Who Is Accountable?

[Kathy Rappaport]

Well, as the one who feels that the polocital discussion is not being intelligent but bashing the current administration - when much of the financial turmoil started wqith the repeal of the Glass Stegall Act enacted post dedpression to avoid the current dilemma, we can blame the President from Georgia who signed the repeal. As someone who was a compliance officer in the banking industry in te 70's-90's I recall well the bank failures and regulations which kept financial institutions spearate and with saafeguards to avoid the place we have come to today. Sadly our moral; compass in the world has changed and people who bought houses and sold them for over inflated prices with no money down and won't take repsonsibility for getting in over their head when they signed documents, businesses who have lived on credit as well as individuals who lived above their means will say it's someone else's fault.

So while you are all here discussing the merits of who is to blame for our war dead, the state of the economy and how you feel about it, many of the posts here go unanswered which in my opinion defeats the purpose of a photography forum. So if we are a political forum second, then it should be secondary to the orphaned posts.

See you all in December (sorry for the typo's I am using someone else's old computer and the keyboard sticks)

 

[Asher Kelman]

There are literally thousands of other sites on the Internet where those so inclined can pointlessly and impotently wail and whine about their "views" on politics, religion, economics, women's fashions, or any of countless other topics du jour from any national point of view. So, to that end, OPF can serve no practical benefit as yet another outlet for such noise.

It's your site, Nicolas and Asher, and you're free to host whatever pleases you. But if you're going to maintain a non-photo soapbox I think you really have to reevaluate your intentions and revise the first paragraph on the OPF home page:

Hi Ken,

Notwithstanding all I have previously written I constantly try to reevaluate our intentions and results in all parts of OPF. That's a very photographic and artistic way of working, where the progress towards a goal causes shifts in some of the parameters describing our goal itself! Your comments are valuable especially since I appreciate your photography and critique.

We don't want to be like the "thousands of other sites on the Internet where those so inclined can pointlessly and impotently wail and whine about their "views" on politics, religion, economics, women's fashions, or any of countless other topics du jour from any national point of view. So, to that end, OPF can serve no practical benefit as yet another outlet for such noise."


"Pointlessly and impotently wail and whine about their "views"" obviously is a turn-off for us all. We wanted potent examined statements that can jog, in a friendly way, what we might frame as "The way!" So I ask for photographers to discuss things as truthfully as we can without spouting off the simplistic explanations, de jour!

I need to find a moderator who can look over these fora more carefully. This is the one area where people who know they get offended by liberals or gun owners love to visit! Who knows, we might eventually split off these subjects in a sister forum. Right now, we want, as Nicolas has pointed out, to get to know better the ideas and values held closely by our OPF photographers. If this bridges the gap between photographers with different cultures who like each others work, then it's worthwhile!


Asher

 

[doug anderson]

Well, as the one who feels that the polocital discussion is not being intelligent but bashing the current administration - when much of the financial turmoil started wqith the repeal of the Glass Stegall Act enacted post dedpression to avoid the current dilemma, we can blame the President from Georgia who signed the repeal. As someone who was a compliance officer in the banking industry in te 70's-90's I recall well the bank failures and regulations which kept financial institutions spearate and with saafeguards to avoid the place we have come to today. Sadly our moral; compass in the world has changed and people who bought houses and sold them for over inflated prices with no money down and won't take repsonsibility for getting in over their head when they signed documents, businesses who have lived on credit as well as individuals who lived above their means will say it's someone else's fault.

So while you are all here discussing the merits of who is to blame for our war dead, the state of the economy and how you feel about it, many of the posts here go unanswered which in my opinion defeats the purpose of a photography forum. So if we are a political forum second, then it should be secondary to the orphaned posts.

