the long run to move to a more multipolar global financial system, Chinese officials understand that there is no alternative to the dollar in the short term and may not be for many years.

By faulting the dollar Beijing can express its displeasure at US policy and exert leverage over the US in general, including in the broad debate over the future governance of the international financial system.

The challenge also serves as a shot across the bows for the US at a time when China is concerned about giant US government deficits and the Federal Reserve’s unorthodox monetary policy. Beijing wants the US to take seriously its obligation to sustain the value of China’s nearly $2,000bn in US Treasuries.

Separately, Joseph Yam, chief executive of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, said Hong Kong might consider diversifying more of its US$200bn reserves away from the US dollar.

Mr Yam said he had an “open mind” as to whether the territory would invest its reserves in renminbi-denominated assets.

“There may come a time in the future when we think that a small, modest exposure to the renminbi – notwithstanding it being a non-convertible currency still – may be something that we may pursue. But we don’t have any plans at this moment, any concrete plans,” said Mr Yam.

“A bit of diversification won’t hurt us,” he added.

__________________________________

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment

China calls for new reserve currency

By: Jamil Anderlini in Beijing [from Financial Times site]

Published: March 23 2009 12:16 | Last updated: March 24 2009 00:06

China’s central bank on Monday proposed replacing the US dollar as the international reserve currency with a new global system controlled by the International Monetary Fund.

In an essay posted on the People’s Bank of China’s website, Zhou Xiaochuan, the central bank’s governor, said the goal would be to create a reserve currency “that is disconnected from individual nations and is able to remain stable in the long run, thus removing the inherent deficiencies caused by using credit-based national currencies”.

Analysts said the proposal was an indication of Beijing’s fears that actions being taken to save the domestic US economy would have a negative impact on China.

“This is a clear sign that China, as the largest holder of US dollar financial assets, is concerned about the potential inflationary risk of the US Federal Reserve printing money,” said Qu Hongbin, chief China economist for HSBC.

Although Mr Zhou did not mention the US dollar, the essay gave a pointed critique of the current dollar-dominated monetary system.

“The outbreak of the [current] crisis and its spillover to the entire world reflected the inherent vulnerabilities and systemic risks in the existing international monetary system,” Mr Zhou wrote.

China has little choice but to hold the bulk of its $2,000bn of foreign exchange reserves in US dollars, and this is unlikely to change in the near future.

To replace the current system, Mr Zhou suggested expanding the role of special drawing rights, which were introduced by the IMF in 1969 to support the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate regime but became less relevant once that collapsed in the 1970s.

Today, the value of SDRs is based on a basket of four currencies – the US dollar, yen, euro and sterling – and they are used largely as a unit of account by the IMF and some other international organisations.

China’s proposal would expand the basket of currencies forming the basis of SDR valuation to all major economies and set up a settlement system between SDRs and other currencies so they could be used in international trade and financial transactions.

Countries would entrust a portion of their SDR reserves to the IMF to manage collectively on their behalf and SDRs would gradually replace existing reserve currencies.

Mr Zhou said the proposal would require “extraordinary political vision and courage” and acknowledged a debt to John Maynard Keynes, who made a similar suggestion in the 1940s.

__________________________________

Damn.  International currency controlled by the IMF?  Um…NO!  Hello, America?  I have another one to follow up with (see the following post).

