I responded to a post about the housing bubble on the Seattle PI (as wsdeek) with the following:

I think the housing and the dot-com bubbles show that our economy is built like a house of cards.

Answer these questions honestly:

What tangible goods do we really produce?

Who among us besides the top few percent really own something we can hold on to?

If China were to stop accepting our debt, where would we be?

How many of our jobs can be done in another part of the world for far less money?

How far beyond about three paychecks would most of us be able to live?

What support systems do we have in place if we cannot find the next bubble?

Why am I asking these questions?

Because we really need to figure out what we have become and how strong our country actually is and what game plan we should choose if the answers are less than favorable.

I have one more question:

Why shouldn’t I be able to ask these questions without someone asking me why I don’t leave my country, if I don’t like the answers to the questions above?

Any questions?

As some of you know the shit has hit the fan at the RQ castle and every day I find myself in some new battle threatening legal action. For example, after not being paid for weeks I had to send an email to every single administrative head threatening a lawsuit for their repeat violations of federal law. Then I fought with my bank manager when the bank put a hold on one of my deposits. I pointed out how it was in violation of federal reserve law to hold that type of deposit. He said “I’ve been in banking for over 12 years and this is the first time a customer knew more than me”. He apologized and fixed it, but not after bouncing a check. I haven’t bounced a check in 5 years. Fuck.

So this is what I’m doing, everyday. In this case, the personal is political because everyday I find myself having to inform people who should know better what the laws governing their jobs are. I should so get an honorary law degree for this shit.

I am back to work maybe next week and I should have some time and space to write. I do miss you all, but sometimes you’ve got to hibernate when things are rough.

Ciao!

I got into a recent debate on a friend’s blog regarding the nature of Hate Crimes, and why such a classification even exists. He, being a US Marine, felt a bit of injustice at the fact that harassment of military personnel isn’t viewed as a hate crime… because it’s stemmed from hate as well.

I explained that “hate crime” laws were established to protect minorities, and minority groups are marginalized by default — they have less voice in the community than the majority, just by nature of sheer numbers. Less voice means less impact, and that the majority of laws and regulations will benefit the majority, and while utilitarianism seems to be a functional tactic for government, it certainly always sucks for the minority groups.

A counter-argument was presented: On an individual level, we each can petition on our own behalf; we can each go and educate ourselves and get a job, etc., etc. Since one individual is as much of a minority as another, the playing field is level. It’s an interesting thought, and in my own case, I see it evident. I’m technically a minority (half-korean, half white), and I view myself as quite successful… but on the other hand, I don’t have a collective mindset about my ethnicity. I don’t embrace that part of my identity — I don’t think of myself as a part of a subset of the population. A woman might identify with being among “women,” and a black man might identify with the plight of black-americans. Such a concept is entirely foreign to me, and I don’t feel as though my voice has been marginalized.

What are your thoughts on this?

A european survey shows that 30% of Europeans (Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain) feel that the United States is the number one threat to global stability.

More than Iran, more than North Korea. Jeez.