Updated: Monday, 1:15pm
I have not read the agreed-upon bailout bill, and would not understand it if I did. I have read three summaries written by people who do understand the bill. One of them thought it should be approved while two of them thought it should be burned, the ashes plowed into the ground and the earth salted. I'm with the latter two, and I have repeated my earlier messages to my Representative and both Senators to that effect.
Forget the "phase in" of the amount; Paulson will get all $700 Billion. Forget the "oversight;" it is a farce, since it is after the fact and can be easily circumvented. Forget the ban on "golden parachutes" and such; the ban applies only to any new executive hires and the existing executives can be paid any amount the companies desire. Forget protecting homeowners; that was removed from the bill. What started as a three-page bill wound up as a 110-page bill, 107 pages of which are pure window dressing. It is still the original three-page bill.
There is no meltdown or disaster coming, there is a recession coming and this bill will delay that recession until the next administration. When it occurs it will do so with the national debt needlessly $1 Trillion higher. This bill has two purposes. The first is to engage in one last orgy of enrichment of the Bush coterie. The second is to change the Bush Recession to the next administration's recession. Bush doesn't care whose name is on the coming recession, so long as it isn't his.
Update: Monday, 1:15pm
I'm not saying that nothing needs to be done. I'm sure that something does. I'm suggesting that this does not smell like the right plan; that many economists have suggested that it is not the right plan and their words should be considered. They have not been listened to.
Note that the only financially knowledgeable persons engaged in the marathon sessions leading to the bill were Bush Administration officials Paulson, Bernanke and Cox. No other plan was ever considered, no other financial opinions sought, no other method of rescue put on the table. The Paulson plan was admitted to be unacceptable, but no option other than modifying it around the edges was ever considered.
Showing posts with label Bush administration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bush administration. Show all posts
Monday, September 29, 2008
Monday, June 09, 2008
Bush Photo-Op
I thought that I had heard the worst that this administration could offer. I thought that no further revelation of the criminality that this group of evildoers had engaged in would ever shock and appall me again. I thought that the full scope of the utter filth and the depth of depravity of these men had been fully revealed. Sadly, no.
We’ve known how the media “failed to ask the hard questions” of this administration, how they have played the role of stenographer rather than reporter, how when they have asked questions they have accepted patently false answers as gospel. I have iterated in this space how ABC News to this day acts as a platform for the administration’s scare mongering by airing handout pieces from the DHS on terrorism as if they were news.
In How Karl Rove played politics while people drowned at Salon on Friday was revealed just how truly awful this administration has been. Go read the article. To some degree there is not all that much new, as it has been known that politics were played with this event at the cost of lives.
The article describes how Bush demanded that a state with a Democratic governor federalize its National Guard, while he freely sent federal aid to two states with Republican governors without that demand. But there is worse to come, far worse.
To be truly appalled, read in detail about this recollection by Mary Landrieu, Senator from Louisiana – a recollection of a lie staged by Bush and Company with the assistance of the Army Corps of Engineers, a lie concealed by the media.
And then,
George Stephanopoulos knew, and he said nothing.
If Stephanopoulos wasn’t at the prior day’s photo-op, he certainly knew of it and he had merely to run clips from his own news agency to have proof. He was in the helicopter with Mary Landrieu when she made the discovery, so he had a grandstand view of the duplicity. He knew exactly how dishonest the President had been with the people of this nation, the lengths to which the President had gone to stage the lie, the enormity of the lie, and he did not tell us. He kept silent, concealed the lie, was complicit in the lie.
The Republican Party started the process of removing Section 4 from Article 2 of The Constitution of the United States of America, impeachment of the President, and the current Democratic Congress in the person of Nancy Pelosi completed it in a self-serving political move to enhance the power of her party to the detriment of her nation.
Future criminals in the White House will forever be able to point to depraved actions such as this photo-op in New Orleans and say in their own defense, “You did not impeach for this.”
Neither the media nor Congress will bring these criminals to account.
We’ve known how the media “failed to ask the hard questions” of this administration, how they have played the role of stenographer rather than reporter, how when they have asked questions they have accepted patently false answers as gospel. I have iterated in this space how ABC News to this day acts as a platform for the administration’s scare mongering by airing handout pieces from the DHS on terrorism as if they were news.
In How Karl Rove played politics while people drowned at Salon on Friday was revealed just how truly awful this administration has been. Go read the article. To some degree there is not all that much new, as it has been known that politics were played with this event at the cost of lives.
The article describes how Bush demanded that a state with a Democratic governor federalize its National Guard, while he freely sent federal aid to two states with Republican governors without that demand. But there is worse to come, far worse.
To be truly appalled, read in detail about this recollection by Mary Landrieu, Senator from Louisiana – a recollection of a lie staged by Bush and Company with the assistance of the Army Corps of Engineers, a lie concealed by the media.
“So we landed at the canal, five minutes from my house.” The Senator says, “I was so excited because they were finally doing something. The Corps of Engineers was there, and they had dump trucks and sandbags. All the cameras were there for the president, who was doing one of his famous press conferences about how he was going to do everything. So I thought, 'At least the guy is doing something, so show your manners and be good and smile.'”
And then,
On Friday, Mary Landrieu had been with Bush and Blanco as they toured the 17th Street Canal, where, at last, major work had commenced to repair the damage that had been caused when the levee broke. "Then, on Saturday," Landrieu says, "George Stephanopoulos called and asked to do an interview with me, and I said, 'George, I'm tired of doing interviews. I have to work. And nothing you are airing is accurately showing what's going on down here. … You get a helicopter and I'll go up and I will show you what is actually happening.’ … So George and I went up in the helicopter and for three hours his jaw was dropping. Then I said, 'George, before we finish I have to show you one positive thing because I can't send you back to Washington to produce a story that shows nothing but devastation and disaster.' So I told the pilot to tack right so I can show George the 17th Street Canal and the work that was going on there. I swear as my name is Mary Landrieu I thought that what I saw with the president was still there -- people working, trucks, sandbags, everything. Then I looked down and saw one little crane. It was like someone took a knife and stabbed me through my heart. I lost it."
George Stephanopoulos knew, and he said nothing.
If Stephanopoulos wasn’t at the prior day’s photo-op, he certainly knew of it and he had merely to run clips from his own news agency to have proof. He was in the helicopter with Mary Landrieu when she made the discovery, so he had a grandstand view of the duplicity. He knew exactly how dishonest the President had been with the people of this nation, the lengths to which the President had gone to stage the lie, the enormity of the lie, and he did not tell us. He kept silent, concealed the lie, was complicit in the lie.
The Republican Party started the process of removing Section 4 from Article 2 of The Constitution of the United States of America, impeachment of the President, and the current Democratic Congress in the person of Nancy Pelosi completed it in a self-serving political move to enhance the power of her party to the detriment of her nation.
Future criminals in the White House will forever be able to point to depraved actions such as this photo-op in New Orleans and say in their own defense, “You did not impeach for this.”
Neither the media nor Congress will bring these criminals to account.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Economic Policy
An editorial in the New York Times really got my blood boiling yesterday. You think you’ve seen me become outraged in these posts in the past, but you have seen nothing yet. That was just a warm up. We’ll get to that editorial in a minute, but first some background.
The working class in this country (yes, this has become a country of social and economic classes) is not doing well. Here are a few facts that illustrate just how unwell the working class is doing:
This came about, in no small part, as a result of George W. Bush’s “ownership society,” which was a scam of monumental proportions. His plan was to make everyone believe that they were part of the “owning class” of this country so that they would not balk at the policies which moved wealth away from massive portions of the population and into the hands of the wealthiest 1%, his cronies and financial supporters.
If you own stock then you are part of the “ownership society” and you are not going to object to policies which enhance the value of that stock. Bush, then, can blind you to the fact that he is not enhancing your wages, that he is increasing your debt burden and the debt burden of your nation, and that he is vastly enriching himself and his cronies. He can do this by chanting his mantra of “ownership society” and reminding you that he is enhancing the value of your two shares of Disney.
He also conned you into buying a house that you cannot afford so, in addition to your two shares of increasingly-valuable Disney, you also own a $400,000 home which carries a $600,000 mortgage on which you can no longer meet the payments. But don’t worry, son, because you are part of the “ownership society.”
And part of the reason you can’t meet your house payments is that your income has only gone up by 0.8% in the last six years while the banker who handled the loan has enjoyed a 34.8% increase, and his bank has enjoyed a whopping 80% increase in profit. The financial broker who sold you the loan has enjoyed a several-hundred percent increase in income and pays income tax at something like half the marginal rate that you do..
But it’s all good says the Federal Reserve in an op-ed yesterday printed in the New York Times. Inequality isn’t as bad as it looks because, while the upper class may be making 100 times as much income as you are, they are spending a mere 4 times as much as you are.
Wealth isn’t measured by how much money you shovel into the bank, it’s measured by how many effing dvd players you buy.
Read this excerpt and weep (or gnash your teeth),
So if you are selling your car to feed your family, it’s all good.