See you all in December (sorry for the typo's I am using someone else's old computer and the keyboard sticks)

Kathy: it is not fair to blame Jimmy Carter for the orgy of greed that has put us where we are, and the practice of outright lying, disrespect for the constitution and electoral numbness that have increased exponentially since the eighties. I can convincingly argue that the war in Iraq is more about greed than about Al Qaeda, which only arrived in Iraq after we invaded. It does not matter who "wins" the Iraq War; the Bush/Cheney business associates (Halliburton et al) will have made a killing.


I am one of those people who can't understand how people can live with their eyes open and not be outraged. So many of the things Orwell warned against are now taken for granted to the point that no one even notices them. "Perpetual War," "Double-Speak," "New Speak," come to mind; and in particular "double-think," which seems to have been internalized by half the electorate, e.g.; it is alright to kill Iraqi children but not okay to have abortions, etc. etc.

We are in agreement that the photography threads are frequently neglected, although I don't think it's because energy is being drained off in the provocative subject thread. A few members seem to do most of the posting. Some of them write long and detailed, deeply thoughtful responses; others not much at all.

Notwithstanding my above complaints, this is the only photography forum I like. I like it that people use real names -- which means they are willing to stand behind what they say. Give or take an occasional spat, this seems to work quite well.

A note on "Bashing" rather than "discussing": the present administration has earned the harsh criticism that is presently marshaled against it. "Bashing" is usually associated with generalization. I think many of the criticisms leveled against the Bush administration are quite specific and backed up with fact. The scary thing is that "the facts" have absolutely no effect on people who have fixed their minds on a particular set of rhetorics and adhere to them like religion.

As for people who cannot "live within their means," you are speaking for people who have a choice. If you apply that generalization to poor people, you are off target. Some people live from paycheck to paycheck and just get by. How easy it is for them to try to survive by charging something to a credit card, and then, late on one payment, find that the interest on their card has gone from 17 to 27 percent. One medical emergency, one car breakdown, one funeral, and these people can slip into financial hell. The same with people who have always wanted a house and who are willing to take a chance on a loan to have one, and pray that some real event doesn't send them into insolvency. These are not the same people who buy a Ferrari when they should have bought a Toyota.

 

[Nill Toulme]

As long as we're looking things up, everyone who's not already familiar with it should look up "cognitive dissonance." It's the only thing I remember from Psych 201 in college, but recognizing it, in others but especially in myself, has served me well over the years.

It informs so much of what we do and how we think — and even more so on the internet and in this age of information overload. In fact, I have for several years had a vague theory that the internet may prove to be a gigantic and highly efficient cognitive dissonance feedback loop generator, which will ultimately lead to the death of human intelligence and the destruction of civilization as we know it. ;-)

Nill

 

[Jim Galli]

.......break for a reality check........

iirc gas was $2.30 a gallon and things were generally fine until the Democrat congress took over in '06. People wanted "change". They got it. Now they want even more "change". I shudder to think.

If you're going to elect a democrat we better have a good rebublican majority in congress. Otherwise nothing gets done. No problem looking that one up. Get rid of Pelosi for a very good start.

 

[doug anderson]

.......break for a reality check........

iirc gas was $2.30 a gallon and things were generally fine until the Democrat congress took over in '06. People wanted "change". They got it. Now they want even more "change". I shudder to think.

If you're going to elect a democrat we better have a good rebublican majority in congress. Otherwise nothing gets done. No problem looking that one up. Get rid of Pelosi for a very good start.

You're grabbing at straws. The Democrats are not responsible for oil prices. Gas was under 1.50 a gallon, and now it's almost 4. Are you kidding? Who is the oil president? Are you asleep? The oil companies continue to make huge profits and the rest of us suffer.

 

[Rachel Foster]

My political orientation is no secret. But, I am not writing this as a liberal.

When it comes to political decisions, I wonder how many of us can clearly evaluate the situation? I think politics is one area that is well described by terror management theory. I think we vote for the party/politician whom we believe will keep us safe. If that party/politician is called into question, it arouses our existential awareness and anxiety. That may be why we become so angry, so volatile when politics is debated.

