Soul Of Louisville Speaks

According to the Center For Responsible Lending, the plan put forth by Treasury Secretary Paulson does not fix the problem, it simply shifts the responsiblity of bad and shady corporate management from CEO's to the working citizens.  The Center goes on to say that the plan as proposed by Chairman Bernanke and Secy Paulson would not do anything to halt the bloodletting also know as the "Foreclosure" crisis. 

People will still lose their homes, but the Financial Firms will become solvent moving their losses to the tax payer, but retaining ownership of the actual loans.  One suggestion offered by the Center For Responsible Lending is to include "Judicial Loan Modifications" in the plan. 

By providing judicial oversight of the loans, many of the homeowners could receive equitable loan modifications that would allow them to remain in their homes by negotiating a lower rate of interest and mortgage payments.

The news agency Bloomberg reported Saturday that the talks though stalled would resume as negotiations had acheived some compromises.  One of which is that the U.S. Government/ Taxpayers would purchase some portion of the company's equity.  The equity position would enable the Government/Taxpayers to insure repayment of the loan and dividends on companies that were successful in turning their ailing financials around. 

Democratic Representative, Barney Frank, chair of the Financial Services Committee has pushed for and apparently gained concessions on the equity position and another sticking point, Executive Compensation.    One of the most significant concerns voiced by congressional Democrats and Republicans alike is the issue of an 700 Billion Dollar parachute for wealthy financial institution CEOs & Directors.  The pushback against the plan was truly bi-partisan getting attention from both parties. 

Below are the Key Points to the Bail Out Plan Approved by the House:

Bail-out for troubled financial firms

- Cuts the initial bail-out of $700bn (£383bn) to $350 (£191bn) and gives Congress a veto power over future payments under the plan up to a total of $700bn.

- Gives taxpayers an ownership stake in companies that take advantage of the bail-out, raising the possibility of the public making profits if market conditions improve or of recovering some assets in participating companies.

- Allows the government to purchase troubled assets from pension plans, local governments, and small banks that serve low- and middle-income families.

Limits on 'excessive' pay and bonuses for executives

- No multi-million dollar "golden parachutes" for CEOs or other executives who lose jobs at companies participating in the plan.

- Limits CEO bonuses or other compensation that encourages unnecessary risk-taking.

- Recovers bonuses paid based on expected gains that turn out to be false or inaccurate.

Oversight of how plan will be administrated

- An oversight board appointed by bipartisan leaders of Congress.

- A presence for Congressional watchdog the General Accounting Office at the US Treasury Department to oversee the program and conduct audits

- An independent Inspector General to monitor the Treasury Secretary's bailout decisions

- Judicial review of the Treasury Secretary's actions

Homeowner protection

- Protection for homeowners facing foreclosure - the root cause of the crisis, with up to two million foreclosures possible in the next year.

- Gives government the power to renegotiate terms of mortgages to ease pressure on homeowners facing foreclosure.

- Provides aid to small community banks hurt by mortgage crisis.

Source: News.Sky.com

From obscurity to Celebrity, Sarah Palin the recently nominated Vice Presidential candiate on the Republican ticket has clearly shown her qualification for the Nation's (some might argue "The World's") second most powerful spot.  During her first national interview with Charlie Gibson, Gov. Palin demonstrated an ignorance of the single most significant Foreign Policy Docrine of the last ten (10) years.  According to Wikipedia's entry regarding the Bush Doctrine:

Out of the National Security Stategy, four main points are highlighted as the core to the Bush Doctrine: Preemption, Military Primacy, New Multilateralism, and the Spread of Democracy. The document emphasized pre-emption by stating: "America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones. We are menaced less by fleets and armies than by catastrophic technologies in the hands of the embittered few." and required "defending the United States, the American people, and our interests at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders."

In Gov. Palin's interview she did not know what the Bush Doctrine is and could not respond to Charlie Gibson's question about it. 

A New York Times article describing Palin's interview with ABC:

Ms. Palin was clearly caught off guard when Mr. Gibson asked, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

Seeking direction, and perhaps time to formulate an answer, Ms. Palin leaned back, smiled stiffly and said, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Initially unwilling to define the doctrine, Mr. Gibson said, "What do you interpret it to be?"

Ms. Palin asked, "His world view?"

Mr. Gibson said, "No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war."

The video of the interview clearly shows her discomfort at the question and obvious groping for some indication of what the Bush Doctrine is, that she might offer some intelligent and "Vice Presidential" worthy response.  The Atlantic's National Correspondent James Fallows called this a "disqualifying lack of preparation for the job" and wrote that this "indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years."

