I'm taking it easy the rest of the week - all Odds & Ends.
This clip comes from a movie that was made in 1990, I remember it made the rounds on the internet a couple years ago. Still cracks me up -
Little Superstar
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Republican Budget Alternative (Part Deux)
TW: The Republicans put some (stringy) meat on the bones of their budget alternative. It was all predictable and so status quo as to make one wonder if they think what is going on presently a mere blip on the road to Arthur Laffer's great supply side nirvana. Their budget nets out as follows:
1) Retain the W. Bush tax cuts for the wealthy
2) Cut corporate taxes
3) Cut capital gains taxes (but only for two years which btw would one have no impact since net gains will be minimal during that period, if you are lucky enough to have some you will probably be able to carry forward losses from the last year or so and two mean they are merely understating the long-term impact because they would almost certainly want to extend the break beyond 2010 but that would require a level of fiscal honestly not consistent with their habits, it does one thing it allows the Republicans to say they are "cutting" another tax and "investing in America")
4) Freeze non-defense and non-entitlement spending (i.e. they freeze all of the stuff that represents less than 10% of the total spend, an old and tired Republican gambit)
5) No cap and trade and they retain oil tax breaks Obama is eliminating
6) NO stimulus beyond unemployment benefits
In other words, they suggest extending W. Bush's 2008 budget indefinitely into the future. It is Hooverite (i.e. no stimulus not even significant tax cuts) amidst the worse contraction in 75 years. It does nothing to address inequality, the environment or the real medium and long-term fiscal challenges associated with defense and entitlement spending. It is as if the current crisis is a mirage and the long-term crises spawning the current severe contraction a chimera. These people have their heads up their respective posteriors.
1) Retain the W. Bush tax cuts for the wealthy
2) Cut corporate taxes
3) Cut capital gains taxes (but only for two years which btw would one have no impact since net gains will be minimal during that period, if you are lucky enough to have some you will probably be able to carry forward losses from the last year or so and two mean they are merely understating the long-term impact because they would almost certainly want to extend the break beyond 2010 but that would require a level of fiscal honestly not consistent with their habits, it does one thing it allows the Republicans to say they are "cutting" another tax and "investing in America")
4) Freeze non-defense and non-entitlement spending (i.e. they freeze all of the stuff that represents less than 10% of the total spend, an old and tired Republican gambit)
5) No cap and trade and they retain oil tax breaks Obama is eliminating
6) NO stimulus beyond unemployment benefits
In other words, they suggest extending W. Bush's 2008 budget indefinitely into the future. It is Hooverite (i.e. no stimulus not even significant tax cuts) amidst the worse contraction in 75 years. It does nothing to address inequality, the environment or the real medium and long-term fiscal challenges associated with defense and entitlement spending. It is as if the current crisis is a mirage and the long-term crises spawning the current severe contraction a chimera. These people have their heads up their respective posteriors.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Obama Sushi
TW: It has been awhile since we had an Obamania post. The mania has died down a bit realities of governing and all. This comes from Japan. A little Obama sushi.Thoughts On AfPak
TW: Final thoughts (for now) on Afghanistan. I like Obama's approach as much for what is not in it as for what is. There is little discussion of spreading democracy, creating a better Afghan society or for that matter drug eradication. Hopefully we are learning that messianic endeavors are both extremely costly (in blood and treasure) and not particularly attainable. I believe most of the folks opposing us in AfPak would just as soon be left alone. That may mean a lot of opium gets produced, many warlords thrive, women rights are severely lacking etc.
But at the end of the day I think the only thing we really can and should care about is tamping down and if possible eliminating the relatively small group of folks who not only want run their own affairs in an unappealing way but also export their screwed up ways to us via terror. In other words we leave them alone if they leave us alone, which was the status quo up until 9/11.
To the extent Obama retains this approach then I believe our troop commitments will be minimized whilst providing us with the greatest chance for success in achieving these more limited objectives. In doing so we provide our allies with a more clear end state one which they should step up to support more aggressively than they have to date.
The one piece I would like to see Obama add is one W. Bush never really did- ask for sacrifice from the American people. W. Bush made broad pronouncements regarding the profound nature of the Iraq and AfPak situations yet never asked Americans to pay the financial cost (we had tax cuts instead) or initiate some level of national service. Putting Iraq to the side, if AfPak is sufficiently strategic then Americans should be willing to sacrifice. Certainly Americans were willing to make sacrifices post 9/11 but were not really asked to do so. If we are going to ask hundreds of thousands of troops to alter their lives and perhaps lose them, if we are going to spend trillions on these wars (which we have and will continue to do so), Americans should be asked to face up to the realities- financially, politically and personally.
