I have a friend who went “long” on gold several hundred dollars ago. If I had taken his advice I would be looking at pretty good profits today. But I didn’t. Putting your money in gold realizes no income, just possible capital gain, or – bubble-bursting time – ruin. (Remember when those scoundrelly Hunt brothers – Lamar and Nelson Bunker - “cornered” the silver market a few years ago. People were buying Canadian dimes and melting them down for their silver content. I even considered disposing of our sterling silver cutlery. The bubble burst and the Hunt brothers were indicted.) But the gold rush is real!
Now it has taken on a new dimension. “See you at a gold party!” The new Tupperware is here, and it is old chains, rings, anything that is gold. I arrive late on this one. Am I the last to notice the ads? Am I lagging behind the rest of the world?
While poking around through the New York Times on the web, I noticed an ad for Toronto gold parties. I had an inkling about what w=it would be. Hey, I’m not from Mars and I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck. I’m hip. I’m today. I am not surprised at gold selling about a thousand dollars an ounce. But this is simply too much.
This company is like the old Tupperware or Mary Kay cosmetics with get-together parties. And you can host your own gold party.and get a commission on every transaction.
Everyone wants your gold. The biggest new arrival in TV commercials is the send-m-your-gold guy. Cash for old stuff. And what I read is that a company in Switzerland melts down tons of gold and resells it in 100 gram bars or big ingots. The hunger for gold is worldwide, and all because of the decline of the American dollar, the worry that inflation will rear it’s ugly, and that continuing stimulus will increase deficits and make cash worth less. (as opposed to worthless.)
I am struck dumb. I know, and so do most people, that most of the gold that has ever been smelted is still around. Not all of it is accessible, like the tons of the stuff that is in Spanish gold galleons resting at the bottom of the sea, or in traveling museum shows like King Tut (which comes to Toronto’s AGO soon.). Can you imagine the money that is being invested in treasure hunting? I’m waiting to see figures about another boom and a bonanza for more scoundrels.
Gold is magic. As a metal is has many virtues, but as a symbol it has even more.
It is not without reason that the legend of King Midas has been a favourite for generations. We are emotional about gold. We are hysterical about gold.
Now we can actual get in on the action. I wonder if I should host a “bring-me-your-gold party.” Someone out there is getting rich. It sure as H isn’t me!
Sunday, November 8, 2009
DIALOGUE OF THE DEAF
Critics of the monumental stand-off between “democracy” and the fanaticism of the Islamists (as opposed to the everyday Muslim who believes but continues to live in a civilized way) say that there is no possibility that the gap can be bridged. The ideological and religious differences are so extreme that it will be impossible to build a bridge. (I put democracy in quotes because not all our friends are anything like democracies – i.e. Saudi Arabia)
The same critics believe that all of us should pull out of Afghanistan and leave it to the Afghans to solve their problems. In short, we are simply no good at nation-building, especially against a background of fanaticism and ideological absolutism.
Critics like to suggest that the flash point is the State of Israel, an alien nation in an Arab world, and that somehow, if the state did not exist, the stalemate would disappear. Tom Friedman, writing in the New York Times, makes this trenchant comment: “Today, the Arabs, Israel and the Palestinians are clearly not feeling enough pain to do anything hard for peace with each other — a mood best summed up by a phrase making the rounds at the State Department: The Palestinian leadership “wants a deal with Israel without any negotiations” and Israel’s leadership “wants negotiations with the Palestinians without any deal.”
I agree – somewhat. There is no negotiation either with the extreme orthodox Israelis who believe that “God gave them the land” or the equally extreme Islamists who believe that America is on a war against Islam and the Crusades are still alive and well.
President Bush took a stand that implicitly suggested a kind of Armageddon between the dark and the light, between enlightened Christian democracy and blighted Islamic intractability.
Friedman is wrong. Bush was – well let’s not even talk about him.
The fact is that it makes political good sense for the Muslim world (I avoid the word “Arab” because Iran is not Arabic) wants to see the end of Israel, which, for political purposes, they view, not as an island of democracy in a sea of absolutism, but as a puppet of American oil-crazy imperialism.
Israel obliges by continuing expansion of their settlements in the West Bank. Israelis say it is not expansion” but the improvement of existing settlements. Quibbling over what they are doing doesn’t add light to the darkness.
The only light will have to come from an initiative so massive, so generous, and so workable, that neither side could resist. Only America, with the support of the reluctant Chinese, Russians – and even Iranians, has the financial power to make it happen.
To continue to revile Hezbollah and Hamas does nothing. To quibble over “war crimes” in Gaza does nothing.
Only to turn an entirely new page will work. Only to fund and support a Palestinian state will work. Or will any success in that direction magnify the reality: the fight is not over a Palestinian State or the survival of Israel – it is still the almost Armageddon between suicide bombers and the “democracies” of the developed world?
We need change. We need a whole new vocabulary. We need change on both sides, backed by political will and money.
The same critics believe that all of us should pull out of Afghanistan and leave it to the Afghans to solve their problems. In short, we are simply no good at nation-building, especially against a background of fanaticism and ideological absolutism.
Critics like to suggest that the flash point is the State of Israel, an alien nation in an Arab world, and that somehow, if the state did not exist, the stalemate would disappear. Tom Friedman, writing in the New York Times, makes this trenchant comment: “Today, the Arabs, Israel and the Palestinians are clearly not feeling enough pain to do anything hard for peace with each other — a mood best summed up by a phrase making the rounds at the State Department: The Palestinian leadership “wants a deal with Israel without any negotiations” and Israel’s leadership “wants negotiations with the Palestinians without any deal.”