Phhht, phhht, *#@#!#&**#^$&*#*^%$*, phhhht. #!
Unless, of course, you’re part of that “unclear exact proportion” of those whose “low income total doesn’t accurately reflect their long-term financial status.”
I remember the days (happily long past) when, after I got fired from one job and before I managed to find a new one, I referred to myself as being “temporarily between jobs.” It’s also known as being unemployed. These days that condition can last for many months, is often by no means voluntary, and obtaining “access to spending money” by “drawing down bank accounts” is a considerably more pernicious method of dealing with that condition than the Fed suggests it is.
The Fed is supposed to be non-political. Nobody has ever really believed that, of course, but there was always a sort of civilized pretense maintained to that effect. Now even that has been stripped away by this administration. Read this op-ed piece and you can realize just how transparently this administration is using the Fed to pursue a desperate attempt to salvage its last year in office.
For many years whenever I have read stories about athletes holding out for enormous amounts of money, offered dozens of millions and declining it to demand more, I have wondered what the point was. They have been offered more money that they could possibly spend in a lifetime and declined it as being insufficient. That is simply incomprehensible to me. Why would someone want to have so much money that even the most sybaritic lifestyle could not deplete it?
The Fed seems to support my question, doesn’t it? With the theory outlined in it’s op-ed it claims that wealth beyond what is consumed is not actually wealth at all, and that it might as well not be accumulated at all. Wealth is measured, after all, not by accumulation but by consumption.
The Fed also betrays the myth of the “ownership society” in this op-ed piece. This administration does not want any money to be saved or invested in ownership. It wants money to be spent to rescue it from the economic disaster it created. (Not that any forseeable amount of consumer spending will accomplish that goal.) By postponing the recession for just one year, if it can do that, this administration can blame its own malfeasance on its successor.
You, too, can be wealthy. All you have to do is spend more money. You don't need to make more income, making money is missing the point.
You need to spend more. You can obtain funds by selling property and "drawing down bank accounts" to achieve the wealth you desire. What are you waiting for? Start now. Go shopping.
God help us all.
The working class in this country (yes, this has become a country of social and economic classes) is not doing well. Here are a few facts that illustrate just how unwell the working class is doing:
1. After correcting for inflation, weekly wages were just 1.9% higher in 2007 than in 2001.
2. Seven million more people were without health insurance in 2006 than in 2001.
3. After correcting for inflation, median household income in 2006 was down 2.0% from its 2000 level, and down 8.0% for black families.
4. U.S. inequality reached levels not seen since the 1920s as from 2001 to 2005 the average real (inflation-adjusted) income rose 34.8% for the richest 1% of households, rose just 0.8% for the middle fifth of the population, and fell by 3.0% for the poorest fifth.
5. And corporate profits skyrocketed 12.8% per year during the past five years.
This came about, in no small part, as a result of George W. Bush’s “ownership society,” which was a scam of monumental proportions. His plan was to make everyone believe that they were part of the “owning class” of this country so that they would not balk at the policies which moved wealth away from massive portions of the population and into the hands of the wealthiest 1%, his cronies and financial supporters.
If you own stock then you are part of the “ownership society” and you are not going to object to policies which enhance the value of that stock. Bush, then, can blind you to the fact that he is not enhancing your wages, that he is increasing your debt burden and the debt burden of your nation, and that he is vastly enriching himself and his cronies. He can do this by chanting his mantra of “ownership society” and reminding you that he is enhancing the value of your two shares of Disney.
He also conned you into buying a house that you cannot afford so, in addition to your two shares of increasingly-valuable Disney, you also own a $400,000 home which carries a $600,000 mortgage on which you can no longer meet the payments. But don’t worry, son, because you are part of the “ownership society.”
And part of the reason you can’t meet your house payments is that your income has only gone up by 0.8% in the last six years while the banker who handled the loan has enjoyed a 34.8% increase, and his bank has enjoyed a whopping 80% increase in profit. The financial broker who sold you the loan has enjoyed a several-hundred percent increase in income and pays income tax at something like half the marginal rate that you do..
But it’s all good says the Federal Reserve in an op-ed yesterday printed in the New York Times. Inequality isn’t as bad as it looks because, while the upper class may be making 100 times as much income as you are, they are spending a mere 4 times as much as you are.
Wealth isn’t measured by how much money you shovel into the bank, it’s measured by how many effing dvd players you buy.
Read this excerpt and weep (or gnash your teeth),
The bottom fifth earned just $9,974, but spent nearly twice that — an average of $18,153 a year. How is that possible? A look at the far right-hand column of the consumption chart, labeled “financial flows,” shows why: those lower-income families have access to various sources of spending money that doesn’t fall under taxable income. These sources include portions of sales of property like homes and cars and securities that are not subject to capital gains taxes, insurance policies redeemed, or the drawing down of bank accounts. While some of these families are mired in poverty, many (the exact proportion is unclear) are headed by retirees and those temporarily between jobs, and thus their low income total doesn’t accurately reflect their long-term financial status.
So if you are selling your car to feed your family, it’s all good.
Phhht, phhht, *#@#!#&**#^$&*#*^%$*, phhhht. #!
Unless, of course, you’re part of that “unclear exact proportion” of those whose “low income total doesn’t accurately reflect their long-term financial status.”
I remember the days (happily long past) when, after I got fired from one job and before I managed to find a new one, I referred to myself as being “temporarily between jobs.” It’s also known as being unemployed. These days that condition can last for many months, is often by no means voluntary, and obtaining “access to spending money” by “drawing down bank accounts” is a considerably more pernicious method of dealing with that condition than the Fed suggests it is.
The Fed is supposed to be non-political. Nobody has ever really believed that, of course, but there was always a sort of civilized pretense maintained to that effect. Now even that has been stripped away by this administration. Read this op-ed piece and you can realize just how transparently this administration is using the Fed to pursue a desperate attempt to salvage its last year in office.
For many years whenever I have read stories about athletes holding out for enormous amounts of money, offered dozens of millions and declining it to demand more, I have wondered what the point was. They have been offered more money that they could possibly spend in a lifetime and declined it as being insufficient. That is simply incomprehensible to me. Why would someone want to have so much money that even the most sybaritic lifestyle could not deplete it?
The Fed seems to support my question, doesn’t it? With the theory outlined in it’s op-ed it claims that wealth beyond what is consumed is not actually wealth at all, and that it might as well not be accumulated at all. Wealth is measured, after all, not by accumulation but by consumption.
The Fed also betrays the myth of the “ownership society” in this op-ed piece. This administration does not want any money to be saved or invested in ownership. It wants money to be spent to rescue it from the economic disaster it created. (Not that any forseeable amount of consumer spending will accomplish that goal.) By postponing the recession for just one year, if it can do that, this administration can blame its own malfeasance on its successor.
You, too, can be wealthy. All you have to do is spend more money. You don't need to make more income, making money is missing the point.
You need to spend more. You can obtain funds by selling property and "drawing down bank accounts" to achieve the wealth you desire. What are you waiting for? Start now. Go shopping.
God help us all.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Predatory Lending 2
A few days ago I commented that the government’s bailout of people who bought homes they could not afford by taking out mortgages on which they would not be able to make the payments was a bad idea. I said that I did not favor the government rewarding bad judgement and financial irresponsibility.
The response has been comments saying that Loan Company A was publishing memos to it’s salesmen saying that they should promote the high rate loans, and that Loan Company B is settling a lawsuit and making refunds because they illegally concealed in the documents that the payments would increase. The implication is that the bad loans are all the fault of these heinous companies that were out in the market place ripping off poor innocent victims.
To defend the government’s program with these arguments is like saying that there are some innocent people in jails in this country. That is a bad thing and the juries that wrongly convicted those people were, I don’t know, corrupt or maybe racist or something. Therefor we should open the doors of the prisons and let everybody go free. Everybody, innocent or not.
I did not suggest in my post that loan companies which violated the law should not be punished and their victims be made whole. What portion of the mortgage crisis does that constitute? I do not have the answer to that question, but I know for sure that it is not the entirety of it. I am reasonably sure that it is actually a fairly small portion.
As to the loan company advising its agents to “push” the high-interest loans, of course they do that. Just because someone is suggesting that I buy something does not mean that I have to do so. Before I commit myself to the payment of hundreds of thousands of dollars, fiscal responsibility demands that I do my own due diligence rather than simply signing whatever has been placed in front of me.
How many buyers were sitting at that loan officer’s desk, looking at the “non-conventional” loan because they had already been turned down by a conventional lender? This is another question to which I don’t have the answer, but reading news articles suggests to me that the portion is not exactly miniscule.
Who is the victim when one who cannot qualify for a legitimate loan turns to a “loan shark” instead? Certainly that does not legitimize the loan shark, but does it justify rescuing the borrower? Maybe if the loan was required to save a life, but…
How many borrowers knew full well that a safer loan was available to them but accepted the risky loan because it would “enhance their lifestyle” and thought they could refinance out of it before the risk caught up with them? Right, I don’t know the answer to that one either, but I know full well that it is a significant portion of this crisis. And the government’s plan rescues these borrowers in greater numbers than it does those who actually are victims.