The Europeans frequently appears unwilling to do so, are Americans really ready to do so?
But at the end of the day I think the only thing we really can and should care about is tamping down and if possible eliminating the relatively small group of folks who not only want run their own affairs in an unappealing way but also export their screwed up ways to us via terror. In other words we leave them alone if they leave us alone, which was the status quo up until 9/11.
To the extent Obama retains this approach then I believe our troop commitments will be minimized whilst providing us with the greatest chance for success in achieving these more limited objectives. In doing so we provide our allies with a more clear end state one which they should step up to support more aggressively than they have to date.
The one piece I would like to see Obama add is one W. Bush never really did- ask for sacrifice from the American people. W. Bush made broad pronouncements regarding the profound nature of the Iraq and AfPak situations yet never asked Americans to pay the financial cost (we had tax cuts instead) or initiate some level of national service. Putting Iraq to the side, if AfPak is sufficiently strategic then Americans should be willing to sacrifice. Certainly Americans were willing to make sacrifices post 9/11 but were not really asked to do so. If we are going to ask hundreds of thousands of troops to alter their lives and perhaps lose them, if we are going to spend trillions on these wars (which we have and will continue to do so), Americans should be asked to face up to the realities- financially, politically and personally.
The Europeans frequently appears unwilling to do so, are Americans really ready to do so?
Bottom Pickers And Other Rude Acts
TW: Have mentioned many media is extremely biased. Biased mostly in favor making money but also inclined towards the optimistic scenarios, why? See bias #1 (optimism, happy talk etc. all sell better than the alternatives). Another media animal is the iconoclastic, contrarian sort. Since we are in the dumps the contrary play becomes the optimistic play, marry those two together and you get TV pundit nirvana. Perhaps they are right, alternatively the actual data is right...
From Economist:
"A FEW weeks ago I wondered why CNBC correspondents would be foolish enough to call the bottom of this market. It seems they are still running with this. Absolutely every piece of bad news today—for example the Case-Schiller index decline in January—is somehow a green shoot (everyone’s new favourite expression). If the second derivative is not turning positive the sixth one is. I spoke to an equity trader this weekend who claimed that finally there’s lots of activity and investors are going long. He expects it to last this time. But I wonder if any fundamentals actually mean anything at this stage.
The Wall Street correspondent and I joked yesterday that everyone now suffers from bottom fatigue. Journalists, investors, and pretty much everyone else are just plain tired of looking at ominous statistics and expecting the worst. It seems like we’ve called bottom because we can’t take it anymore. If animal spirits can inflate prices, can they also establish a floor?"
Torture Neither Effective Nor Moral
TW: As this piece states there are two bases from which to oppose torture- moral and efficacy. I believe either suffices and would argue for both. New evidence supports the lack of efficacy from torture. Darth Cheney continues to imply efficacious torture yet hides behind alleged secrecy relative to his assertions. No one at the CIA can apparently provide any such data.
Obviously if one always claims "secrecy" when pressed for data an argument is not possible. This is always a convenient excuse for criminals within government. With a new administration one would hope if any such evidence exists it could be publicized (in an appropriate classified setting).
Economist:
"I HAVE argued in the past on this blog for an open debate about the efficacy of torture (apart from the ever-present moral debate), which would use information gained from America's experience in the war on terrorism. Over the weekend the torture-is-ineffective side of the argument got a big boost. The Washington Post reported that America's torture of Abu Zubaydah produced little more than false leads, wasting the time and money of the nation's security agencies. (Any useful intelligence Mr Zubaydah provided came pre-torture, say officials.)
The article is a fascinating read, detailing how Mr Zubaydah came to be falsely described as "al-Qaeda's chief of operations". But, more than anything, the article frustrates those who want to have a serious debate about torture. A debate that the last administration refuses to participate in, yet claims to have won. The Post reports
Two weeks ago, Bush's vice president, Richard B. Cheney, renewed that assertion in an interview with CNN, saying that "the enhanced interrogation program" stopped "a great many" terrorist attacks on the level of Sept. 11.
