And now to the Goldman Sachs outrage

Internal emails among Goldman Sachs top executives reveal -- quite vividly -- what was going on. I cannot see how anyone could say this is ethical, or even legal.

In a nutshell, as I understand it, they encouraged their investors to buy subprime mortgage-based securities that they knew were poor risks -- and at the same time bought insurance against the loss in value of those very securities they had peddled.

As framed succinctly in a Huffington Post article:

The firm made money on the upside -- originating, securitizing and selling subprime mortgage-based securities to investors -- and on the downside, thanks to the insurance.

"Bad news," a May 17, 2007, email began from one Goldman employee to another. A security the firm had underwritten and sold had just lost value, costing Goldman about $2.5 million.

Further down in the email, the employee, Deeb Salem, wrote "Good news...we own 10mm protection...we make $5mm."

The firm made $5 million betting against the very securities it had underwritten and sold. . . .

On another day in July 2007, the chief operating officer wrote the chief financial officer that the firm lost $322 million on mortgages but made $373 million on its insurance bets against the market.

The firm made $51 million that day -- on nothing. This is really just gambling by very smart people at the very highest level of finance. But it has nothing to do with goods and services -- or with ethics -- and it should be a crime, if it is not in fact a crime. Maybe it is. That's the point at issue with the criminal charges filed against them.

This is obscene greed and utter disregard for not only their own investors but the financial system itself. And we know what happened. It all collapsed -- except that taxpayers bailed them out -- and now they're back making obscene profits already. This must not go unpunished.

So what are we supposed to think about the ties to Goldman Sachs of the two highest financial officials in the Obama administration?

Ralph

Vatican IX

There is a slight suggestion that the Vatican may be finally getting the message. In recent days, the resignations of two bishops in Ireland have been announced. This is significant because they join Cardinal Bernard Law of the U.S. in resigning, not because they were accused of abuse themselves, but because they failed to deal with the situation appropriately. That is, they were part of what Bishop Moriarty called the "culture of secrecy" in the church. In resigning, he has issued a genuine apology for not challenging the culture that he found when he first became a bishop.

There was also more bad news coming from Chile concerning the Rev. Fernando Karadima, who is so revered by parishioners that some call him "a living saint." Four men have filed criminal charges against the 80 year old priest, alleging that he sexually molested them in secret for years. One man had reported the abuse to the superiors seven years ago, but no action was ever taken.

This case will present a severe test for the church; and, in fact, Cardinal Bertone, second only to the pope in the Vatican hierarchy, spent six days in Chile last week. Karadima is held in such high regard that many parishioners and clergy refuse to believe the charges could be true. And yet the stories reported in the New York Times from interviews with the victims have the ring of truth.

All the more so because they begin with the boys having utter respect and trust in the priest. One of the them, who had been chosen by Father Karadima at 17 to be in a youth movement, said that he had worshiped the priest. He was his confessor, his spiritual adviser, his father figure. "I felt like I had been chosen by God. He was God's representative over me." Now a surgeon, he says that Father Karadima began kissing him on the mouth and patting his genitals; then when it became frankly sexual, "I was paralyzed, frozen."

Another man says his abuse began in the confessional after he told the priest he was confused about his sexuality. "This man had total power over me. I just wanted to commit suicide." He says Father Karadima's transgression with his young followers was an open secret. Both men have needed psychotherapy to help them deal with the trauma and finally to be able to take action against the priest.

These are typical stories of abuse by priests who exploit their young charges' trust and respect for them, coerce them into continuing the sexual activity, and then intimidate them from telling anyone. Even when they do try to tell, far too often nothing is done. That is the "culture of secrecy" that the church now has to answer for.

Ralph

Good decisions in Washington

Two speakers have been disinvited because of their prior offensive statements.

1. Evangelist Franklin Graham was scheduled to speak at the Pentagon's National Day of Prayer, but the invitation has been rescinded because of comments he made in the past. In 2001 he called Islam "evil." More recently he has said that he finds Islam "offensive," and he wants Muslims "to know that Jesus Christ died for their sins."

An army spokesman distanced the military from the invitation, saying it had been arranged by the National Day of Prayer Task Force and that the remarks are inappropriate.

At least someone at the Pentagon is thinking.