Proponents of the government rescue plan point out that without it the flood of foreclosure will cause home values to fall and that will damage those who own homes. I own a home in Southern California, bought before the home values skyrocketed, and I cannot say that I really want to see it be devalued. Still, perhaps I am not as important as the well-being of the society in which I live. Perhaps the greater good of the greater number should prevail.
Do I really want to live in a society where only the very wealthy can own a home, even if I’m one of those who does?
The response has been comments saying that Loan Company A was publishing memos to it’s salesmen saying that they should promote the high rate loans, and that Loan Company B is settling a lawsuit and making refunds because they illegally concealed in the documents that the payments would increase. The implication is that the bad loans are all the fault of these heinous companies that were out in the market place ripping off poor innocent victims.
To defend the government’s program with these arguments is like saying that there are some innocent people in jails in this country. That is a bad thing and the juries that wrongly convicted those people were, I don’t know, corrupt or maybe racist or something. Therefor we should open the doors of the prisons and let everybody go free. Everybody, innocent or not.
I did not suggest in my post that loan companies which violated the law should not be punished and their victims be made whole. What portion of the mortgage crisis does that constitute? I do not have the answer to that question, but I know for sure that it is not the entirety of it. I am reasonably sure that it is actually a fairly small portion.
As to the loan company advising its agents to “push” the high-interest loans, of course they do that. Just because someone is suggesting that I buy something does not mean that I have to do so. Before I commit myself to the payment of hundreds of thousands of dollars, fiscal responsibility demands that I do my own due diligence rather than simply signing whatever has been placed in front of me.
How many buyers were sitting at that loan officer’s desk, looking at the “non-conventional” loan because they had already been turned down by a conventional lender? This is another question to which I don’t have the answer, but reading news articles suggests to me that the portion is not exactly miniscule.
Who is the victim when one who cannot qualify for a legitimate loan turns to a “loan shark” instead? Certainly that does not legitimize the loan shark, but does it justify rescuing the borrower? Maybe if the loan was required to save a life, but…
How many borrowers knew full well that a safer loan was available to them but accepted the risky loan because it would “enhance their lifestyle” and thought they could refinance out of it before the risk caught up with them? Right, I don’t know the answer to that one either, but I know full well that it is a significant portion of this crisis. And the government’s plan rescues these borrowers in greater numbers than it does those who actually are victims.
Proponents of the government rescue plan point out that without it the flood of foreclosure will cause home values to fall and that will damage those who own homes. I own a home in Southern California, bought before the home values skyrocketed, and I cannot say that I really want to see it be devalued. Still, perhaps I am not as important as the well-being of the society in which I live. Perhaps the greater good of the greater number should prevail.
Do I really want to live in a society where only the very wealthy can own a home, even if I’m one of those who does?
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Tortured Confession
The confession of John Kiriakou regarding the CIA use of torture, aired yesterday by ABC news, has the media and blogosphere all atwitter about what a black eye the revelation is to the Bush Administration. Even Keith Olbermann was breathlessly reporting about it on Countdown last night. Me, I’m not sure that this guy is all that real, as a few things he’s saying strike me as a bit “off.”
First, he says that the torture he witnessed was 35 seconds of waterboarding and that as a result the subject not only gave in, but he did so permanently. According to his description the subject actually became an ally and freely gave information without a trace of coercion from then on. After 35 seconds of mistreatment.
Now, I am certainly no expert, and maybe I would cave after 5 seconds. But I have seen films of our soldiers who have been tortured for months and years and some of them did sign documents and make statements, but they certainly did not become allies of their torturers. Is our present enemy one of so little character that a small dose of torture is enough to make them spill their guts for the rest of time? If so, why are we so afraid of them? It’s a minor point, but his description sounds like something out of a dime novel.
Kiriakou is quoted in the news report as saying that the torture he witnessed “prevented dozens of attacks.” Does nobody other than me hear an echo of Bush Administration propaganda in that statement? Why do I have the feeling that this guy is more interested in convincing us that torture is effective, which almost no one believes, than in revealing that our government has been doing it, which everybody knew anyway?
This is a key suspicion for me. He repeats over and over in his dissertation that it was necessary at the time and that it was effective, that it “saved lives.” It seemed to me that this, in fact, was the real gist of what he wanted to convey.
When Gibson asked Brain Ross why Kiriakou was coming out with the story now, Ross’ answer made no sense to me at all. Ross reported that Kiriakou was angry that the torture sessions had been taped and even more furious that the tapes had been destroyed. According to Ross, Kiriakou thought the tapes should have been preserved as a “historical record.”
What? He’s angry that the tapes were made, but since they were made they should have been kept? In what world is that logical?
When a storyteller provides illogical reasons for telling the story, I have to seriously doubt not only the reason for telling it but the facts as well.
I do not really doubt that the CIA has been fouling this country’s honor by torturing, but I do seriously doubt the effectiveness of that practice as reported by one John Kiriakou.
And the effectiveness or otherwise begs the point. The practice is wrong regardless of its outcome. It is a disgrace to this country and dishonors those who have fought and died to secure its freedom. Kiriakou and others may try, but torture cannot ever be justified.
First, he says that the torture he witnessed was 35 seconds of waterboarding and that as a result the subject not only gave in, but he did so permanently. According to his description the subject actually became an ally and freely gave information without a trace of coercion from then on. After 35 seconds of mistreatment.
Now, I am certainly no expert, and maybe I would cave after 5 seconds. But I have seen films of our soldiers who have been tortured for months and years and some of them did sign documents and make statements, but they certainly did not become allies of their torturers. Is our present enemy one of so little character that a small dose of torture is enough to make them spill their guts for the rest of time? If so, why are we so afraid of them? It’s a minor point, but his description sounds like something out of a dime novel.
Kiriakou is quoted in the news report as saying that the torture he witnessed “prevented dozens of attacks.” Does nobody other than me hear an echo of Bush Administration propaganda in that statement? Why do I have the feeling that this guy is more interested in convincing us that torture is effective, which almost no one believes, than in revealing that our government has been doing it, which everybody knew anyway?
This is a key suspicion for me. He repeats over and over in his dissertation that it was necessary at the time and that it was effective, that it “saved lives.” It seemed to me that this, in fact, was the real gist of what he wanted to convey.
When Gibson asked Brain Ross why Kiriakou was coming out with the story now, Ross’ answer made no sense to me at all. Ross reported that Kiriakou was angry that the torture sessions had been taped and even more furious that the tapes had been destroyed. According to Ross, Kiriakou thought the tapes should have been preserved as a “historical record.”
What? He’s angry that the tapes were made, but since they were made they should have been kept? In what world is that logical?
When a storyteller provides illogical reasons for telling the story, I have to seriously doubt not only the reason for telling it but the facts as well.
I do not really doubt that the CIA has been fouling this country’s honor by torturing, but I do seriously doubt the effectiveness of that practice as reported by one John Kiriakou.
And the effectiveness or otherwise begs the point. The practice is wrong regardless of its outcome. It is a disgrace to this country and dishonors those who have fought and died to secure its freedom. Kiriakou and others may try, but torture cannot ever be justified.
Monday, December 10, 2007
"Predatory Lending"
An editorial in today’s New York Times by Paul Krugman today listed three concerns about the current mortgage crisis. The third one was this,
Finally, there’s injustice: the subprime boom involved predatory lending — high-interest loans foisted on borrowers who qualified for lower rates — on an epic scale. The Wall Street Journal found that more than 55 percent of subprime loans made at the height of the housing bubble “went to people with credit scores high enough to often qualify for conventional loans with far better terms.”
He calls it “predatory lending” but I submit that, in most cases, that term is far from accurate. It would be more accurately called, “serving the borrower’s greed.”
Why did those borrowers not take out the “conventional loans with far better terms?” Clue number one is that many of them replaced just such loans with the subprime ones. Doing so gave them a lower house payment for a year, or a few years, and allowed them to live a more affluent lifestyle. Their assumption was that before the reset occurred “something would happen” to prevent it. They took a gamble for the sake of immediate gratification and, inevitably, many of them lost.
Paul Krugman regards that as injustice and thinks we should bail them out.
My nephew bought a house for his young family in the San Diego area some time ago and last year I rather casually asked him what kind of mortgage he had on it. He looked at me like I had lost my mind and said that “of course” he had a thirty-year-fixed, and added some remarks about not being stupid enough to go for any of those “crazy loans.”
He is a young man, very much enthusiastic about life and adventure, full of plans and upwardly mobile. And he lives within his means. He doesn’t have to have what he cannot afford. How strange. Downright un-American. How dare he display the flag?
I do agree with Krugman that the Bush/Paulson plan is a bad one, but not for the same reason. He thinks it doesn’t rescue enough borrowers. I think it rescues too many.
