Orwell's "1984" ... no longer a mere "warning"

The last time I read the George Orwell's 1984 (which was first published, by the way, in 1949) was in August 2014.  

I try to read that book every 3-5 years.  I actually have 4 copies, my favourite is a tattered paperback that my wife used in college.  The next time I read it, it will certainly be a digital text.

I first read 1984 some 45 years ago ... it seemed like a dystopian fantasy then, and it frightened me to think that such things could actually, some day in the distant future, become reality.  Every time I've read the book (and that has been many times), it seems closer to reality than ever.  Now, the propaganda and surveillance state (which, by the way, in Orwell's book is perpetually at war) that the book depicts is actually less frightening than what has actually been done since 2001.  

For example, part of the state control Orwell described was to have "telescreens" present at all times, even in people's houses ... the object was not to watch everyone, all the time.  It was to make everyone know that they could be watched anywhere at any time.  It was a mind-control device.

And, today, if you have a cell phone and a smart tv, especially an Amazon Alexa or Google Home device, information about you is being collected.  In all likelihood, it will never be used against you (except to make money), but ... it's better keep your ass in line. 

Conform.  Keep your ass in line.  And, I know you do.

So do I.  :-)

Lawrence G. McDonald and my own story

Lawrence G. McDonald in his book about the failure (in September 2008) of the firm he traded for (Lehman Brothers), wrote of the hyper-inflated housing market:

In times past, buying a home required sufficient personal capital to make a sizable down payment, usually 20 percent, sometimes a little more. It also required the person to sit right down in front of the banker or mortgage executive and prove beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt annual income, job, and prospects of remaining employed. In many cases people were asked what they proposed to do about the mortgage if for any reason they became unemployed. And honesty was a watchword, because the local banker was an integral part of the community, a familiar figure, who shared schools, sports, and friendships with many of his clients. These were the standards of American banking, and they had stood the test of time, the pivotal issue being in every case the reliability of the customer and his ability to repay the money his home had cost.

But as the year 2004 drew to a close, there was a brand-new culture in real estate. The mortgage broker was no longer the lender, because he was about to unload the whole package, one thousand mortgages at a time, to Lehman Brothers or Merrill Lynch for the now-well-established parceling-out process, masterminded by the ratings agencies, Fitch, Moody’s, and S&P. So the brokerage house did not care what happened after that, because they no longer had their own capital on the line. And those bodybuilder salesmen, those affable Californians, were free to run amok among lower-middle-income earners and sell them anything they darned pleased. There were no standards, no consequences, no responsibilities, and no recriminations. Because, and I stress this once more, nobody cared. There was no need. The brokerage firms could sell any and every mortgage they wrote, sell it on to Lehman Brothers or Merrill Lynch, or any other major U.S. bank, on faraway Wall Street.

-- Lawrence G. McDonald, 
A Colossal Failure of Common Sense: The Inside Story of the Collapse of Lehman Brothers (2009)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Colossal_Failure_of_Common_Sense

Right, nobody cared, because they were all getting their share.

Mortgage lending was no longer a simple legal contract between a lender (of his own money) and a borrower who invested something of his own in the bargain (like a down-payment).  A mortgage was no longer a contract, made in good faith, between two people who shook hands and made each other a promise.  An old-fashioned notion, right?  I know it is; that doesn't make it wrong.

I've told this story before, my own story, but it bears repeating:

In 1995, I completed the construction of my first and only newly-built home, and went "mortgage shopping." And it really was "shopping". It was my first and only home mortgage. I evaluated the options, including two of the most-advertised Internet mortgage lenders of the day (one of those was Countrywide Financial, which financed 20% of all U.S. mortgages in 2006). The Internet was an attractive option to me; I was comfortable with it, the rates were very competitive, and it seemed the easiest and quickest way to get approved. I asked friends and coworkers who financed their homes if they could offer advice on selecting a lender.  They all suggested one of the easy financing options with an ultra-low "teaser" rate.

We weren't shopping for a refinance, or a no-down-payment mortgage, or a negative amortization loan (in which the principle grows) or a reverse mortgage, or a no-documentation mortgage, or an adjustable-rate mortgage, or a balloon mortgage, or a cash-back mortgage.  We weren't interested in any of the sales gimmicks from any of the new mortgage lenders who were not even banks (like Countrywide),   We weren't interested in any of those fancy new easy-money mortgages.  These were all "shadow banks" to begin with.  They weren't real banks with depositors and carefully managed money to lend.  They didn't hold mortgages as assets.  They packaged and resold them to investors in far-away places.  They weren't proper banks, because they didn't have any money.  They were lenders who had to borrow money in order to make mortgage loans.  They were lending money that wasn't their own on easy terms because they got it themselves on easy terms.