2. Former Vatican cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos was to celebrate mass at the Basilica in Washington in honor of Pope Benedict. That invitation has been withdrawn because of a letter he wrote in 2001 praising a bishop in France who had been convicted for failing to report sex crimes by a priest who had raped children. Hoyos wrote:

"I congratulate you for not denouncing a priest to the civil administration. . . You have acted well, and I am pleased to have a colleague in the episcopate who, in the eyes of history and of all other bishops in the world, preferred prison to denouncing his son and priest." The cardinal says that Pope John Paul II authorized the letter and told him to send it to bishops around the world.

That is the most startling thing of all. What better evidence is there of the attitude at the very top of the Vatican hierarchy that led to the culture of abuse and coverup?

Ralph

A president speaks on financial reform

"We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace -- business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering, . . . They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united . . . "

That was President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1936. He was in the midst of a re-election campaign, and opponents were bitterly opposed to regulation and hated FDR. Legislation was passed that regulated banks and financial institutions -- and kept things in check until the repeal of those measures, which led directly to the collapse of the system last year.

Now President Barack Obama is trying to put some of those regulations back in place. Today, in speaking in New York, with heads of banking/finance institutions seated before him, he appealed for common sense and cooperation:

"Ultimately, there is no dividing line between Main Street and Wall Street. We rise or we fall together as one nation. So I urge you to join me - to join those who are seeking to pass these commonsense reforms. And I urge you to do so not only because it is in the interests of your industry, but because it is in the interests of our country."

Republicans have apparently shifted course, realizing that siding with Wall Street right now is not the best re-election strategy. Sen. Grassley (R-IA) joined Democrats on the Finance Committee in approving the Dodd legislation. Of course, they're trying to claim that the were able to gain concessions from the Democrats -- but could cite none, and the Dems say they made no concessions. I think the concession was the decision that they would lose and that being a loyal friend to Wall Street would hurt them in November. It's called jumping on the band wagon, not gaining concessions.

Ralph

Dead miners trump gay play

Ouch !! Emory University's student production of The Laramie Project was upstaged by the funerals of coal miners in West Virginia.

Last Friday (4/16), I wrote about the Topeka, KS Westboro Baptist Church's plans to protest the play about the effect on the people of Laramie, WY of Matthew Sheppard's brutal murder.

Today's Emory Wheel reports that the notorious family of the Rev. Fred Phelps did not show up. Some 150 counter-protesters did, however, ready for a showdown between love and hate. In the end, there was only the love -- and a sold-out, final performance of the play.

When contacted by the Wheel, Shirley Phelps-Roper, daughter of Fred and herself a lawyer who will argue their free speech claim before the Supreme Court, explained that they had altered their plans in order to picket in West Virginia. They saw this as a greater opportunity to spread their message that God is angry and punishing our country for tolerating homosexuals.

"It's not every week that the Lord smacks a coal mine. It is every week that some rebellious bunch of youngsters puts on The Laramie Project. . . . We had something time-sensitive to do. We had to go there and put the signs in the air. 'Thank God for dead coal miners.'"

They began protesting at funerals of gay men who died of AIDS, and their signs read, "God hates fags." Now they include the Iraq war dead and the mine disaster as God's wrath smiting us down, trying to bring us to our senses. They are the prophets trying to warn us.

Upstaged this month, but Phelps-Roper promised to be in Atlanta May 4-6 for protests at Emory's Hillel Society and Druid Hills High School. Seems we here in Atlanta just continue to rebel against God and must be warned.

I was once in Topeka, and friends took me downtown to show me the street corner where they usually demonstrate and shout exhortations at passersby. The city finally had to invoke a noise ordinance to put some control on them. Then they went national -- and they do manage to get lots of attention with their outrageousness. I would estimate that it is 99.9% negative. But they persist.

Ralph

Income inequality

"The 10 Scariest Charts of the Recession" has some startling data -- even though we knew things were going in this direction.

For example: in the last 15 years, the median family income has risen by 13.2% (0.88%/year), while that of the 400 highest earning households has jumped 409% (27.2%/year). Because their tax rate also diminished over the same period, their after-tax incomes actually went up by 476%.

The income inequality (the share of total income going to the top 10% of the population) reached an all time high in 2007 (latest data available). More disparity even than in the late 1920's just before the big crash.

In 2006, the average Wall Street bonus -- not salary, but bonus, on top of salary and deferred stock options -- was more than 4 times the average annual salary of workers.