The victims of this crisis are portrayed as the people who are losing their homes, but they are preponderantly victims not of predatory lenders but of their own greed and/or financial mismanagement. The main victims of the lack of regulation are the investors who purchased those “innovative instruments” which were preordained to become worthless.
Unregulated capitalism becomes predatory.
You either believe in the “free market” system or you do not. (I do not.)
This bunch, including Krugman, wants to have it both ways. They'd like the market to be free to create the kind of “innovate market instruments” that created the mortgage crisis, but when that inevitably turns to destructive chaos they want to be able to step in and make whole those who were burned in the flames.
And, of course, they want to do that without taking away the riches from those who profited in the process of creating the destruction.
No one in the government or business communities is even talking about any plans for making whole the people and institutions who bought the instruments that have turned to junk. And probably no one should be. If you put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig. These investors failed to look past the lipstick and bought the pig.
Caveat emptor, baby, caveat emptor.
Finally, there’s injustice: the subprime boom involved predatory lending — high-interest loans foisted on borrowers who qualified for lower rates — on an epic scale. The Wall Street Journal found that more than 55 percent of subprime loans made at the height of the housing bubble “went to people with credit scores high enough to often qualify for conventional loans with far better terms.”
He calls it “predatory lending” but I submit that, in most cases, that term is far from accurate. It would be more accurately called, “serving the borrower’s greed.”
Why did those borrowers not take out the “conventional loans with far better terms?” Clue number one is that many of them replaced just such loans with the subprime ones. Doing so gave them a lower house payment for a year, or a few years, and allowed them to live a more affluent lifestyle. Their assumption was that before the reset occurred “something would happen” to prevent it. They took a gamble for the sake of immediate gratification and, inevitably, many of them lost.
Paul Krugman regards that as injustice and thinks we should bail them out.
My nephew bought a house for his young family in the San Diego area some time ago and last year I rather casually asked him what kind of mortgage he had on it. He looked at me like I had lost my mind and said that “of course” he had a thirty-year-fixed, and added some remarks about not being stupid enough to go for any of those “crazy loans.”
He is a young man, very much enthusiastic about life and adventure, full of plans and upwardly mobile. And he lives within his means. He doesn’t have to have what he cannot afford. How strange. Downright un-American. How dare he display the flag?
I do agree with Krugman that the Bush/Paulson plan is a bad one, but not for the same reason. He thinks it doesn’t rescue enough borrowers. I think it rescues too many.
The victims of this crisis are portrayed as the people who are losing their homes, but they are preponderantly victims not of predatory lenders but of their own greed and/or financial mismanagement. The main victims of the lack of regulation are the investors who purchased those “innovative instruments” which were preordained to become worthless.
Unregulated capitalism becomes predatory.
You either believe in the “free market” system or you do not. (I do not.)
This bunch, including Krugman, wants to have it both ways. They'd like the market to be free to create the kind of “innovate market instruments” that created the mortgage crisis, but when that inevitably turns to destructive chaos they want to be able to step in and make whole those who were burned in the flames.
And, of course, they want to do that without taking away the riches from those who profited in the process of creating the destruction.
No one in the government or business communities is even talking about any plans for making whole the people and institutions who bought the instruments that have turned to junk. And probably no one should be. If you put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig. These investors failed to look past the lipstick and bought the pig.
Caveat emptor, baby, caveat emptor.
Friday, December 07, 2007
Is The System Working?
Andrew Sullivan had a piece at his blog The Daily Dish the other day titled The System is Working. I would love to be able to say that I agree with his piece in it’s entirety, and I can say that I don’t entirely disagree with it. But I don’t think that the final chapter in this saga has been written yet.
The Democrats may not have stopped the war, but they helped shift its course. That, in turn, saved the war in Iraq from becoming a complete disaster. Now it's merely a rescuable disaster.
I’m not sure in what way the Democrats helped shift the course of the war and to say at this point that it is rescuable is certainly hopeful but is, I think, far from certain at this point. We may safely say that it may be rescuable and that absolutely is a turn for the better, but Sullivan doesn’t say precisely how the Democrats helped get us to that point and he has very little company in his certainty on the rescuability issue. As much as I would like to be, I am not in that company.
But my roster of those who helped get us back toward a rational war-policy would put Bob Gates and David Petraeus at the top of the list.
Bob Gates certainly. David Petraeus has always been a Bush mouthpiece and it is far too early to tell whether his current strategies, such as enlisting and arming former enemies, will prove successful in the long run. Certainly his first two assignments in Iraq were short term successes and long term disasters, and we can only hope at this point that his third one will turn out any better than the first two did.
Mukasey has a chance to do the same kind of thing at Justice.
But will he? The fact that he has a chance to do so is not evidence, to me, that the system is working. In fact, he went to very nearly the same lengths to cover Bush’s backside in his confirmation hearings that Gonzales did in his hearings, so I’m somewhat less than sanguine.
The system that looked rather fragile for a couple of years has begun to assert itself again. It works.
Congressional oversight is, so far, little more than a farce. I take that back: it is nothing more than a farce. Hearing after hearing with not one person held to account, removed from office or convicted of wrongdoing. Just enough to serve the political purposes of the party in power without triggering revenge from the party which is currently in the minority.
The Democratic Congress has made no attempt to restore any of the civil liberties abrogated by this administration, or to restore any of its own power usurped by this president.
And if the president is wise, he'll allow all this to shift, and take some of the credit.
You just have to laugh at that pipe dream. The one thing this president has never been accused of is wisdom. He has always been and will always be an ideologue and will pursue his personal goals monomaniacally.
And if the country is wise, they'll pick a successor who can unite the country around a prudent path forward.
Has Sullivan read or listened to any part of the presidential primaries? Uniting the country is the very last thing on the mind of any of the major candidates, and prudent paths forward have not been proposed by any one of them. They are without exception fearmongering in the mold of the current president and preaching about leaving “no options off the table” in the name of keeping us safe from something that has not harmed us in the last six years.
Statements beginning "if the president is wise","if the country is wise" and "Mukasey has a chance" are not probative of one's cause in writing an article titled The System is Working. They are nothing more or less than wishful thinking.
The system may yet work and, yes, there are a few signs that it is beginning to stir into life. I want it to do so, and I certainly have hope that it will. But this administration still has a full year left in office, and this Congress is still behaving in a manner more self serving than constructive.
The lawyers have finished, and the jury is still out.
The Democrats may not have stopped the war, but they helped shift its course. That, in turn, saved the war in Iraq from becoming a complete disaster. Now it's merely a rescuable disaster.
I’m not sure in what way the Democrats helped shift the course of the war and to say at this point that it is rescuable is certainly hopeful but is, I think, far from certain at this point. We may safely say that it may be rescuable and that absolutely is a turn for the better, but Sullivan doesn’t say precisely how the Democrats helped get us to that point and he has very little company in his certainty on the rescuability issue. As much as I would like to be, I am not in that company.
But my roster of those who helped get us back toward a rational war-policy would put Bob Gates and David Petraeus at the top of the list.
Bob Gates certainly. David Petraeus has always been a Bush mouthpiece and it is far too early to tell whether his current strategies, such as enlisting and arming former enemies, will prove successful in the long run. Certainly his first two assignments in Iraq were short term successes and long term disasters, and we can only hope at this point that his third one will turn out any better than the first two did.
Mukasey has a chance to do the same kind of thing at Justice.
But will he? The fact that he has a chance to do so is not evidence, to me, that the system is working. In fact, he went to very nearly the same lengths to cover Bush’s backside in his confirmation hearings that Gonzales did in his hearings, so I’m somewhat less than sanguine.
The system that looked rather fragile for a couple of years has begun to assert itself again. It works.
Congressional oversight is, so far, little more than a farce. I take that back: it is nothing more than a farce. Hearing after hearing with not one person held to account, removed from office or convicted of wrongdoing. Just enough to serve the political purposes of the party in power without triggering revenge from the party which is currently in the minority.
The Democratic Congress has made no attempt to restore any of the civil liberties abrogated by this administration, or to restore any of its own power usurped by this president.
And if the president is wise, he'll allow all this to shift, and take some of the credit.
You just have to laugh at that pipe dream. The one thing this president has never been accused of is wisdom. He has always been and will always be an ideologue and will pursue his personal goals monomaniacally.
And if the country is wise, they'll pick a successor who can unite the country around a prudent path forward.
Has Sullivan read or listened to any part of the presidential primaries? Uniting the country is the very last thing on the mind of any of the major candidates, and prudent paths forward have not been proposed by any one of them. They are without exception fearmongering in the mold of the current president and preaching about leaving “no options off the table” in the name of keeping us safe from something that has not harmed us in the last six years.
Statements beginning "if the president is wise","if the country is wise" and "Mukasey has a chance" are not probative of one's cause in writing an article titled The System is Working. They are nothing more or less than wishful thinking.
The system may yet work and, yes, there are a few signs that it is beginning to stir into life. I want it to do so, and I certainly have hope that it will. But this administration still has a full year left in office, and this Congress is still behaving in a manner more self serving than constructive.