In 1995, we wanted a conventional 30-year fixed-rate mortgage.  Just as conventional, straight-down-the-line as possible, thank you very much.  Don't try to confuse us with your marketing BS.  That's why we chose a well-established statewide bank (Amsouth Bank was founded in 1873) with a local branch in my hometown. My wife and I met with the bank's Loan Officer, we arranged for a property appraisal, we read and understood all the documents before we signed them. We made an appointment, we went and sat down with a bank manager, we shook hands on the deal. I felt really good about it.  We formed a long-term business relationship.

Several months later, we received a notice in the mail from some company I had never heard of that told us our loan had been "purchased" and we would be issued new payment books. The payment amount and schedule would not change, we'd just be sending our checks to a different company each month.

I was furious. I called my bank for an explanation and was told that my mortgage had been sold. "It's a very standard practice," the loan officer told me. "Not with my loan, it isn't!" I replied.  I was outraged.

I didn't choose my local branch of Amsouth Bank arbitrarily. I chose their bank because I wanted a relationship, based on mutual trust, that would last the 30 years of my loan, hopefully longer. And that bank, its officers, took my trust, my confidence, my goodwill, and they sold it to the highest bidder.  They sold my trust.  

What they did is called "securitization", and since the 1970's, it has become a common practice in the banking/mortgage lending business. My mortgage was packaged along with many others, and put on the market as a "Mortgage-Backed Security" (MBS); it was bid on and purchased by a company that wanted it for a cash-flow investment. Amsouth Bank, like many other banks today, was no longer in the business of "portfolio management", they had no intention of holding my mortgage, or retaining me as a customer; they sold us both for what the market would bear.

They called it "standard practice." In the sense that it is a common practice in their industry, and a completely legal practice, I suppose that it is "standard practice". But I call it bad business. Furthermore, it represents a profound change in the process of mortgage lending.

Ok, I know I'm old school, and my entire notion of doing long-term business with an established bank in my hometown; that whole notion of mutual trust and loyalty between me and my hometown banker, the handshake and the promise; it's quaint, and it's obsolete. The Bailey Building and Loan Association closed its doors a long time ago.

I admit, I'm the one who was wrong.  I am the one who was under the misconception that Amsouth Bank and I had a two-way contract which neither of us could break without the consent of the other.  I am the one with the "quaint old-fashioned notions" of hometown banking, of responsible lending, and responsible borrowing, of debt as a contract between two parties acting in mutual good faith.

These big corporate banks want a system in which trust, openness, honesty, mutual respect, and loyalty have no relevance.  And, it would appear most Americans agree with them (as long as they see profit in it for themselves).

That's fine for others ... but I chose to live my life differently.  I'm satisfied with my own choice.  And I'll watch the success or failure of the debt-based economy from the sidelines, thank you very much.

I'm out of this game.  I would like to add, though, that many others would've been wise to get out sooner.  The number of people I know, personally, who have been forced to postpone their planned retirements tells me that's true.

Behold, the Mighty Hoover Dam (83 years old)

America's Hoover Dam was dedicated in a formal ceremony on September 30, 1935, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.  Nearly eighty-three years ago. 
Hoover Dam, which forms Lake Mead, once one of the US's largest water reservoirs, was constructed over a five-year period (1931–1936) during the Great Depression.  The total cost of the dam was $49 million dollars when it was built, which would translate to $900 million if we tried to build something like it today.  

For perspective, consider that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost, to date, $

5,600

 billion. [source]  Those wars cost the Americans 

6,000

 Hoover Dams.  

Maybe Americans could simply build 

6,000

 Hoover Dams (

120

 in every US state) and then blow them all to bits; Americans seem to like doing that with their wealth.  

Lots of things come to my mind, though, when I think of what Americans could do with that money.  I wonder why it never occurs to some Americans that they're simply flushing their treasure down the crapper.

My mother used to say, whenever I would spend my entire allowance on bottle rockets and firecrackers, "Son, you're just burning up your money."  Yeh, point conceded, but how I loved to watch it burn!  I guess some people just like a lot of noise and pretty sparks, huh?  :-)

The wars were wars of choice; no one forced Americans into them; Americans chose war over what they could have had instead.  It was a bad choice, an unwise choice, but it was also a choice they made with their eyes wide open. My dad always used to tell me:  "if you want to know what a man's priorities are, watch how he spends his money." People always find a way to afford the things they really want most.  Always.