With all that is at stake, with all the high emotion (if my hypothesis is right), it must be very very difficult for any of us to evaluate circumstances calmly and clearly.

Just a thought.

 

[Jim Galli]

My political orientation is no secret. But, I am not writing this as a liberal.

When it comes to political decisions, I wonder how many of us can clearly evaluate the situation? I think politics is one area that is well described by terror management theory. I think we vote for the party/politician whom we believe will keep us safe. If that party/politician is called into question, it arouses our existential awareness and anxiety. That may be why we become so angry, so volatile when politics is debated.

With all that is at stake, with all the high emotion (if my hypothesis is right), it must be very very difficult for any of us to evaluate circumstances calmly and clearly.

Just a thought.

Trying to rationalize differences by saying we are unable to think clearly? I think not. I can assure you that I am quite sane, quite rational, and some would say of high intelligence. We just see things differently.

I rarely stir the pot in these discussions but I would encourage you all to be open minded enough to believe that someone who doesn't see things the same as you can be just as bright, or more, and just as lucid. We all want the same ends. Peace Safety Security Happiness but different intelligent minds see different path's they think are the right way to get there.

 

[Nill Toulme]

...If that party/politician is called into question, it arouses our existential awareness and anxiety. ...

True. And, again, cognitive dissonance.

Nill

 

[Rachel Foster]

Jim, I was talking about everyone, including myself. And it's precisely what you just said that got me to thinking about this. We all want the same thing, we just have different ideas about how to get there. So, why do emotions run so high on these questions?

 

[doug anderson]

Jim, I was talking about everyone, including myself. And it's precisely what you just said that got me to thinking about this. We all want the same thing, we just have different ideas about how to get there. So, why do emotions run so high on these questions?

My frustration is that the evidence is overwhelming that this administration has committed one crime after another for eight years and no one will hold them accountable. It is why I have started this thread.

I can't believe that people are continuing to sleep through this, or, rather, the approximately one third of the electorate who still believe that Bush has been a good president.

It's a little like the wife who is in denial while her husband is obviously sleeping with the maid.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Our shared thoughts here should be on examining assertions we view as "the truth".

Here, in this forum in OPF, I hope we can get to meet a spectrum of socio-economic and cultural ideas in our overlapping worlds. Can we open up the natural barriers from "religious"-type dogma? The latter phenomenon makes us talk past and beyond each other.

Can we induce openness in a safe environment? We have, surely, earned enough sentiment and mutual respect between us. We are, in fact a remarkably friendly group of photographers we have come to know through our work, travels and comments. I can say that through our interest in each other’s work, we can dare some disclosures, which, in other circumstances, might test friendships.

My hope is that our affection towards this community and trust in the real people here will indeed rise above spouting off the "talking points" and bottled rhetoric of blame that we hear so often. The thoughts here should be on examining assertions dispassionately. Then we will know more about each other and ourselves. We really need to work on this. It's a huge thing since we have built for each of our points of view, bubbles of delusion, or memic convictions) that are set up to maintain and buttress the resident fixed idea. After all, don't we all think of ourselves as reasonable and open-minded?

If this allows us to progress a small way to understanding our positions, then we will cement even further our mutual respect and cherish the photography of this very diverse international community.
So keep on with these discussions by please don't trash anyone, as we all are educated, considerate and sensitive. We all have similar goals. So what's the problem! Our viewing position and immediate eruptive filters for new ideas, facts, interpretations and selective outrage make us so different, when we claim the similar goals! Worse, ideas that do get through for our consideration have to unfairly face the doctrinaire a priori ideas on the Look up tables (or LUT*) in our brains.

*LUT, the “Look Up Table” paradigm for remapping color on a LCD monitor. So in the brain, instead of calculating de novo each time we have a socio-political challenge, we can just “look up” the meme**-like “best response” that fits our socio-political profile.