Leave a Comment

Mid-Summer 2009

There’s so much to share but it’s not the time and space for that.  Sipping hot tea, imagining future possibilities, unwinding.  Forever dreaming up new ways to bring in a little income on the side, but also thinking about branching out and meeting new people, particularly women since I already know a bunch of guys.  Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment

4th of July weekend

Hello blog.  Recovering from eating the last of my crockpot roast and veggies.  That was my first attempt at cooking a roast and it came out all right.  Not fantastically wow but the meat was very tender.  I’ll use more beef broth and seasoning next time.  Read the rest of this entry »

Comments (2)

Finding a Stubborn Hope to Live in a Dead Culture

From SleptOn.com / written by Prof. Robert Jensen / June 29, 2009:

For many years I said that we live in a “dying culture,” but I have abandoned that phrase. The dominant culture in the United States — hyper-nationalist ethnocentrism and a predatory corporate capitalism shaped by patriarchy and white supremacy, playing out within a broader human assault on the planetary ecosystem — is not dying. It is already dead. Of course the United States government and United States-based corporations continue to wield incredible power at home and around the world, and it may seem odd to refer to a society that can impose its will on so much of the world as a dead culture. Sick, maybe even dying, certainly in the last throes of imperial power—but dead? Yes, in the sense of the deadness at the soul of the culture.

Rather than saving the dominant culture, our task is not only to let it pass from the scene but to hasten that transition. Jesus recognized, in his own time, that a radical departure from the old was necessary. When a disciple agreed to follow him but asked that he first be permitted to go and bury his own father, Jesus said to him, “Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.” [Matt. 8:21-22]

It is time for us to stop trying to revive our dead culture, to stop believing that the nation-state and capitalism — born in, and still infected by, patriarchy and white supremacy — can be the basis for a just and sustainable future. It is time to go to a deeper level. Even with the economic and military setbacks of recent years, many in the United States hold on tightly to a delusional triumphalism — a belief that the United States is the ultimate fulfillment of human promise, that shining city upon the hill, a beacon to the world. The faith we need must give us strength to recognize we live in a dead culture and to speak this harsh truth.

Beyond that, it must allow us, first, to be decent to one another despite our knowledge that being heartless will be rewarded. Second, it must embolden us to confront systems that will be intensely resistant to change and will reward those who refuse to acknowledge the urgent need for change. Third, our faith must empower us to maintain these personal and political commitments with no guarantee that we can transcend and survive this dead culture.

The ultimate test of our strength is whether we can recognize not only that we live in a dead culture but also that there may be no way out. It’s true that throughout history cultures have died, empires have fallen, societies have been replaced by challengers. Through all that, the world survived. But consider the unprecedented destructive capacity of the United States military, the entrenched pathology embedded in our psyches through capitalism, the ecological damage already done, and the further damage likely to occur during a collapse — it’s no longer clear that by the time the United States empire collapses, the world will survive in anything like the form we know it.

And as this future unfolds, we will have to cope with the delusions (both of grandeur and victimization) that power and affluence tend to produce in elites and the general public, which will undermine the clear thinking that will be so desperately needed.

The ultimate test of our strength is whether we would be able to persevere in the quest for sustainability and justice even if we had good reasons to believe that both projects would ultimately fail. We can’t know for sure, but can we live with that possibility? Can we ponder that and yet still commit ourselves to loving action toward others and the non-human world?

Said differently: What if our species is at an evolutionary dead end? What if those adaptations that produced our incredible evolutionary success — our ability to understand certain aspects of how the world works and manipulate that world to our short-term advantage — are the very qualities that guarantee we will destroy ourselves and possibly the world? What if that which has allowed us to dominate will be that which in the end destroys us? What if humanity’s story is a dramatic tragedy in the classical sense, a tale in which the seeds of the protagonist’s destruction are to be found within, and the play is the unfolding of the inevitable fall?

No one can know for sure, of course. But what if? Do we have the strength to ponder that? In a let’s-roll-up-our-sleeves-and-get-to-work culture, what if we were to roll up our sleeves forever and still not be able to get the job done? Most people would say we demonstrate our strength when we tackle such jobs with a can-do attitude. A demonstration of greater strength — maybe the greatest strength we can imagine — is to take on those jobs with an understanding not only that failure is possible but that it may be likely. This goes against the grain in a culture that assumes that success is inevitable. But there is no requirement in theology or politics that the prognosis always be favorable. There may be not only specific social ills for which there is no cure — it may be that we humans are just smart enough to get into trouble on all fronts but never quite smart enough to get ourselves out. What if the tragedy of human intelligence is that we are bound to create complex problems for which there are no simple solutions?