I agree – somewhat. There is no negotiation either with the extreme orthodox Israelis who believe that “God gave them the land” or the equally extreme Islamists who believe that America is on a war against Islam and the Crusades are still alive and well.
President Bush took a stand that implicitly suggested a kind of Armageddon between the dark and the light, between enlightened Christian democracy and blighted Islamic intractability.
Friedman is wrong. Bush was – well let’s not even talk about him.
The fact is that it makes political good sense for the Muslim world (I avoid the word “Arab” because Iran is not Arabic) wants to see the end of Israel, which, for political purposes, they view, not as an island of democracy in a sea of absolutism, but as a puppet of American oil-crazy imperialism.
Israel obliges by continuing expansion of their settlements in the West Bank. Israelis say it is not expansion” but the improvement of existing settlements. Quibbling over what they are doing doesn’t add light to the darkness.
The only light will have to come from an initiative so massive, so generous, and so workable, that neither side could resist. Only America, with the support of the reluctant Chinese, Russians – and even Iranians, has the financial power to make it happen.
To continue to revile Hezbollah and Hamas does nothing. To quibble over “war crimes” in Gaza does nothing.
Only to turn an entirely new page will work. Only to fund and support a Palestinian state will work. Or will any success in that direction magnify the reality: the fight is not over a Palestinian State or the survival of Israel – it is still the almost Armageddon between suicide bombers and the “democracies” of the developed world?
We need change. We need a whole new vocabulary. We need change on both sides, backed by political will and money.
GOVERNING CAN BE DANGEROUS TO YOUR (POLITICAL) HEALTH.
The House of Commons voted to repeal the Long Gun Registration Act. (It’s still only 2nd reading and has to go to committee and the Senate so there are still many hurdles ahead) I am horrified. Not by the choice to abandon a costly boondoggle, but that our politicians echo American Congressmen who vote only the way their constituents want them to. The best example is the passing i8n the House of the new Health Care legislation. Commenting is this from the New York Times: “The Democrats who balked at the measure represent mainly conservative swing districts, signaling that those who could be vulnerable in next year’s midterm elections viewed voting for the measure as politically risky. “
But we come from a long parliamentary tradition of “voting our conscience.” Yes, I know – when the party leader says “jump” you do as you are told. Party discipline often wins out. But when push comes to persuasion, it comes back to staying politically wise enough with your vote to be re-elected. But in an open vote, there is no party discipline. It comes down to doing what politicians should do best: vote for what he/she believes in.
The issue evokes the so-often-repeated stand taken by Edmund Burke, M.P. Bristol. He supported an issue related to Free Trade with Ireland. His constituents opposed him. In his famous statement he said: "If, from this conduct, I shall forfeit their suffrages at an ensuing election, it will stand on record an example to future representatives of the Commons of England, that one man at least had dared to resist the desires of his constituents when his judgment assured him they were wrong"
Even though Burke is considered the real founder of modern conservatism, his words ring true. He voted his conscience. It cost him his seat in the next election.
So I do wonder why of our own M.P.s there are those, especially on the Left, who voted with the government, citing the “fact” that theirs is a rural constituency and voters there own guns.
On the issue itself I have never understood the passion of the opposition. Is it because the system has already wasted $2 billion? Perhaps. Is it because, echoing the campaign by the N.R.A. claiming that that the first step in confiscating guns is registration. The NRA always cites Hitler Germany as an example of what gun registration does to the “rights” of people.
The fatal flaw in the opposition is the notion that you somehow will be deprived of your right to own a gun. If that is true we should also believe that having to register your dog will lead to confiscation of the dog. Like dogs, we like to know where the guns are. No one questions the right to own a shotgun. No one questions the right to get married either – but you do have to buy a license.
The interesting paradox here is that the most traditionally conservative group in society – the police – support gun registry and insist that it has already been helpful to them. The paradox is that the naysayers are the first to crow: “Our cops are tops.”
But we come from a long parliamentary tradition of “voting our conscience.” Yes, I know – when the party leader says “jump” you do as you are told. Party discipline often wins out. But when push comes to persuasion, it comes back to staying politically wise enough with your vote to be re-elected. But in an open vote, there is no party discipline. It comes down to doing what politicians should do best: vote for what he/she believes in.
The issue evokes the so-often-repeated stand taken by Edmund Burke, M.P. Bristol. He supported an issue related to Free Trade with Ireland. His constituents opposed him. In his famous statement he said: "If, from this conduct, I shall forfeit their suffrages at an ensuing election, it will stand on record an example to future representatives of the Commons of England, that one man at least had dared to resist the desires of his constituents when his judgment assured him they were wrong"
Even though Burke is considered the real founder of modern conservatism, his words ring true. He voted his conscience. It cost him his seat in the next election.
So I do wonder why of our own M.P.s there are those, especially on the Left, who voted with the government, citing the “fact” that theirs is a rural constituency and voters there own guns.
On the issue itself I have never understood the passion of the opposition. Is it because the system has already wasted $2 billion? Perhaps. Is it because, echoing the campaign by the N.R.A. claiming that that the first step in confiscating guns is registration. The NRA always cites Hitler Germany as an example of what gun registration does to the “rights” of people.
The fatal flaw in the opposition is the notion that you somehow will be deprived of your right to own a gun. If that is true we should also believe that having to register your dog will lead to confiscation of the dog. Like dogs, we like to know where the guns are. No one questions the right to own a shotgun. No one questions the right to get married either – but you do have to buy a license.
The interesting paradox here is that the most traditionally conservative group in society – the police – support gun registry and insist that it has already been helpful to them. The paradox is that the naysayers are the first to crow: “Our cops are tops.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)