The lawyers have finished, and the jury is still out.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Decision Making for Dummies
Here’s a part of the latest NIE that stands out to me:
Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs.
I wonder if a similar section of another government’s NIE regarding the U.S might read something like:
Our assessment that the U.S. instigated its war in Iraq regardless of international pressure and has been similarly pressing for war in Iran under equally false pretenses indicates Washington’s decisions are not guided by a cost-benefit approach but rather consist of a rush to war irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs.
The latest NIE does not surprise me in the least, but its publication and the reaction to it by all and sundry, particularly by George Bush, saddens me to the core. To have our highest elected official not only revealed as a gross and serial liar, but as a completely unabashed and smugly unrepentant one, is a serious blow to a once proud nation.
And there is still a full year to go. God help us all.
Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs.
I wonder if a similar section of another government’s NIE regarding the U.S might read something like:
Our assessment that the U.S. instigated its war in Iraq regardless of international pressure and has been similarly pressing for war in Iran under equally false pretenses indicates Washington’s decisions are not guided by a cost-benefit approach but rather consist of a rush to war irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs.
The latest NIE does not surprise me in the least, but its publication and the reaction to it by all and sundry, particularly by George Bush, saddens me to the core. To have our highest elected official not only revealed as a gross and serial liar, but as a completely unabashed and smugly unrepentant one, is a serious blow to a once proud nation.
And there is still a full year to go. God help us all.
Friday, November 02, 2007
A Civilized Nation
Civilized: adj: Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable.
This is beginning to freak me out. How many governments in the world have discussions about torturing prisoners, with the leadership insisting that they be permitted to do so?
One. My country is that one.
I could be okay with the discussion if it was a short one and ended with the executive being told that torture was “off the table.” But the argument has been ongoing for more than four years, the executive will not take ‘no’ for an answer, and a significant portion of the country supports him.
Other countries use torture, but they don’t talk about it because they are countries with totalitarian governments over which the citizens have no influence or control.
Fully democratic countries don’t use torture and don’t talk about wanting to do so, because their governments are sufficiently responsive to the people that the leaders know that the civilized population will throw them out of office for even suggesting it.
This country’s leadership plays the fear card.
By making the people whom they supposedly serve sufficiently afraid, the leaders of this county actually reduce the level of civilization that the nation enjoys. The more afraid a population becomes the more the “lizard brain” takes control, and civilization breaks down.
The justification for torture is always, “I’m doing it to keep my country safe.” But there is no proof whatever that it does so, and considerable evidence to the contrary. What torture is really about is a gut-level reaction to terrible fear and a step in the breakdown of civilization.
George Washington, founding founder of our country, on torture:
"Torture is a terrible and monstrous thing, as degrading and morally corrupting to those who practice it as any conceivable human activity…"
Not just the person, it degrades the country as well. I want to weep.
This is beginning to freak me out. How many governments in the world have discussions about torturing prisoners, with the leadership insisting that they be permitted to do so?
One. My country is that one.
I could be okay with the discussion if it was a short one and ended with the executive being told that torture was “off the table.” But the argument has been ongoing for more than four years, the executive will not take ‘no’ for an answer, and a significant portion of the country supports him.
Other countries use torture, but they don’t talk about it because they are countries with totalitarian governments over which the citizens have no influence or control.
Fully democratic countries don’t use torture and don’t talk about wanting to do so, because their governments are sufficiently responsive to the people that the leaders know that the civilized population will throw them out of office for even suggesting it.
This country’s leadership plays the fear card.
By making the people whom they supposedly serve sufficiently afraid, the leaders of this county actually reduce the level of civilization that the nation enjoys. The more afraid a population becomes the more the “lizard brain” takes control, and civilization breaks down.
The justification for torture is always, “I’m doing it to keep my country safe.” But there is no proof whatever that it does so, and considerable evidence to the contrary. What torture is really about is a gut-level reaction to terrible fear and a step in the breakdown of civilization.
George Washington, founding founder of our country, on torture:
"Torture is a terrible and monstrous thing, as degrading and morally corrupting to those who practice it as any conceivable human activity…"
Not just the person, it degrades the country as well. I want to weep.
Saturday, September 01, 2007
Governing Pakistan
Much is being made of the upheaval of government in Pakistan, of the possible removal of military rule and the return of Benazir Bhutto and democratic government. William Dalrymple casts some light on just what Bhutto’s return might actually mean in A friend of feudalism at
comment is free… in the Guardian today.
…it is often forgotten the degree to which Bhutto is the person who has done more than anything to bring Pakistan's strange variety of democracy - really a form of elective feudalism - into disrepute. During her first 20-month long premiership, astonishingly, she failed to pass a single piece of major legislation. Her reign was marked by massive human rights abuse: Amnesty International accused her government of having one of the world's worst records of custodial deaths, extrajudicial killings and torture. Bhutto's premiership was also distinguished by epic levels of corruption. In 1995 Transparency International named Pakistan one of the three most corrupt countries in the world. Bhutto and her husband, Asif Zardari - widely known as "Mr 10%" - faced allegations of plundering the country.
...Nor is the distinction between democracy and military rule quite as sharp as Bhutto likes to imply. Behind Pakistan's swings between military government and democracy lies a surprising continuity of interests: to some extent, the industrial, military, landowning, and bureaucratic elites are all interrelated and look after one another.
Emphasis added by me to illustrate how much that sounds like the Bush Administration, actually our entire government.
Moneyed interests, the military, and political careerists have changed our government from a representative republic to precisely what is described as being run by Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan.
We now, not in the future but now, live under elective feudalism.
comment is free… in the Guardian today.
…it is often forgotten the degree to which Bhutto is the person who has done more than anything to bring Pakistan's strange variety of democracy - really a form of elective feudalism - into disrepute. During her first 20-month long premiership, astonishingly, she failed to pass a single piece of major legislation. Her reign was marked by massive human rights abuse: Amnesty International accused her government of having one of the world's worst records of custodial deaths, extrajudicial killings and torture. Bhutto's premiership was also distinguished by epic levels of corruption. In 1995 Transparency International named Pakistan one of the three most corrupt countries in the world. Bhutto and her husband, Asif Zardari - widely known as "Mr 10%" - faced allegations of plundering the country.
...Nor is the distinction between democracy and military rule quite as sharp as Bhutto likes to imply. Behind Pakistan's swings between military government and democracy lies a surprising continuity of interests: to some extent, the industrial, military, landowning, and bureaucratic elites are all interrelated and look after one another.
Emphasis added by me to illustrate how much that sounds like the Bush Administration, actually our entire government.
Moneyed interests, the military, and political careerists have changed our government from a representative republic to precisely what is described as being run by Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan.
We now, not in the future but now, live under elective feudalism.
Monday, July 23, 2007
The Obligation of Congress
The Huffington Post is one of the places on the internet that I go quite regularly. I’ve never figured out why marrying someone with a lot of money makes one a political savant, and I do not consider her to be such, but I like the turnover of articles; new posts appear with great frequency, although that is diminishing recently and the link may not stay where it is on my list if that continues. There are some really thoughtful items there, and there is some real fluff, so one has to pick and choose.
This post yesterday by Mark Kleiman, to me, fell in the fluff category.
“Why Impeach Bush and Cheney...” it reads, “... when you can cripple them (politically) instead?”
No, I’m not quoting from the article, that is the article. Actually the words “cripple them” are a link to a post of his in another publication which has a lot more words but says pretty much the same thing. It refers to defunding their offices and “cleverly” suggests that without money they wouldn’t be able to do much harm. It refers this as plan B and finishes,
Can anyone think of an advantage — either substantive or political — of impeachment over Plan B? I can't.
I’m hoping that this guy is joking, but I fear he might not be. There is far too much commentary going around about how “inconvenient” impeachment proceedings would be, and how politically risky it would be for Democrats to begin that process. There is too little talk about the risk to our nation and to our form of government if impeachment is not undertaken.
The arrogation of power to the office of President that has occurred in past six years, and the obvious damage to role of oversight by Congress is outrageous and it is not magically going to disappear on Jan 20, 2009.
Have you heard one presidential candidate, of either party, discuss restoring the power of congressional oversight? Have you heard any one of them promise, if elected, to restore the balance of powers that the founding fathers designed into our government?
There has been abuse of power. That abuse must be called to account and punished. Clever gameplaying with peripheral funding does not do that, and the prevention of further abuse is not the point. The point is that Congress must step up and fulfill the role set for it by the writers of the Constitution of The United States of America, and they are not doing that.
This post yesterday by Mark Kleiman, to me, fell in the fluff category.
“Why Impeach Bush and Cheney...” it reads, “... when you can cripple them (politically) instead?”
No, I’m not quoting from the article, that is the article. Actually the words “cripple them” are a link to a post of his in another publication which has a lot more words but says pretty much the same thing. It refers to defunding their offices and “cleverly” suggests that without money they wouldn’t be able to do much harm. It refers this as plan B and finishes,
Can anyone think of an advantage — either substantive or political — of impeachment over Plan B? I can't.