If we are truly strong — if we love with all our strength — we must face these questions. Strength is exhibited not by manufacturing a sense of hope that ignores reality but by facing up, while not succumbing, to a situation that may be hopeless. It doesn’t mean hope is unavailable to us, but that we have to find honestly what Albert Camus called a “stubborn hope”:

Tomorrow the world may burst into fragments. In that threat hanging over our heads there is a lesson of truth. As we face such a future, hierarchies, titles, honors are reduced to what they are in reality: a passing puff of smoke. And the only certainty left to us is that of naked suffering, common to all, intermingling its roots with those of a stubborn hope. [Albert Camus, “The Wager of Our Generation,” in Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, (New York: Vintage, 1960), pp. 239-240.]

If we are to claim a stubborn hope, we must come to it honestly and act from it with integrity. That is what it means to speak prophetically. Never before has it been more important for all of us to find our prophetic voices.

This essay is excerpted from Robert Jensen’s new book, All My Bones Shake: Seeking a Progressive Path to the Prophetic Voice, from Soft Skull Press.

Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin, regular contributor to www.SleptOn.com and board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center. His latest book, All My Bones Shake, will be published in 2009 by Soft Skull Press. Jensen is also the author of Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity (South End Press, 2007); The Heart of Whiteness: Race, Racism, and White Privilege (City Lights Books, 2005); Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity (City Lights Books, 2004); and Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream (Peter Lang, 2001). He can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu and his articles can be found online here at www.SleptOn.com and at http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/index.html.

Right on.  Prof. Jensen shoots it straight once again.

Leave a Comment

Tiffs and Friendship

Glad to talk some of it out with “Ginger.”  Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment

Women and Anger

Recently I picked up Spike Gillespie’s Pissed Off: On Anger and Women since it looked provocative on amazon.  Halfway through it and I don’t like it.  Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment

Time to pay the pipers

Between 2002-2006, I lived in cash and debit only, no credit cards.  Partly because the cards I’d owned before then ruined my credit, but it was also a personal choice.  This has been discussed elsewhere on this blog – what I’m thinking about today is knocking out what new credit card debt I do have (and also paying back that stupid DFAS overpayment – innocent payroll errors, my ass).  The debt’s not much really, certainly well under $5,000 (will have to tally later), all with very high interest rates.  Mostly all I’m paying is interest even when doubling the minimum payment (and continuing to use the cards as a matter of convenience).

I don’t plan to close the accounts, just pay them off and try not to spend anything on them that can’t be paid off within a couple months.  Nothing too novel.

Credit cards aren’t my boogeyman – student loans are.  boggled_smilie

Borrowed from Yes! Magazine:

cc_jars

“Vacuum-packed for your protection.”

Leave a Comment

Disputing the “Myth of Redemptive Violence”

I like that term, having moments ago learned it in the below article from Yes! Magazine (Winter 2002 edition), written by Walter Wink, discussing how Jesus did NOT advocate pacifism but that doesn’t mean violence is the only remaining answer:

Can Love Save the World?

“I don’t see myself as a pacifist. I see myself rather as a violent person trying to become nonviolent”

Michael Kelly thinks he has killed pacifism. In an editorial in the Washington Postof September 26, 2001, he cites George Orwell’s 1944 description of pacifism as “objectively pro-Fascist.” “If you hamper the war effort on one side you automatically help out that of the other,” Orwell reasoned. Applied to “America’s New War,” Kelly finds the logic irrefutable. “Organized terrorist groups have attacked America. These groups wish the Americans to not fight. The American pacifists wish the Americans to not fight. If the Americans do not fight, the terrorists will attack America again. And now we know such attacks can kill many thousands of Americans. The American pacifists, therefore, are on the side of future mass murders of Americans. They are objectively pro-terrorist.” Hence the pacifist position is “evil.”

