Why do we have laws? It seems to me that the only good reason for creating a law or regulation is to protect an identifiable victim. Other arbitrary purposes, such as defining or imposing morality, are simply not good enough. But is this distinction a founding principal of our governing civil institutions? I don't know. Anyone? (Harold....?)

We do have a variety of non-secular institutions that define rituals, beliefs, behavior, and other constructs along different lines, and these are not bound by the principal of protecting an identifiable victim. Does our separation of civil and religious institutions cover this principal, or does our Western and Judaic tradition blur the distinction?

While civil governments do issue proclamations, such as defining an official seal of the state, or designating a day of commemoration, this seems to me to be a separate function of government outside that which can be decided and acted on by the court system. A political body or office-holder may well declare that one plus one is two — or three — but there are no legal consequences for disagreeing. Unless we can define a specific and testable group to be protected by an answer of two or three, it would be inappropriate to elevate either proclamation to be a law or regulation.

Two cute woof-woofs from dear old Atrios, at Eschaton. ( I will link to him even though he refuses to acknowledge my existence (I hate that).)

In the most recent bark, he ironically says, Damn those unions for destroying Citigroup!!!. In the immediately prior arf-arf, he says,

I guess the Very Serious People are incapable of seeing how absurd this all is.

Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. government is prepared to lend more than $7.4 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers, or half the value of everything produced in the nation last year, to rescue the financial system since the credit markets seized up 15 months ago.

Recognizing that some professed conservatives in Congress have some trouble remembering all that “Old Testament” stuff, allow me to clarify the reference. At the end of the Book of Jeremiah, the Babylonians come and do everything Jeremiah predicted would happen if the Children of Israel didn't stop all their idolatry and oppressing the poor and the helpless, i.e., they destroyed the Temple and took King Zedekiah and a greater part of the people into exile. After the assasination of the Jewish Governor Gedaliah, the remaining remnant of the people hit a new low and — against the express command of God as relayed through Jeremiah — flee down to Egypt. Because the people are basically total a--holes, they drag Jeremiah down with them.

Once in Egypt, God sends Jeremiah with a final prophecy in which he reviews all the times God warned the Israelites to turn away from their idolatries — notably the worship of the “Queen of Heaven” — and how each time Israel refused. God patiently moved from warnings to punishments, and still the people stubbornly refused to repent. In fact, they got worse. Now they have come down to Egypt as pathetic refugees suffering a miserable existence, and God is going to give them one last chance to learn their lesson or “He will give unto them the Bitch Slap Of His Wrath so hard they shall not knoweth whether it be Sabbath or the Day of Atonement.” To Jeremiah's astonishment, the people give him a big “F-you! What the heck do you know anyway? You radical far left prophet you!” Rather than amend their ways and repent, they tell Jeremiah:

“It is only since we have ceased to burn incense and make offerings to the Queen of Heaven that we have known want, and died by the sword and by famine. And when we burned incense, and poured out drink offerings, and made cakes to the Queen of Heaven, were not our men then with us?”
--- Jeremiah 44:18-19.

Or, in other words, the lesson the exiled Israelites learn from suffering defeat after defeat, humiliation after humiliation, is that Jeremiah can't possibly know what he is talking about and the only way to finally win is keep doing exactly the same thing, but even more so. And, if possible, be even more obnoxious about it.

Connection back to today's politics below . . . . [Read More!]

According to this article in the New York Times, the baillout money that was ostensibly given to the banks to jumpstart the economy or forestall a collapse, etc, by opening up the credit spigots is not in fact, being used for that purpose.

It's being transferred directly to the bankers.

I am, shocked, shocked!

Boy, that sure was some crisis

Wall Street banks in $70bn staff payout
Pay and bonus deals equivalent to 10% of US government bail-out package

Imagine if we had not had the bailout bill! The Wall Street types who shit the worldwide bed might have missed their outlandish compensation! One shudders to think.

But we're safe now; at least until their bonuses come due next year, when we'll have to have another emergency to make sure they get paid.

Hello comrade piggy! here is the latest news from our departments of homeland security and justice. Although the item reported may appear unsavory, Comrade Bush and Comrade Cheney and Comrade Paulson assure me that this action is in the national interest. And who am I (or you!) to question them?

Oink! Oink!

On some other blogs I read (obsessively, lately), I'm starting to see people calling for a run on the banks. Go down and take out $700.00. Or or $70. Or $7,000. Whatever you can afford. That's what they're saying, not me. The idea is that even though nobody in the country likes this bailout, congress is going to vote for it. Since they won't listen to our calls, faxes and letters, send a message that they cannot ignore.

Frankly, it doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. Sure, it's like burning down your own house to make a point, but it's better than just being robbed at gunpoint with no protest at all.

I agree that we are on the precipice of a disaster. I would like us to act to prevent it. I do not insist on assigning blame or even being fair in how we act, as there will be time for that later. The only thing that is required of how we act is that it solves the problem.

No one has explained to me how taking the bad loans off the books of banks actually solves the problem. What has been explained to me by the officials and the politicians is that there is far more money at risk than that tied up in these loans. The money has been promised to average Joes, governments, and wild speculators, based on the idea that other average Joes, governments, and wild speculators will pay even more for these incomprehensible instruments in the future. At the original bottom of this pyramid are the at-risk loans. Yes, I agree that there is a crisis of confidence in the market, as the President put it. But I fail to see how now the politicians now suddenly understand these instruments, and that the way to keep them from collapsing is to take the loans off the books of the banks.

Are they saying that they intend for average Joes, governments, and wild speculators to keep shoveling ever-increasing amounts of money into the derivative market based on these loans? Ponzi schemes do collapse when triggered by a failure of confidence, but a child can see that even with no failure of confidence, they can only be sustained as long as there are increasing amounts of investment at the bottom. Eventually, the world runs out of money.

---

Now is the time to drop a note or leave a message for your representatives and let them know how you feel. Their contact info is online. Don't forget to tell them that you're in their district/state.