Nature's hesitation

We are surrounded by color this time of year in Colorado. Mostly yellows, but some orange and red with enough green hangers-on from summer to make things interesting. People think aspen leaves turn from green to yellow in the fall. Actually, as the sun's angle changes, leaves lose their green color, leaving only the yellow behind. So it’s a case of “becoming” yellow rather than “turning.” I know, that's being picky, but I’d rather think in terms of becoming.

We become a year older. We become smarter (or dumber, if we still have money in the stock market). Children become grownup. We become grandparents or great-grandparents. You get the picture.

I call autumn nature’s hesitation. We go from the warm days of summer to a time of watching and waiting for winter. The leaves become yellow and tell us cold weather is right around the corner. Yet it’s still warm. We walk the hills, basking in the sunlight as though it belonged to us. It would be easy to think this could last forever. Soon, though, winter will be upon us. The leaves will fall, leaving behind bare trunks and naked limbs to face whatever the icy winds will bring.

But winter has charm too. There’s nothing so spectacular as a full moon on new snow. To quote from the poem, such splendor gives the “luster of midday to objects below.” I remember once, several years ago, catching up with a car driving without headlights. Before I could say “Dumb drunk!” I realized the driver was following other cars without their lights on. Then I realized none of us needed lights — the moon reflecting off the snow provided all the illumination we needed!

I too turned my lights off and reflected on the fact that here were several drivers who didn’t have a clue who the others were, yet we were united in silence as we convoyed down the highway together. It was quite a moment.

We’re alive and well, the trees are still beautiful and the mountains haven’t changed in, oh, a million years or so. Life goes on as it always has and so will we in one way or another.

Dare we call it what it is?

By this time all of America is familiar with the financial crisis supposedly involving (take your pick) Wall Street financiers, corrupt politicians, greedy banks and predatory loan agencies.

We're told by President Bush, the Fed chairman, Treasury secretary and a handful of (mostly Democratic) Congressmen that taxpayers are the only ones who can bail us out.

It occurs to me that if crooks are robbing banks, we don't arrest the person who got robbed; we arrest the crooks first and work outward from there.

Regardless of your political affiliation, I want you to watch the YouTube videos below and come to your own conclusion who the crooks are.

Don't make a judgment until you've watched them through to the end. Then see if what you've seen isn't what police call an ongoing criminal enterprise.

Are we talking about violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act? It would seem so, but let's take a look and see what the statute says.

The RICO statute provides for extended penalties for criminal acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. It also provides a civil cause of action for those injured by violations of the act.

So let's break this down. Have there been criminal acts? Is there an ongoing criminal organization? Have people been injured as a result of such acts and are other people civilly liable? There's been enough smoke around this financial fire to make me believe so.

That is, unless lawyers have figured out ways to keep the dots from being connected.

There's certainly been a loose organization involving men and women in Congress, lobbyists, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored but privately-owned guarantors of home loans.

This organization has perpetuated what seems to be a complex, albeit intentional, scheme aimed at defrauding taxpayers under the guise of providing loans to low-income homeowners. The question is whether the people involved knew or suspected their house of cards would fall.

For a crime to take place there must be an actus rea (criminal act) and mens rea (criminal intent). Generally speaking, there must also be one or more victims.

There certainly have been acts. We also have intent if you believe, as I do, that people at the top of these pyramid schemes knew the difference between right or wrong.

That's what we must prove then: whether the people involved knew or reasonably believed at the time these acts were being perpetrated that what they were doing was wrong and likely to result in people losing much if not all of their life's savings.

So before I go further, copy and paste the videos in your browser and watch them. See the accusations being made and make a mental note of who made them.

Also watch who denied the accusations and see if they aren't some of the same people standing in front of cameras today denying knowledge of any wrongdoing. Then come back to this post and let's chat further.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU6fuFrdCJY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Now that you've seen and heard what was said, some on the right will say kill the bastards. Some on the left will say the accusations were taken out of context. Maybe. That's why a special prosecutor should be appointed NOW to determine who knew what and when.

And that includes George W. Bush and members of Congress.

Let the chips fall where they may. Let wrongdoers be sent to jail for a looooong time. And let's all hope that never again will the American people allow greedy financiers to con them out of their money.

In the meantime, life goes on here in Pikes Peak country. Let's hope the markets eventually recover and that people who lost will recover enough to see them through their retirements.

That's it from this corner of beautiful Colorado. Happy autumn everyone.