Would that life were so logical! For what Mr. Kelly overlooks is a third way, neither passive nor aggressive. For millions of years his error has been endlessly repeated. It is the fight/flight response. But that third way has occasionally been tried, and, wonder of wonders, it has frequently succeeded. Religions pioneered the third way as a nonviolent protest against those two invidious alternatives. Starting with the Hebrew midwives, nonviolence was elaborated by Jainism and Buddhism, given political bite by Jews like the prophets and Jesus, articulated by Christians like St. Francis and Martin Luther King, Jr., and made programmatic and practical by the Hindu Gandhi and the Muslim Badshah Khan.

Nevertheless, I agree with Mr. Kelly that pacifism must go. It is endlessly confused with passivity. In the nations in which Christianity has predominated, Jesus’ teaching on nonviolence has been perverted into injunctions to passive nonresistance, which, as we shall see, is the very opposite of active nonviolence. Jesus had said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your outer garment, give your undergarment as well; and if one of the occupation troops forces you to carry his pack one mile, go two” (Matthew 5:38-41). As it stands, this saying seems to counsel supine surrender. If you are a woman and you are struck by your spouse on one cheek, turn the other; let him pulverize you. If you are sued for a piece of clothing, give all your clothes voluntarily, as an act of pious renunciation. And if a Roman soldier forces you to carry his pack one mile, be a chump: carry it two. And the crowning blow: don’t resist evil at all.

For centuries, readers of this advice have instinctively known something was wrong with this picture. Jesus always resisted evil. Why would he tell us to behave in ways he himself refused? And that’s where the trouble starts. The Greek word translated as “resist” (antistenai), is literally “to stand (stenai) against (anti).” The term is taken from warfare. When two armies collide, they were said to “stand against” each other. The correct translation is given in the new Scholars Bible: “Don’t react violently against the one who is evil.” The meaning is clear: don’t react in kind, don’t mirror your enemy, don’t turn into the very thing you hate. Jesus is not telling us not to resist evil, but only not to resist it violently.

Jesus gives three examples to explain his point. The first is: “If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.” Most people picture a blow with the right fist. But that would land on the left cheek, and Jesus specifies the right cheek. A left hook wouldn’t fit the bill either, since the left hand was used only for unclean tasks, and even to gesture with it brought shame on the one gesturing. Jesus is speaking about striking the right cheek with the back of the right hand. This was not a blow to injure. It was symbolic. It was intended to humiliate, to put an inferior in his or her place. It was given by a master to a slave, a husband to a wife, a parent to a child, or a Roman to a Jew. The message of the powerful to their subjects was clear: You are a nobody, get back down where you belong.

It is to those accustomed to being struck thus that Jesus speaks (“if anyone strikes you”). By turning the other cheek, the person struck puts the striker in an untenable spot. He cannot repeat the backhand, because the other’s nose is now in the way. The left cheek makes a fine target, but only persons who are equals fight with fists, and the last thing the master wants is for the slave to assert equality (see the Mishnah, Baba Kamma 8:6). This is, of course, no way to avoid trouble; the master might have the slave flogged to within an inch of her life. But the point has been irrevocably made: the “inferior” is saying, in no uncertain terms, “I won’t take such treatment anymore. I am your equal. I am a child of God.” By turning the other cheek, the oppressed person is saying that she refuses to submit to further humiliation. This is not submission, as the churches have insisted. It is defiance. That may sound a bit idealistic, but people all over the globe of late have been taking their courage in their hands this way and resisting, nonviolently, those who have treated them thus.