** Memes are sets of ideas and beliefs which being highly infectious, virus-like thoughts, spread across human societies like the discovery of water to a band of parched travelers. The meme is so powerful an instrument for cultural uniformity since it readily recruits undefended additional brains amongst the myriads of social exchange we have each day of our lives. Once in the new brain, like a virus, it works to limit entrance of other memes. A defensive barrier is erected so new ideas to be examined more carefully by our brains might now be dismissed. In this way, memes are useful in rapidly recruiting unrelated peoples to a common cause and to subverting divergent ideas that might cause people to invest energies differently. Even if the substance of the meme lacks existential value for the people it infects, it will have a selective advantage if there is group sharing of resources such as oil wealth or just whatever is available for mutual help. Successful memes especially based on a delusion or mythology can wipe out more advanced but undefended cultures, despite being open, robust, realistic and more helpful to humankind.

 

[Asher Kelman]

It's a little like the wife who is in denial while her husband is obviously sleeping with the maid.

Doug,

Likely she's not in denial, just has blind hope or assesses her position to be best long term or until she's ready to act.

Same with politician. They both look to where their money comes from and what they might lose from an immediate open confrontation. So it's put off and the topic is avoided, for now! The husband of course, knows she knows! The wife makes sure he knows that she knows. A lot of passive aggressive manipulation then follows!

Asher

 

[doug anderson]

Doug,

Likely she's not in denial, just has blind hope or assesses her position to be best long term or until she's ready to act.

Same with politician. They both look to where their money comes from and what they might lose from an immediate open confrontation. So it's put off and the topic is avoided, for now! The husband of course, knows she knows! The wife makes sure he knows that she knows. A lot of passive aggressive manipulation then follows!

Asher

Hee hee

Good

 

[Michael_Stones]

Hi Ken,
We don't want to be like the "thousands of other sites on the Internet where those so inclined can pointlessly and impotently wail and whine about their "views" on politics, religion, economics, women's fashions, or any of countless other topics du jour from any national point of view. So, to that end, OPF can serve no practical benefit as yet another outlet for such noise."
"Pointlessly and impotently wail and whine about their "views"" obviously is a turn-off for us all. We wanted potent examined statements that can jog, in a friendly way, what we might frame as "The way!" So I ask for photographers to discuss things as truthfully as we can without spouting off the simplistic explanations, de jour!
Asher

Hi Asher/Nicholas/Nills

I'm not an internet aficionado like Ken running around like some small town preacher pointlessly and impotently trying to quiet blasphemers. Neither is my world a chapel wherein mannered people talk not of religion and politics. The only forum I visit is OPFI. It’s my homepage. Because my motivations for visiting are probably not unlike those of many other members, the reasons why might be of interest to your ideas about the site.

A love of photography, certainly, but any need for new information or feedback is infrequent. I linger longest during periods of procrastination or writers block (like now ) and want distraction. The site's content includes wonderful photographs, good comments, and debate. Although good debate is entertaining, how many topics in photography evoke excitement? Quite a few, actually, but they occur only periodically. Sometimes other topics fill the gap; sometimes they are more pressing.

Because, like Nicolas, I have curiosity about people and culture, what people “whine and wail” about is of interest. They have their reasons and usually express then cogently. Without this human interest (interest in humans) factor, the site would be duller. An open internet site, after all, is not an academic or professional forum.

Cheers
Mike

 

[doug anderson]

Nation Article On Phil Gramm

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/336933

 

[Nill Toulme]

The more interesting thing about Gramm is not his interest in porn movies but his killing regulation of the mortgage-backed securities market in his role with the Senate banking committee. On the long list of "if-only's" leading up to the current financial meltdown, that ranks right up near the top.

Nill

 

[doug anderson]

The more interesting thing about Gramm is not his interest in porn movies but his killing regulation of the mortgage-backed securities market in his role with the Senate banking committee. On the long list of "if-only's" leading up to the current financial meltdown, that ranks right up near the top.