The question still remains, is she the woman for the job of Vice President for a candidate who may because of age no live long enough to serve out his term?  Can a Sarah Palin be trusted to make the right and best decision for all Americans and the World, or will she play out the same hand we have been dealt by the Bush Administration?

There little question that the McCain Strategy has worked over the last weeks to re-energize Republicans and to force Barack Obama off the from page.  The unfortunate challenge for McCain is that he too has been forced offf the stage.  Yet more disastrous is the Governor's willingness to demonstrate her unpreparedness by her ignorance of the realities of US world leadership. 

One thing is sure, Sarah Palin has confirmed one of my most frequently quoted dictums:

"When you are talking, your Brain is on parade!"  What we have seen so far, isn't pretty.  Perhaps the shine is coming off the Golden Lasso and The New Republican Wonder Woman is fast becoming Blunder Woman. 

The mythological American ‘Melting Pot’ is fast becoming a greater reality. The ascendancy of Barack Obama as the Democratic Presidential nominee has set many people talking. Some are talking about his politics, others his religion, and still others about the issue that race plays in his selection as the next president.

During a discussion I had this week with one of my long standing clients, an architect who happens to be white; we talked about the issue of race and the real anxiety among whites of being called a “Racist” if they don’t vote for Obama. Earlier this year, I was meeting with another client, a mental health therapist who happens to be white. She is married to a native born African who is a naturalized US citizen. She told me of her desire for her children to meet Obama because he is the first inter-racial presidential candidate. I thought to myself, I never really considered him inter-racial, but she was accurate.

It occurred to me that few people ever address the issue of his mixed ethnicity as an element of his identity. In fact, my architect friend asked, “Wasn’t he raised mostly white?” His question raises many other intriguing questions such as, “What does raised mostly White, mean?” These discussions prompted me to pull out an old piece I wrote in 2000 for the Radixes Journal that addressed the issue of mixed ethnicity and impact it will have and is having upon our Nation, Culture and our perception of Race.

What is the future of “race”?

During the census conducted in 2000 provided respondents with the option, “Check All That Apply” (CATA) in the race category. While this may seem insignificant, there are important implications for the church and our community. According to the U.S. Census approximately 6.8 million people chose the (CATA) option. While this only amounts to 2.4% of the total population, it represents a significant philosophical shift in the definitions of race and culture.

Approximately 1.8 million of those who checked at least two of the available options would have previously been limited to the choice of “Black”.

Implications :

The historic classifications of “White” and “Black” when applied to community institutions may disappear in years to come. Churches particularly, wanting to remain viable in the coming years may need to broaden their self-concept to accommodate the changing perceptions of race, culture and ethnicity.

The introduction of the (CATA) option points to the real issue of classification. What is race and how do we determine its parameters? The (CATA) option is a landmark in the evolving culture of America. It gives clear notice to all, of the rise of a new cultural community that will as it continues to grow, change the complexion and personality of every institution that supports our communities.

At the heart of this growing segment of the community is the increasing number of interracial marriages. From 1960 to 1990 the total number of married couples, same and other race grew from 40,491,000 to 51,475,834. The 27% increase over thirty (30) years represents some 10,984,834 new married couples in three decades.

Over the same time period the number of interracial marriages grew from 157,000 (1960) to an astonishing 1,373,578 (1990). The number of interracial marriages exploded by approximately 800%. Complete data from the 2000 census is not currently available.

When considered as a whole, the rising multiracial/ multiethnic population, the reclassification of racial identity and the swelling numbers of interracial marriages all point to a shift in the politics of race and ethnicity in American culture. The shape of the emerging culture, the direction it will take and its impact: economic, political and religious, remain to be seen.

The 1990 Census figures indicate that the occurrence of White/Black marriages (206,374) is by far the smallest when compared to White/Asian Pacific Islanders (465,332) and the White/Native American, Eskimos & Aleuts (334,143). One thing is certain, interracial marriage has reached a state of critical mass in America. The results of such a pervasive cultural phenomenon promise to change the face of all that we “think” of as American in this generation and those to come.

What does this mean?

The reality is that we caught in the crossfire of cultural change and must address ourselves to the people who are affected by that change. Will these “multiracial” families find a place void of “stigma” in our communities, institutions and most importantly in the church that has historically separated along color lines, specifically Black and White? What happens when the lines that once clearly distinguished the two become transparent?

Will the emerging multiracial population forge a community identity based upon its blended ethnicity that is unique from existing community identities? Are we on the threshold of a race-less society or witnessing the birth of new races that will in time supplant their progenitors while creating new “isms” that polarize and fragment?

Change brings with it incredible opportunities as well as significant challenges. The realities of ethnicity and race are less stark, but no less poignant or challenging. We must ask ourselves; where will these families live, work, and most importantly worship, and how will their emergence impact our cultural landscape?