Jesus’ second example deals with indebtedness, the most onerous social problem in first century Palestine. The wealthy of the Empire sought ways to avoid taxes. The best way was to buy land on the fringes of the Empire. But the poor didn’t want to sell. So the rich jacked up interest rates—25 to 250 percent. When the poor couldn’t repay, first their moveable property was seized, then their lands, and finally the very clothes on their backs. Scripture allowed the destitute to sleep in their long robes, but they had to surrender them by day (Deuteronomy 24:10-13).

It is to that situation that Jesus speaks. Look, he says, you can’t win when they take you to court. But here is something you can do: when they demand your outer garment, give your undergarment as well. That was all they wore. The poor man is stark naked! And in Israel, nakedness brought shame, not on the naked party, but on the one viewing his nakedness. (See the story of Noah, Genesis 9.) Jesus is not asking those already defrauded of their possessions to submit to further indignity. He is enjoining them to guerrilla theater. Read the rest of this entry »

Comments (1)

Jung Typology Test Results

According to HumanMetrics.com, I am an INFP (Introverted, iNtuitive, Feeling, Perceiving) on the Jung Personality Test.  Having taken a number of these tests over the years, the results come back as INFP or INTP about 50/50, demonstrating my tendency toward both feeling and thinking to guide my choices and responses.  Personally, I think the reason is because I’m female, which comes with heavy socialization to encourage empathy toward others.  If born a male, it’s likely I’d be an even greater asshole.  smirk2 hehe

Funny that they peg me as an introvert considering my family and friends tend to consider me an extrovert.  Over time I’ve come to refer to myself as an “extroverted introvert.”  I can be really outgoing in certain social settings and am very talkative with my own people, but then can be shy and nervous with new folks, especially females, preferring to speak as little as possible (lest my foot find its way to my mouth, as it typically does).

Here’s what Keirsey.com has to say about INFPs: Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment

Mind vs. Myth Test


Your result for Mind vs Myth Test

Agnostic

You might also be interested in Buddhism or Pantheism!

“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”

Socrates

As an Agnostic, you know that you don’t have the answers to the mysteries of the universe. But perhaps you find comfort in understanding myth, and seeing the poetic and metaphorical meaning behind religions. If you’re new to Agnosticism, you might be struggling to know which church is true. The answer is ALL of them… or none of them. You can learn a lot about yourself through mythology, but if you prefer, you can also find meaning in music, art, and poetry. Myth and art are the music of life, food for the soul.

You Scored:

64% Science vs 36% Faith

47% Mind vs 53% Heart


Take Mind vs Myth Test
at HelloQuizzy

Leave a Comment

Cop vs. Cop

Cop vs. Cop

WTF?

“Gimme my license, bitch!”  hehe  Classic.  cool5

Leave a Comment

Tired of her shit

Wooh. It’s felt like a long day, for real. I’ll warn you in advance that some major griping follows.

The day started out like usual with no complaints, going to work at my dayjob at the regular time before heading to the new gym to workout this afternoon, which was nice.  Talked to a few friends on the phone and later my grandma.  No problemo right up until my galpal “Ginger” called to vent.  Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment

Joined the gym today! Yay!

It was time.  Costs about the same as my old gym did, $44/mo. with a one-year membership.  I’m damned determined to lose 10 lbs. in the short-run, 20+ lbs. being the ultimate goal, bringing me down to weighing approximately 140 lbs. or less. Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment

How’s this for a comparison?

Since we’re still (forever) on the topic of prostitution, human sexuality, ethics and morality, and the thin lines drawn all across the board, I’ll bring up another comparison between your “civie” (i.e., civilian) society and choices contrasted against sex worker ethics. Read the rest of this entry »

Comments (3)

Rethinking clients’ motives

Hey blog.  Not feeling too well today.  Sick with a cold.  I wanted to mention something that’s been on my mind lately.  Ya know, as soon as I type something, immediately I’m forced to reconsider my assertions.  One in particular that’s been bothering me relates with my “escorted” clients and how my perception is warped by my own life experiences, causing me to take leaps at times that are broadly overly generalized and unnecessary. Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment

Older Posts »