I’m hoping that this guy is joking, but I fear he might not be. There is far too much commentary going around about how “inconvenient” impeachment proceedings would be, and how politically risky it would be for Democrats to begin that process. There is too little talk about the risk to our nation and to our form of government if impeachment is not undertaken.
The arrogation of power to the office of President that has occurred in past six years, and the obvious damage to role of oversight by Congress is outrageous and it is not magically going to disappear on Jan 20, 2009.
Have you heard one presidential candidate, of either party, discuss restoring the power of congressional oversight? Have you heard any one of them promise, if elected, to restore the balance of powers that the founding fathers designed into our government?
There has been abuse of power. That abuse must be called to account and punished. Clever gameplaying with peripheral funding does not do that, and the prevention of further abuse is not the point. The point is that Congress must step up and fulfill the role set for it by the writers of the Constitution of The United States of America, and they are not doing that.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Delusional Dishonesty, Part 2
Subtitled, “Are You *#@%$*&^*$* Kidding Me?”
Michael Chertoff, Director of the nation’s Department of Homeland Security, our country’s highest official regarding national security matters, announced in Chicago yesterday that he believes this country is in for an al Qaeda attack this summer.
His evidence: absolutely none.
He is making this announcement based on his “gut feeling” and on the assertion that “summer is when these people seem to like to be active.”
September 11th is precisely in the middle of summer, right?
There’s more. ABC News released from “Senior U.S. intelligence officials” that an al Qaeda cell is on its way to the United States, or may already be here. The threat is so dire that a meeting has been called to discuss what may be done. Not just any meeting, but a meeting in the Situation Room in the White House.
Sources: not named. Evidence: absolutely none.
The Administration weakened its fearmongering slightly in that the news release implied that the upcoming attack by the al Qaeda cell that’s on its way (or here) is believed to be aimed at a government building. They give no reason for that. Perhaps the government is simply more fearful for itself than it wants us to be. In any case, they are going to scare government workers the most, since the rest of us can simply stay the hell out of government buildings.
I’m trying to decide which is more corrupt: the government that promulgates this bullshit, or the media that promotes it.
Delusional Thinking, Part 2
There was a mortar attack on the Green Zone in Baghdad yesterday, with 20 or so rounds landing by one account and more than 30 by another. Apparently that’s a pretty much daily occurrence, but this attack caused some deaths which is not normal.
Statements like this from our leadership, though, utterly blow my mind,
A US Embassy spokesman said that he could not confirm whether the embassy was a target and that the frequent attacks on the Green Zone are not a barometer of the security situation in the capital. "There's fire into the Green Zone virtually every day, so I can't draw any conclusions about the security situation based on that," he said.
It astounds me that anyone can actually say that with a straight face. It reminds me of a elderly street person I was talking to in the ER who was in for eating Sterno. I asked him if he’d thought about Alcoholics Anonymous and he replied, “No, that’s for people who can’t control their drinking.”
If bombs were landing on the White House “virtually every day” would the spokesman say that we had Washington under control? Oh, wait, bombs are landing on the White House almost every day, but the explosions are of the non-bang type, the Administration has its eyes shut and its ear plugs in, and it does think it has Washington under control.
Anyway, back to Baghdad. If you “can’t draw any conclusions” from the fact that they are dropping mortars on your head on a daily basis, what exactly do you need upon which to base conclusions? I would think that having things going “BOOM” and shrapnel flying past your head are pretty good indications that all is not well.
Thinking that depends, though, on where your paycheck comes from.
Statements like this from our leadership, though, utterly blow my mind,
A US Embassy spokesman said that he could not confirm whether the embassy was a target and that the frequent attacks on the Green Zone are not a barometer of the security situation in the capital. "There's fire into the Green Zone virtually every day, so I can't draw any conclusions about the security situation based on that," he said.
It astounds me that anyone can actually say that with a straight face. It reminds me of a elderly street person I was talking to in the ER who was in for eating Sterno. I asked him if he’d thought about Alcoholics Anonymous and he replied, “No, that’s for people who can’t control their drinking.”
If bombs were landing on the White House “virtually every day” would the spokesman say that we had Washington under control? Oh, wait, bombs are landing on the White House almost every day, but the explosions are of the non-bang type, the Administration has its eyes shut and its ear plugs in, and it does think it has Washington under control.
Anyway, back to Baghdad. If you “can’t draw any conclusions” from the fact that they are dropping mortars on your head on a daily basis, what exactly do you need upon which to base conclusions? I would think that having things going “BOOM” and shrapnel flying past your head are pretty good indications that all is not well.
Thinking that depends, though, on where your paycheck comes from.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Delusional Thinking
Meteor Blades at the Daily Kos made the following observation about Bush supporters in a blog post on June 30th,
The 26% didn't flinch about lying the nation into war, authorizing torture, wrecking the environment, wiretapping illegally, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands, handing billions over to war profiteering cronies, dumping the Geneva Conventions, suppressing the vote, tainting good will toward America internationally, turning modest budget surpluses into monstrous deficits, trying to undermine Social Security, rewriting scientific studies and politicizing every single governmental agency.
It’s typical of many of us non-Bush people, in that Meteor Blades can’t figure out why anyone still supports the current administration. Listen up, I know you will balk at this, but I’m pretty sure it is true.
The 26% doesn’t believe he did those things.
There are wmd’s (we just haven’t found them yet) and Saddam Hussein did perpetrate 9/11, what we are doing is not torture, we are benefiting the oil/gas industry, the wiretaps are not illegal because we are only listening to terrorists, the dead Iraquis were all killed by other Iraquis, the companies profiting in Iraq saved our government a lot of money (and the administration had nothing to do with it), the Geneva Conventions don’t apply to terrorists, we only took the vote away from people who don’t deserve it, everybody in the world loves us, tax cuts stimulated the economy, Congress prevented the administration from fixing Social Security, and on those last two points, “What the hell are you talking about?”
When someone makes a claim which is based on facts or on evidence, you can then engage in discussion by presenting other facts or other evidence. But when someone makes a claim which is based purely on that person’s belief system then discussion is pretty much ruled out, because facts and evidence are not an issue.
True Bush Believers are Bush Believers because of a belief system, not because of facts or evidence. They will hold to that belief and simply do not care about facts or evidence. They will admit into their realm of knowledge only those facts and such evidence which support their belief system; all other facts and any contradictory knowledge is barred at the gate. So Bush Believers are not okay with him lying us into an unjust war.
They admire him for leading us into a holy war against the forces of evil.
The 26% didn't flinch about lying the nation into war, authorizing torture, wrecking the environment, wiretapping illegally, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands, handing billions over to war profiteering cronies, dumping the Geneva Conventions, suppressing the vote, tainting good will toward America internationally, turning modest budget surpluses into monstrous deficits, trying to undermine Social Security, rewriting scientific studies and politicizing every single governmental agency.
It’s typical of many of us non-Bush people, in that Meteor Blades can’t figure out why anyone still supports the current administration. Listen up, I know you will balk at this, but I’m pretty sure it is true.
The 26% doesn’t believe he did those things.
There are wmd’s (we just haven’t found them yet) and Saddam Hussein did perpetrate 9/11, what we are doing is not torture, we are benefiting the oil/gas industry, the wiretaps are not illegal because we are only listening to terrorists, the dead Iraquis were all killed by other Iraquis, the companies profiting in Iraq saved our government a lot of money (and the administration had nothing to do with it), the Geneva Conventions don’t apply to terrorists, we only took the vote away from people who don’t deserve it, everybody in the world loves us, tax cuts stimulated the economy, Congress prevented the administration from fixing Social Security, and on those last two points, “What the hell are you talking about?”
When someone makes a claim which is based on facts or on evidence, you can then engage in discussion by presenting other facts or other evidence. But when someone makes a claim which is based purely on that person’s belief system then discussion is pretty much ruled out, because facts and evidence are not an issue.
True Bush Believers are Bush Believers because of a belief system, not because of facts or evidence. They will hold to that belief and simply do not care about facts or evidence. They will admit into their realm of knowledge only those facts and such evidence which support their belief system; all other facts and any contradictory knowledge is barred at the gate. So Bush Believers are not okay with him lying us into an unjust war.
They admire him for leading us into a holy war against the forces of evil.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Libby, America's Cup Final
Bush commuting Libby’s sentence is so expected and so much consistent with the corruption that is typical of this administration that I’m not even going to comment on it. Well, okay, I just did. …comment further on it.
I’ll just go back to commenting on the America’s Cup.
I was right, Team New Zealand got toasted today, but it was exciting; there was a different leader at each and every mark and that is by no means typical of America’s Cup racing. Some of it was good racing and some was errors, mostly unforced errors. At least there was a nice breeze today, 17 knots, so the boats were sailing well.
The first windward leg was just plain good sailing by both teams. The Swiss boat had the right side of the course and the starboard tack advantage, and New Zealand did not manage to push them past the right-hand lay line so the Swiss led at the first mark.