"I've seen a report that was written, based upon the intelligence that we collected then, that itemizes the specific attacks that were stopped by virtue of what we learned through those programs," Cheney asserted, adding that the report is "still classified," and, "I can't give you the details of it without violating classification."
Since 2006, Senate intelligence committee members have pressed the CIA, in classified briefings, to provide examples of specific leads that were obtained from Abu Zubaida through the use of waterboarding and other methods, according to officials familiar with the requests.
The agency provided none, the officials said.
So let me get this straight: The agency that is charged with stopping terrorist attacks claims to have stopped a "great many", while the man who authorised that agency to use torture claims that those techniques worked, yet neither can provide any evidence to support their claims, even in a classified setting. And this is supposed to make for a convincing argument?
The case for a torture commission is often attributed to those with vindictive motives. But is also in the interest of anyone, like Mr Cheney, who genuinely believes that America's detainee policies saved lives. Shedding light on those policies may undermine American security, as Mr Cheney would argue, but no more than ending those policies completely, which, as the current debate stands, is the likely outcome. Those genuinely interested in America's security should welcome an open debate on the matter. And yet they don't. Why is that?"
Obviously if one always claims "secrecy" when pressed for data an argument is not possible. This is always a convenient excuse for criminals within government. With a new administration one would hope if any such evidence exists it could be publicized (in an appropriate classified setting).
Economist:
"I HAVE argued in the past on this blog for an open debate about the efficacy of torture (apart from the ever-present moral debate), which would use information gained from America's experience in the war on terrorism. Over the weekend the torture-is-ineffective side of the argument got a big boost. The Washington Post reported that America's torture of Abu Zubaydah produced little more than false leads, wasting the time and money of the nation's security agencies. (Any useful intelligence Mr Zubaydah provided came pre-torture, say officials.)
The article is a fascinating read, detailing how Mr Zubaydah came to be falsely described as "al-Qaeda's chief of operations". But, more than anything, the article frustrates those who want to have a serious debate about torture. A debate that the last administration refuses to participate in, yet claims to have won. The Post reports
Two weeks ago, Bush's vice president, Richard B. Cheney, renewed that assertion in an interview with CNN, saying that "the enhanced interrogation program" stopped "a great many" terrorist attacks on the level of Sept. 11.
"I've seen a report that was written, based upon the intelligence that we collected then, that itemizes the specific attacks that were stopped by virtue of what we learned through those programs," Cheney asserted, adding that the report is "still classified," and, "I can't give you the details of it without violating classification."
Since 2006, Senate intelligence committee members have pressed the CIA, in classified briefings, to provide examples of specific leads that were obtained from Abu Zubaida through the use of waterboarding and other methods, according to officials familiar with the requests.
The agency provided none, the officials said.
So let me get this straight: The agency that is charged with stopping terrorist attacks claims to have stopped a "great many", while the man who authorised that agency to use torture claims that those techniques worked, yet neither can provide any evidence to support their claims, even in a classified setting. And this is supposed to make for a convincing argument?
The case for a torture commission is often attributed to those with vindictive motives. But is also in the interest of anyone, like Mr Cheney, who genuinely believes that America's detainee policies saved lives. Shedding light on those policies may undermine American security, as Mr Cheney would argue, but no more than ending those policies completely, which, as the current debate stands, is the likely outcome. Those genuinely interested in America's security should welcome an open debate on the matter. And yet they don't. Why is that?"
Things I Like - Food
These videos have been getting a lot of interest lately. I wish we had done something like this when Gramma was still with us - especially the recipe for her stuffed shells!
This one's for Dad -
Depression Cooking with Clara: Peppers & Egg Sandwiches
This one's for Dad -
Depression Cooking with Clara: Peppers & Egg Sandwiches
Yep We Need Guns In the Classroom
TW: Sometimes I see things and really wonder how f'ed some of my fellow Americans are. I think we should do an experiment, give everyone an AK-47 to carry around for a year and then lets count up how many humans killed and maimed each other. I know the guns are inanimate and all so it is not their fault, the more the merrier. Perhaps we should have another trial where suburban homes are equipped with Humvees armored up and sporting .50 cal mounted machine guns, then do a similar count.
From Google news:
"...bills in the Texas Legislature that would allow licensed concealed gun carriers to take their weapons to school.
...Supporters say the bills would protect the rights of those licensed to carry concealed weapons and help prevent a massacre on the scale of what happened at Virginia Tech and another shooting last year at Northern Illinois University, where five were killed and 18 wounded.