More of this at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/19/the-scariest-charts-of-th_n_540456.html#s81506

Ralph

World opinion of the US

In a recent BBC poll, 30,000 people in 28 countries were asked to rate a list of countries as to whether their effect on the world was "mostly positive" or "mostly negative."

The U.S. rated 46% positive. This is up from 28% positive in 2007 and 42% positive in 2009, while negatives are down from 43% in 2009 to 34% in 2010.

Can we call this "the Obama effect?" I think so, more than any other single factor.

Here's where we stand in the world's view as to the countries that are considered to have a mostly positive effect on the world:

Germany 59%, Japan 53%, U.K. 52%, Canada 51%, France 49%, U.S. 46%, China 41%.

Broken down by the response of individual countries: Among Germans, the positive opinion of the U.S. jumped from 18% to 39% and in Russia from 7% to 25% from 2009 to 2010.

On the other hand, these are disturbing: Pakistan has only a 9% positive/52%negative opinion of the U.S. Mexicans rate us 13% positive/49% negative; and Turks rate us 13%/70%.

Ralph

Vatican VIII

The response of the Vatican and the pope to the sexual abuse scandal continues to interest me -- and to appall me. I'm aware that it may be of less interest to some who occasionally read this blog. But it's easy to skip, since I will be consistent in using "Vatican" in the heading.

The pope's meeting with victims on the island of Malta seems a step in the right direction, simply by showing that he can be emotionally engaged. But it also suggests further evidence of his tone-deafness -- or perhaps it's simply that he really does believe that adherence to the church's dogma is what is important, not earthly laws and responsible action in the world.

In other words, the church sees the abuse as sin, which can be overcome by repentance and redemption. It minimizes the fact that these were situations of children being entrusted to the care of adults, who criminally betrayed that trust and must be subjected to the secular justice system.

According to an article by Rachel Donado in today's New York Times, the pope held a 20 minute private meeting with a small group of victims, while in Malta for another purpose. He was "deeply moved" by their stories and expressed "shame and sorrow" for their pain. It is reported that he had tears in his eyes. He prayed with them and assured them the church is doing all in its power to investigate accusations and bring to justice those responsible for abuse.

For a Catholic to receive such personal attention from the pope must be extraordinary; one found it "redemptive." But will the pope's personal engagement -- for 20 minutes -- be translated into a different understanding on his part and lead to action? That remains to be seen. He has also met previously with victims in the U.S., Australia, and Rome.

A skeptic would say that it is empty rhetoric when viewed against the fact that one of the victims in this group is a plaintiff in a lawsuit against abusive priests that the Maltese diocese "has been investigating" for seven years and "has not yet determined how to proceed against the priests." Three of the accused are still working as priests. Seven years? and they still haven't figured out what to do?

One of the young men who addressed the pope told him that he spoke for those who feel marginalized by the church because

"we are of a different sexual orientation. . . . It seems almost as if we are less readily accepted and treated with dignity by the Christian community than we are by all other members of society. . . . Your holiness, what must we do?"

Lacking an actual transcript, I don't know if this is the pope's immediate response to this question, but the article reports it as if so. It says:

Benedict applauded mildly [presumably for his courage in speaking up], before delivering a speech on St. Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus and alighting on a central theme of his papacy: in Europe, the pope said, "Gospel values are once again becoming countercultural, just as they were at the time of St. Paul.

If that was his response to the young man's comment that he feels more accepted in society than in the church, then here is what I hear the pope saying: 'To be accepted in the church, you must be converted, like St. Paul, and turn away from the wickedness of worldly values -- ie your homosexuality. Homosexual behavior is a sin. You must repent, and only then will you be fully accepted in the church. Yes, you have been sinned against by the abusive priests; but you have also sinned and must also repent.'

Is that what he meant to say? It is consistent with church dogma. Or is he just tone-deaf to the effect of what he says? It's the old 'love the sinner, hate the sin' hogwash that I hear from my Methodist preacher cousins.

Either way, it was not a good response -- even though the pope's pastoral side came through in the small, intimate setting and gave the victims an emotional sense of being listened to. But being listened to with 'tolerance and compassion for the sinner' is not the same as being really heard in a way that leads to an empathic re-examination of the church's dogma that could lead to change in policy.

Ralph