Going downwind New Zealand was very close astern and the Swiss chose to gibe away before the lay line. Why they would do that simply baffles me, as it opened a door that the Kiwis sailed through and New Zealand was leading around the second mark.
Then things got really stupid.
On the first cross New Zealand had room to cross and chose not to do so, giving the Swiss an opportunity to start a tacking duel. The Kiwis have lost those every time, and they lost this one as well. Approaching the left-hand lay line they were in a position of disadvantage. They could have simply accepted the pass and followed around the mark, and then worked to pass downwind where the trailing boat has the advantage, but instead they chose an ill-advised attacking move, executed it poorly and drew a penalty.
A freak wind change gave New Zealand an opportunity, since they had already dropped their spinnaker to execute the penalty turn and the Swiss were caught aback and unready to change headsails. Anyone who has raced more than one or two regattas knows you make the penalty turn right at the line, but the Kiwis made the turn several seconds too soon and, even with the penalty turn, crossed the line two seconds behind the Swiss.
Error upon error, compounded by error.
So much has been focused on technology, $100 Million spent on building the boats, and that’s on each team not overall, that the emphasis on the art of sailing seems to have been lost. They seem to have forgotten that no matter how sophisticated the sailboat is, you still need a master sailor at the helm.
I’ll just go back to commenting on the America’s Cup.
I was right, Team New Zealand got toasted today, but it was exciting; there was a different leader at each and every mark and that is by no means typical of America’s Cup racing. Some of it was good racing and some was errors, mostly unforced errors. At least there was a nice breeze today, 17 knots, so the boats were sailing well.
The first windward leg was just plain good sailing by both teams. The Swiss boat had the right side of the course and the starboard tack advantage, and New Zealand did not manage to push them past the right-hand lay line so the Swiss led at the first mark.
Going downwind New Zealand was very close astern and the Swiss chose to gibe away before the lay line. Why they would do that simply baffles me, as it opened a door that the Kiwis sailed through and New Zealand was leading around the second mark.
Then things got really stupid.
On the first cross New Zealand had room to cross and chose not to do so, giving the Swiss an opportunity to start a tacking duel. The Kiwis have lost those every time, and they lost this one as well. Approaching the left-hand lay line they were in a position of disadvantage. They could have simply accepted the pass and followed around the mark, and then worked to pass downwind where the trailing boat has the advantage, but instead they chose an ill-advised attacking move, executed it poorly and drew a penalty.
A freak wind change gave New Zealand an opportunity, since they had already dropped their spinnaker to execute the penalty turn and the Swiss were caught aback and unready to change headsails. Anyone who has raced more than one or two regattas knows you make the penalty turn right at the line, but the Kiwis made the turn several seconds too soon and, even with the penalty turn, crossed the line two seconds behind the Swiss.
Error upon error, compounded by error.
So much has been focused on technology, $100 Million spent on building the boats, and that’s on each team not overall, that the emphasis on the art of sailing seems to have been lost. They seem to have forgotten that no matter how sophisticated the sailboat is, you still need a master sailor at the helm.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Smart Weapons
Glen Greenwald has been pointing out that lately Bush Administration media releases are claiming that all of the enemies we have been killing in Iraq are al Queda and hinting darkly that maybe Bush and his generals are lying. Shame on him. It may stretch the bounds of credulity that only 5% of those shooting at us are al Queda and that 100% of those we are killing are al Queda, but an untruthful administration is by no means the only explanation for that.
I will admit that the untruthful administration is the explanation that leaps to mind, since this Bush and Company are not exactly noted for truthfulness in general.
If my blog disappears look for me in Gitmo, because I am about to reveal a matter of national security, a secret never before known to the public, and it the explanation for all of those al Queda deaths.
Man portable smart weapons.
We’ve had smart bombs for years, that can be lobbed into your kitchen window from 30,000 feet by supersonic airplanes and destroy your wife cooking dinner without knocking your beer off of the television stand where you’re watching the ball game.
Now the army has rifles with dials on them. Just set one dial to fully automatic, another to “al Queda,” close your eyes and pull the trigger. You can wipe out a whole terrorist cell and leave the Shiite brigade next to them unscathed.
Or maybe Bush and the Army are just stretching the truth a bit.
I will admit that the untruthful administration is the explanation that leaps to mind, since this Bush and Company are not exactly noted for truthfulness in general.
If my blog disappears look for me in Gitmo, because I am about to reveal a matter of national security, a secret never before known to the public, and it the explanation for all of those al Queda deaths.
Man portable smart weapons.
We’ve had smart bombs for years, that can be lobbed into your kitchen window from 30,000 feet by supersonic airplanes and destroy your wife cooking dinner without knocking your beer off of the television stand where you’re watching the ball game.
Now the army has rifles with dials on them. Just set one dial to fully automatic, another to “al Queda,” close your eyes and pull the trigger. You can wipe out a whole terrorist cell and leave the Shiite brigade next to them unscathed.
Or maybe Bush and the Army are just stretching the truth a bit.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Arguments on Torture
From the New York Times today:
"As the Bush administration completes secret new rules governing interrogations, a group of experts advising the intelligence agencies are arguing that the harsh techniques used since the 2001 terrorist attacks are outmoded, amateurish and unreliable.”
That argument is completely irrelevant.
Dick Cheney in his speech at West Point on May 28th:
"These are men who glorify murder and suicide. Their cruelty is not rebuked by human suffering, only fed by it. They have given themselves to an ideology that rejects tolerance, denies freedom of conscience and demands that women be pushed to the margins of society. The terrorists are defined entirely by their hatreds, and they hate nothing more than the country you have volunteered to defend."
That kind of argument in favor of torture is also irrelevant.
George Washington, founding founder of our country, on torture:
"Torture is a terrible and monstrous thing, as degrading and morally corrupting to those who practice it as any conceivable human activity…"
That argument is relevant.
"As the Bush administration completes secret new rules governing interrogations, a group of experts advising the intelligence agencies are arguing that the harsh techniques used since the 2001 terrorist attacks are outmoded, amateurish and unreliable.”
That argument is completely irrelevant.
Dick Cheney in his speech at West Point on May 28th:
"These are men who glorify murder and suicide. Their cruelty is not rebuked by human suffering, only fed by it. They have given themselves to an ideology that rejects tolerance, denies freedom of conscience and demands that women be pushed to the margins of society. The terrorists are defined entirely by their hatreds, and they hate nothing more than the country you have volunteered to defend."
That kind of argument in favor of torture is also irrelevant.
George Washington, founding founder of our country, on torture:
"Torture is a terrible and monstrous thing, as degrading and morally corrupting to those who practice it as any conceivable human activity…"
That argument is relevant.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Uncertainty & Self-evident Truth
My nephew, a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army, pointed out to me in the course of an interesting and quite enjoyable discussion not long ago that the government knows things that I do not know. His point is quite valid, as is his implication that I owe a certain amount of trust to my government, recognizing that I do not know all of the facts.
As a citizen, given the vote and charged with the responsibility of electing those who are to govern this country, I am obliged to utilize the facts that are available to me to form opinions as to what course of action I believe my country should take and whom I believe is best qualified to lead. If I form the wrong opinion because I have been given too few facts, or because I have been given the wrong facts, then that is a failure of leadership.
In a dictatorship, monarchy or oligarchy the government determines a course of action and imposes it on the population. In our representative democracy the leadership determines a course of action in the short term, but the people determine the leadership and in so doing are the long term determinant of policy. For that reason, open government and an abundant disclosure of information is essential. Our government cannot simply say, “We are going to do this and we cannot tell you why.”
A time is coming when I must vote for those who will continue the war in Iraq or those who will end it. It is no longer important why we began the war, except insofar as it explains why we must continue to fight it, and that is the question that I need answered in order to cast my vote. Why are we now fighting that war?
First I was told the purpose was to remove weapons of mass destruction which, if ever there, were never found. Then the reason was to remove an evil dictator. Then it was to install democracy. Now we are fighting against Al Queda. I cannot help but wonder why we need four different answers for a single question.
I am told that if we leave then this horrible thing will happen, then that horrible thing will happen, followed by the next horrible thing. I am not gifted with these politicians’ ability to foretell future events, so I do not know what will happen if we leave. I do know that everything that has been foretold about the adventure in Iraq has been wildly wrong, so I’m not sanguine about these forecasts either.
I do know that “they will follow us home” is bogus on the face of it. Al Queda’s weapon is terrorist attack and if they want to perpetrate such an attack in this country there is absolutely nothing about the war in Iraq that will deter or hinder them from doing so.
This war is costing lives. Our young men and women are going repeatedly to a distant and hostile land and placing their lives at risk. They are losing their lives and they and their families are suffering horribly. If that is the price of freedom, then so be it. It is a price they have agreed to pay and it is a price this nation has paid before and doubtless will pay again. But it is the sacred duty of this nation’s leadership and its voters to assure that not one soldier, not one single volunteered young life is lost without absolute need.
But there are things I do not know and I am left somewhat in doubt.