Americans chose war.  Americans want war.  Lots of it.  By their actions; they demonstrate that. 

Not gonna criticize Americans.  We all know they're God's chosen people!  I'm not questioning that.

But I do think Americans would be far better off, after 17 years of war, to have built 

those 6,000

 Hoover Dams.  Just sayin', Millennial.  It'll soon be YOUR choice!

Canadians revere Nelson Mandela because of who WE are

I immigrated to Canada from the United States in October 2005.  I enjoyed getting my morning coffeeat Timothy's café in downtown Moncton. Timothy's had a whiteboard on which they posted the "question of the day"; the first ten people to answer the question correctly won a free coffee.  I was usually pretty good at it, if the question was related to science, technology, or American history and if the question related to American geography. I often drank coffee for free.

 

One morning the question of the day was, "Who voted for the first time in his life in the election that brought him to power?" I didn't have a clue ... but what surprised me was that all the Canadians around me had the answer.  "Oh, that's easy."  Yeh?  Who is it?  "Well ... it's Nelson Mandela, right? It has to be."

 

I had heard the name, of course, but I could tell you nothing about the man ... I probably knew only that he was black African leader.  Beyond that, I didn't know or care.

 

I discovered two things that day:  Nelson Mandela is a hero to Canadians, in a way he will never be to Americans, and Canadians are far more interested in the world outside North America.  

 

But those Canadians weren't recognizing Nelson Mandela because he was a prominent newsmaker; they were recognizing something that affected them profoundly nearly 15 years earlier; an act that meant far more in Canada than it did in the States.  Indeed, the system of apartheid in South Africa was an affront to Canadians, a violation of their value system, in a way that Americans can't even understand, because it happened in Africa, to people of colour, and to a people who essentially were of little value to Americans.  

 

But that day, I saw something in a group of Canadians who were total strangers to me, that I admired greatly.  They were able to feel strongly, passionately, about someone and something that didn't affect them directly; but affected them nonetheless, because of the value system they held.

 

Mandela went to law school; he was the first democratically-elected black president in his nation's history; he was a man who had the respect of some of the world's most powerful leaders, as supporters and as friends.  But it was none of these things that make Nelson Mandela great.

 

It was the display of an unassailable moral courage that made Mandela great. It was his indomitability.  He could be imprisoned for life, tortured, even killed, but he could not be forced to abandon his principles.  

 

There are two ways of looking at it. Many people have told me, over the years, "What good are your precious principles, Charles, if you're dead?" My answer to that: "Of what value is a life without principle, without honour?  Of what value is a life lived without principle?"

 

Have you ever faced a situation where the easiest choice of all was to put your principles aside for a moment and to do what was most epedient? To take the path of least resistance? You found reason enough to justify that "temporary" abandonment of principle.  Most of us have.

 

Nelson Mandela is great because he never did that.

 

Nelson Mandela (1918–2013)

Prince Edward Island's Confederation Bridge (a wise investment)

Whenever ​we visit the neighbouring province of Prince Edward Island (PEI), we cross the 8-mile long Confederation Bridge between the mainland in New Brunswick and the island, across the Northumberland Strait (which ices in the winter, incidentally).

That bridge cost Canada $1 billion, and took almost 5 years to build (1992-1997)​.  ​It was the fulfillment of a promise made to PIE just before Canada became a sovereign nation (in 1867) to connect PEI to the mainland.

That bridge gave thousands of people jobs.  I know men who worked on that project; and have their names enshrined in the brick paving at the PEI welcome centre.​

For perspective, consider that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost, to date, ​at a very conservative minimum, ​$1,​700 billion.   Those wars cost the Americans​ the equivalent of​ 1,​700 Confederation Bridges. Or, since they probably don't need more than ​100 or so Confederation Bridges ​(that would be 2 per US state), maybe they could use the other $1,​600 billion for something else.

​What could a country choose to do with $1,600 billion?  Any ideas come to your mind?

​

Or maybe they could build 1​,700 Confederation Bridges (​that would be 34 in every US state) and then blow them all to bits; ​Americans seem to enjoy doing that with their wealth.  