Nill

I agree, however since he's a big family values guy, I thought the hypocrisy was typical. A bit like Larry "Wide Stance" Craig inveighing against homosexuality. Or Mark Foley on the committee about child abuse. The list of neo-con artists who have been found out, arrested, indicted, and imprisoned continues to grow. They will soon, I hope, be joined by the Wall Street crooks.

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

As long as we're looking things up, everyone who's not already familiar with it should look up "cognitive dissonance." It's the only thing I remember from Psych 201 in college, but recognizing it, in others but especially in myself, has served me well over the years.

Indeed, cognitive dissonance is a sobering thing.

It informs so much of what we do and how we think — and even more so on the internet and in this age of information overload. In fact, I have for several years had a vague theory that the internet may prove to be a gigantic and highly efficient cognitive dissonance feedback loop generator, which will ultimately lead to the death of human intelligence and the destruction of civilization as we know it. ;-)

The smiley was important, since an object without mass cannot collaps under its own weight !;-) .

Bart

 

[Asher Kelman]

I like the reference to shadow banking. The sex matters little except to our taste. Shadow power and shadow economies cannot be ignored. A shadow banking system is the most important thing I learned about the recent financial crisis. Why do we have our eyes shut?

Also why do we have to react and cater to every whim of the market?

Again why do we tolerate the silly bribery by and of senators to get their vote on a bill that panders to the market and to special interests (wooden arrows should not be taxed

Why am I so disappointed?

Asher

 

[doug anderson]

I like the reference to shadow banking. The sex matters little except to our taste. Shadow power and shadow economies cannot be ignored. A shadow banking system is the most important thing I learned about the recent financial crisis. Why do we have our eyes shut?

Also why do we have to react and cater to every whim of the market?

Again why do we tolerate the silly bribery by and of senators to get their vote on a bill that panders to the market and to special interests (wooden arrows should not be taxed

Why am I so disappointed?

Asher

Why indeed? This is what makes me crazy. People have been watching this happen for a long time. The Democrats, who are supposed to care about people more than money, have been asleep at the switch.

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Why indeed? This is what makes me crazy. People have been watching this happen for a long time. The Democrats, who are supposed to care about people more than money, have been asleep at the switch.

From a European (and more specifically, my) perspective I'd have to agree, ... well understood opportunism (from both sides)?

However/Actually, from a(n even narrower) Dutch perspective:
USA Democrat/Libreral == a Neutral/Right (!) wing perspective, and a USA Republican/Conservative perspective == an extremely relatively/arbitrarily Conservative/Right (!) wing perspective.

Is Left/Right wing, Conservative/Liberal, bad? Well, isn't that totally dependent on one's definition of Left/Right and/or Conservative/Liberal, and one's own position ???

Bart

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Bart,

Is Left/Right wing, Conservative/Liberal, bad? Well, isn't that totally dependent on one's definition of Left/Right and/or Conservative/Liberal, and one's own position ???

You might be intersted in a little American political idiosyncrasy (you may already be well aware of it). It is popular, among Republication party supporters, to refer to The Democratic Party as "The Democrat Party". The point of this sophomoric "joke" is that "the Democratic Party isn't really very democratic at all, so it doesn't deserve being called that".

This childish affectation is so much the habit among some of these people that George W. Bush often mentions "The Democrat Party" in his formal public speeches.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[doug anderson]

Hi, Bart,



You might be intersted in a little American political idiosyncrasy (you may already be well aware of it). It is popular, among Republication party supporters, to refer to The Democratic Party as "The Democrat Party". The point of this sophomoric "joke" is that "the Democratic Party isn't really very democratic at all, so it doesn't deserve being called that".

This childish affectation is so much the habit among some of these people that George W. Bush often mentions "The Democrat Party" in his formal public speeches.