In the absence of sufficient facts, I look to a saying, “Your actions speak so loudly that I can’t hear what you say.”
The actions of this leadership provide such a disconnect from their words that I simply cannot conclude that the war in Iraq is worth the lives and treasure that it is costing this nation. This is not an absence of facts. This is self-evident.
If this war is worthy of the lives of our sons and daughters, then it requires the commitment of the nation. It requires a national “call to arms” by our leadership. It requires the mobilization of our industry. It requires the commitment of our financial sector. All of these are dramatically notable by their absence.
And so of our leaders I demand: If the safety of this nation depends on this war, as you claim it does, then you must commit this nation to the effort. If it does not justify that commitment then you are wasting precious lives with your egos and you are monsters.
Either commit the nation to this war, or get our men and women out.
As a citizen, given the vote and charged with the responsibility of electing those who are to govern this country, I am obliged to utilize the facts that are available to me to form opinions as to what course of action I believe my country should take and whom I believe is best qualified to lead. If I form the wrong opinion because I have been given too few facts, or because I have been given the wrong facts, then that is a failure of leadership.
In a dictatorship, monarchy or oligarchy the government determines a course of action and imposes it on the population. In our representative democracy the leadership determines a course of action in the short term, but the people determine the leadership and in so doing are the long term determinant of policy. For that reason, open government and an abundant disclosure of information is essential. Our government cannot simply say, “We are going to do this and we cannot tell you why.”
A time is coming when I must vote for those who will continue the war in Iraq or those who will end it. It is no longer important why we began the war, except insofar as it explains why we must continue to fight it, and that is the question that I need answered in order to cast my vote. Why are we now fighting that war?
First I was told the purpose was to remove weapons of mass destruction which, if ever there, were never found. Then the reason was to remove an evil dictator. Then it was to install democracy. Now we are fighting against Al Queda. I cannot help but wonder why we need four different answers for a single question.
I am told that if we leave then this horrible thing will happen, then that horrible thing will happen, followed by the next horrible thing. I am not gifted with these politicians’ ability to foretell future events, so I do not know what will happen if we leave. I do know that everything that has been foretold about the adventure in Iraq has been wildly wrong, so I’m not sanguine about these forecasts either.
I do know that “they will follow us home” is bogus on the face of it. Al Queda’s weapon is terrorist attack and if they want to perpetrate such an attack in this country there is absolutely nothing about the war in Iraq that will deter or hinder them from doing so.
This war is costing lives. Our young men and women are going repeatedly to a distant and hostile land and placing their lives at risk. They are losing their lives and they and their families are suffering horribly. If that is the price of freedom, then so be it. It is a price they have agreed to pay and it is a price this nation has paid before and doubtless will pay again. But it is the sacred duty of this nation’s leadership and its voters to assure that not one soldier, not one single volunteered young life is lost without absolute need.
But there are things I do not know and I am left somewhat in doubt.
In the absence of sufficient facts, I look to a saying, “Your actions speak so loudly that I can’t hear what you say.”
The actions of this leadership provide such a disconnect from their words that I simply cannot conclude that the war in Iraq is worth the lives and treasure that it is costing this nation. This is not an absence of facts. This is self-evident.
If this war is worthy of the lives of our sons and daughters, then it requires the commitment of the nation. It requires a national “call to arms” by our leadership. It requires the mobilization of our industry. It requires the commitment of our financial sector. All of these are dramatically notable by their absence.
And so of our leaders I demand: If the safety of this nation depends on this war, as you claim it does, then you must commit this nation to the effort. If it does not justify that commitment then you are wasting precious lives with your egos and you are monsters.
Either commit the nation to this war, or get our men and women out.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Full Responsibility
The New York Times editorializes today about the importance of the ongoing scandal in the Department of Justice. The editorial may be behind a subscription wall, but the gist of it is very high-sounding and insists that this scandal must be (and can be) “fixed” by getting rid of Gonzales.
I would agree with the editor if getting rid of Gonzales actually would “fix” the problem, but that solution falls so far short of solution as to be laughable. It illustrates the kind of short-sightedness and simple-mindedness that pervades politics today.
First, if I am a business owner and the manager of my company commits crimes and in so doing badly tarnishes the reputation of my company and harms its ability to function, I am certainly not going to be satisfied with firing him. Nor is merely firing him going to restore the reputation of my business in the eyes of the public. To regain public trust and to right the wrongs done by that criminal manager, I must be sure that the manager is brought to account for his actions; to see that he is charged and punished for the wrongdoing.
Second, firing scapegoats does not constitute even a beginning toward solving a problem. The wrongs in the Department of Justice will not be repaired by firing Gonzales, when those wrongs were perpetrated by Karl Rove and George W. Bush.
Polls show that approval of Congress, which jumped when a Democratic majority was elected in 2006, has now dropped to 29% again. This is just about where it was before last year’s elections and is about even with the approval rating of Bush and Company. Dismal.
I would suggest that the reason for that drop is that Congress has shown us that the Democratic majority is no more interested in the well-being of this country than was the Republican one. This Congress, just like the ones preceding it, will only do what is in its own best political interest, what will please its campaign contributors, what will best serve itself rather than what best serves the country or the people it is supposed to represent.
So we get showy investigations that bring no one to account, that lead to no charges or indictments. We get subpoenas with deadlines that are ignored and then extended. We get a Congress that is satisfied with the mere exposition of wrongdoing.
It’s easy to “accept full responsibility” for evil when you know that doing so is sure to be without actual cost.
Another off day today. Oracle is on its way home, which is disappointing but no surprise.
The Spanish made a race of their challenge, but realistically we can be looking forward to the series between Italy and the Kiwis starting June 1. It should be good racing and, hopefully, the wind will pick up a bit as we get further into the summer.
I would agree with the editor if getting rid of Gonzales actually would “fix” the problem, but that solution falls so far short of solution as to be laughable. It illustrates the kind of short-sightedness and simple-mindedness that pervades politics today.
First, if I am a business owner and the manager of my company commits crimes and in so doing badly tarnishes the reputation of my company and harms its ability to function, I am certainly not going to be satisfied with firing him. Nor is merely firing him going to restore the reputation of my business in the eyes of the public. To regain public trust and to right the wrongs done by that criminal manager, I must be sure that the manager is brought to account for his actions; to see that he is charged and punished for the wrongdoing.
Second, firing scapegoats does not constitute even a beginning toward solving a problem. The wrongs in the Department of Justice will not be repaired by firing Gonzales, when those wrongs were perpetrated by Karl Rove and George W. Bush.
Polls show that approval of Congress, which jumped when a Democratic majority was elected in 2006, has now dropped to 29% again. This is just about where it was before last year’s elections and is about even with the approval rating of Bush and Company. Dismal.
I would suggest that the reason for that drop is that Congress has shown us that the Democratic majority is no more interested in the well-being of this country than was the Republican one. This Congress, just like the ones preceding it, will only do what is in its own best political interest, what will please its campaign contributors, what will best serve itself rather than what best serves the country or the people it is supposed to represent.
So we get showy investigations that bring no one to account, that lead to no charges or indictments. We get subpoenas with deadlines that are ignored and then extended. We get a Congress that is satisfied with the mere exposition of wrongdoing.
It’s easy to “accept full responsibility” for evil when you know that doing so is sure to be without actual cost.
America’s Cup Update
Another off day today. Oracle is on its way home, which is disappointing but no surprise.
The Spanish made a race of their challenge, but realistically we can be looking forward to the series between Italy and the Kiwis starting June 1. It should be good racing and, hopefully, the wind will pick up a bit as we get further into the summer.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Snow Stumped
This is big. I don’t think this has ever happened before. Yesterday, Tony Snow was thrown for a loss, was handed a question by a reporter which he could not spin, for which he could not do a tap dance on the podium. He could neither dazzle us with brilliance nor baffle us with bullshit.
In announcing the new “War Czar” Tony was asked what the purpose of the position was to be, and why now. I’ll let you read his initial answer elsewhere; it’s typically lengthy and involves the phrase “new way forward” several times. But then comes this,
Q: So you think this is a new need and you did not need someone to do this for the previous four years?
MR. SNOW: Well, again, I'm not going to try -- I don't know. I don't have an answer for you. I'm telling you that's what he's here to do now.
There you have it. “I don't have an answer for you.” Finally, George Bush has done something that Tony Snow actually could not explain.
Off day today. I suspect the crew of Oracle needs it. I know I do.
In announcing the new “War Czar” Tony was asked what the purpose of the position was to be, and why now. I’ll let you read his initial answer elsewhere; it’s typically lengthy and involves the phrase “new way forward” several times. But then comes this,
Q: So you think this is a new need and you did not need someone to do this for the previous four years?
MR. SNOW: Well, again, I'm not going to try -- I don't know. I don't have an answer for you. I'm telling you that's what he's here to do now.
There you have it. “I don't have an answer for you.” Finally, George Bush has done something that Tony Snow actually could not explain.
America’s Cup Update
Off day today. I suspect the crew of Oracle needs it. I know I do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)