​But ​1,​700​ 8-mile long bridges?  ​That's kind of silly. No, build one that's 13,600 miles long!  ​Americans: you can do it (if you choose)​ ... the rest of the world will be really impressed!​

Lots of things come to my mind, though, when I think of what I could do if I had ​1,700 Confederation Bridges.  I wonder why it never occurs to some Americans that they're simply flushing their treasure down the crapper​?​

My mother used to say, whenever I would spend my entire weekly allowance on bottle rockets and firecrackers, "Son, you're just burning up your money."  Yeh, point conceded, but how I loved to watch it burn! I guess some people just like a lot of noise and pretty sparks.

The wars were of choice; no one forced Americans into them; Americans chose war over what they could have had instead.  It was a bad choice, an unwise choice, but one they made with their eyes wide open. My dad always used to tell me: if you want to know what a man's priorities are, watch how he spends his money.  People always find a way to afford the things they really want most. Always.

Americans chose war.  Americans want war. Lots of it.  By their actions; they demonstrate that.

I’m criticizing Americans or that choice.  We all know they're God's chosen people, and I'm not questioning that.

But I do think you'd be far better off with 1,​700 Confederation Bridges. ​ They’re nice to have!

5 years ago: June 6, 2013. A day that changed world history

A passage from Glenn Greenwald's 2014 book No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA and the Surveillance State:

At 5:40pm [June 6, 2013 in Hong Kong], Janine sent me an instant message with a link, the one I had been waiting to see for days. “It’s live,” she said.

NSA Collecting Phone Records of Millions of Verizon Customers Daily, the headline read, followed by a subhead: “Exclusive: Top Secret Court Order Requiring Verizon to Hand Over All Call Data Shows Scale of Domestic Surveillance Under Obama.”

That was followed by a link to the full FISA court order. The first three paragraphs of our article told the entire story:

​​

The National Security Agency is currently collecting the 

telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon, 

one of America’s largest telecom providers, under a top 

secret court order issued in April.

The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, 

requires Verizon on an“ongoing, daily basis” to give the NSA 

information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the 

US and between the US and other countries.

The document shows for the first time that under the 

Obama administration the communication records of millions of 

US citizens are being collected indiscriminately and in bulk – 

regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing.

The impact of the article was instant and enormous, beyond anything I had anticipated. It was the lead story on every national news broadcast that night and dominated political and media discussions. I was inundated with interview requests from virtually every national TV outlet: CNN, MSNBC, NBC, the Today show, Good Morning America, and others. I spent many hours in Hong Kong talking to numerous sympathetic television interviewers—an unusual experience in my career as a political writer often at odds with the establishment press—who all treated the story as a major event and a real scandal.

In response, the White House spokesman predictably defended the bulk collection program as “a critical tool in protecting the nation from terrorist threats.” The Democratic chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein, one of the most steadfast congressional supporters of the national security state generally and US surveillance specifically, invoked standard post-9/11 fear-mongering by telling reporters that the program was necessary because “people want the homeland kept safe.”

But almost nobody took the government's claims seriously.

– Excerpt from

​ ​

Glenn Greenwald's No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA and the Surveillance State  (2014)

Edward Snowden remains the best example of courage, manhood, and character I've seen in 20 years.

America is a fundamentally good country. We have good people with good values who want 

to do the right thing. But the structures of power that exist are working to their own 

ends to extend their capability at the expense of the freedom of all publics.

___

Edward Snowden, Hong Kong interview, June 6, 2013

https://youtu.be/rB9L1PD7Cpo

What was the real reason Afghanistan was invaded?

There was a lot of international pressure on the political leaders of Afghanistan to hand over a suspected planner of the WTC tower attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. That man was Osama bin Laden, a former mujaheddin fighter against Russian forces occupying Afghanistan in the 1980's. Bin Laden was the founder and leader of a tiny extremist group called al-Qaeda, which was opposed to the Taliban leadership of Afghanistan. The CIA estimated the strength of this tiny band ​at ​about 200 fighters. 

No more than 200 men.

When Afghanistan's Taliban government refused its demands, the United States decided they would use their armed forces to overthrow the country's government and eliminate al-Qaeda. In October 2001, the USA began bombing Afghanistan. They targeted bin Laden's al-Qaeda fighters and also the Taliban government of Afghanistan.

The war's public aims were to 1) dismantle al-Qaeda and 2) to deny it a safe base of operations in Afghanistan by removing the Taliban from power.

The War in Afghanistan became the longest war in United States history (now 16 years and ​8 months).

​It was a monumental mistake.​

​​