Best regards,

Doug

Doug: let me clarify: I am an independent but will vote Democrat in the next election because the Democratic party is slightly less egregious than the Republicans, and I think Barak Obama is a very tough, intelligent man. I used to be a Democrat, but I have been disgusted with their inability to oppose the rise of the neocon nightmare we have right now. Because we don't have a viable third party, I have to give myself a little consolation by being at least a titular independent (do not confuse me however with that idiot Joe Lieberman).

By the way, George Bush calls the DP the "Democrat party" because he is a moron.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Doug,

Doug: let me clarify: I am an independent but will vote Democrat in the next election because the Democratic party is slightly less egregious than the Republicans, and I think Barak Obama is a very tough, intelligent man. I used to be a Democrat, but I have been disgusted with their inability to oppose the rise of the neocon nightmare we have right now.

I wholly understand. I am in a very similar situation.

By the way, George Bush calls the DP the "Democrat party" because he is a moron.

Indeed.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

... political idiosyncrasy ...

Just for my edification (given my particular, no doubt, tainted "old Europe(an) ''attitude"), would your classification constitute an oximoron, an inherent travesty, or a fact?

Bart

 

[Doug Kerr]

Just for my edification (given my particular tainted "old Europe(an)'' attitude "), would your classification constitute an oximoron, an inherent travesty, or a fact?

insofar as the phrase is concerned, I think just a fact. Insofar as this particular instance, a travesty!

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

insofar as the phrase is concerned, I think just a fact. Insofar as this particular instance, a travesty!

LOL, care to speculate about whatever would happen if we stopped laughing, about ourselves ...

Bart

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

We need major reforms!

Greetings,

I intend to think that distribution of wealth is the main underlaying problem.

Here, Institutions such as the Worldbank being on the front of providing inequality, their methodology of granting money to developing states has been analysed in depth and found to be inadaequate by many!

Please keep in mind, the name world bank is something that might trigger the wrong impression, historically, the world bank is a US driven institution, hence acts towards US interests and nothing less! The current successor of Paul Wolfowitz, that name rings a bell I hope, Robert Zoellick, is another of those gentlemen who represent US protectionism at home, proclaiming free trade externally.

The main threat to the globally dominant role of the US dollar, mainly Iraq's proposal to trade oil in Euros and not in Dollars anymore, triggered truly groundshaking epochal events that will echo for a long time to come.

Empires crumble, new ones emerge, nothing new under the sun.

I think, the notion of "honorable business men/women", particulary bankers, has to be wiped of the slate. In context, please keep in mind the not so long ago biggest redistribution of wealth in history, the dot.com bubble, which was driven by bankers and investors.

The stock markets inherent system and it's methodology of "preferred share allocation", has provided the grounds for redistribution of trillions of dollars in a very short amount of time. Favourable pockets were filled up to the maximum in no time.

The system had only one focus, qaurterly results and cashing in profits. Companies that had 150 employees were valued by "The ANAL-ysts" higher than companies that employed thousands of people worldwide.

Go figure!

I can understand, but would like to warn about it at the same time, that a certain amount of tiredness on the subject is taking over, but and this can not be overstressed, we witness historical changes, and it is the generations to come that will have to make the judgement call whether we made the right choices.

The global goals are clearly in front of us; Less hunger, no war, principles of equality, global warming to deal with.

If we allow that the system just recharges batteries and continues as always, nothing will change. What will happen is big fish eating small fish, times will slip back to the seventies in terms of credits, and war and hunger wil continue to strive.

How about we make a clear cut now, stop trading for a week, introduce a global currency and start distributing wealth in a fair way that eliminates greed to be the driving force, but real needs to be the momentum force.

I know, it won't happen, too many private interests are at stake, all over the place.

Accountability?

LOL, January this year it all started to hit the fan, when the ex chairman of Bear Stears bought himself a penthouse appartment, valued at something around 20 million USD, in the NY Plaza a week before they crashed, cash!! So far accountability....