Texas issued 73,090 licenses in fiscal year 2008. The state requires applicants to pass a training course, pass a criminal background check and be at least 21 years old. Texas campuses are gun-free zones.
"These are individuals who are already licensed and allowed to carry weapons. What marks the imaginary line of college campuses?" said Katie Kasprzak, a recent Texas State University graduate and spokeswoman for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, a group that claims more than 37,000 members.
If gunfire erupted on campus, "Would you rather sit and just take shot for shot or would you rather have a chance to fight back?" asked Kasprzak, who has a concealed weapons license.
State Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, sponsor of the Senate bill, said students, faculty and staff are "sitting ducks" if someone starts blasting.
"I have no desire to wake up one morning and read in the newspaper, or hear on the radio, or watch on television a news report that 32 Texas college students were gunned down like sitting ducks by some deranged gunman," Wentworth said.
Opponents say that if guns are allowed on campus, students and faculty will live in fear of classmates and colleagues, not knowing who might pull a gun over a drunken dorm argument or a poor grade.
According to the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, similar bills have been filed in 18 states since 2008 and all have failed, although lawmakers in a few states are trying again.
Texas is one of seven states currently considering legislation.
"We hope Texas will serve as a leader and have a domino effect," Kasprzak said.
Of the 150 House members, 70 have signed on in support of Drivers' bill. In the Senate, 12 of 31 senators signed in support of Wentworth's bill.
The idea has met stiff opposition at the University of Texas, which has its own history of shooting violence. Charles Whitman's 1966 rifle attack from the top of the university tower killed 16 people and wounded dozens more. It was the worst campus shooting until the Virginia Tech bloodbath.
The UT student government, the graduate student assembly and the faculty advisory council have all passed resolutions against the campus guns bills.
"It's a recipe for disaster," said Brian Malte, state legislation and politics director for the Brady Campaign.
Woods has helped lead the charge against the bills and filed the student government resolution opposing them.
Woods, who wore a maroon "Virginia Tech Class of 2007" T-shirt during an interview, said he hasn't heard from any survivor of the Virginia Tech shooting who supports guns on campus.
He figures a classroom shooting would be too sudden to stop, even if a student or teacher had a gun.
"Everything happens too quickly," Woods said. "You either play dead or you are dead."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hqADC-O0diH8SD6cFG8jsoGeJbewD977QL6G0
From Google news:
"...bills in the Texas Legislature that would allow licensed concealed gun carriers to take their weapons to school.
...Supporters say the bills would protect the rights of those licensed to carry concealed weapons and help prevent a massacre on the scale of what happened at Virginia Tech and another shooting last year at Northern Illinois University, where five were killed and 18 wounded.
Texas issued 73,090 licenses in fiscal year 2008. The state requires applicants to pass a training course, pass a criminal background check and be at least 21 years old. Texas campuses are gun-free zones.
"These are individuals who are already licensed and allowed to carry weapons. What marks the imaginary line of college campuses?" said Katie Kasprzak, a recent Texas State University graduate and spokeswoman for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, a group that claims more than 37,000 members.
If gunfire erupted on campus, "Would you rather sit and just take shot for shot or would you rather have a chance to fight back?" asked Kasprzak, who has a concealed weapons license.
State Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, sponsor of the Senate bill, said students, faculty and staff are "sitting ducks" if someone starts blasting.
"I have no desire to wake up one morning and read in the newspaper, or hear on the radio, or watch on television a news report that 32 Texas college students were gunned down like sitting ducks by some deranged gunman," Wentworth said.
Opponents say that if guns are allowed on campus, students and faculty will live in fear of classmates and colleagues, not knowing who might pull a gun over a drunken dorm argument or a poor grade.
According to the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, similar bills have been filed in 18 states since 2008 and all have failed, although lawmakers in a few states are trying again.
Texas is one of seven states currently considering legislation.
"We hope Texas will serve as a leader and have a domino effect," Kasprzak said.
Of the 150 House members, 70 have signed on in support of Drivers' bill. In the Senate, 12 of 31 senators signed in support of Wentworth's bill.
The idea has met stiff opposition at the University of Texas, which has its own history of shooting violence. Charles Whitman's 1966 rifle attack from the top of the university tower killed 16 people and wounded dozens more. It was the worst campus shooting until the Virginia Tech bloodbath.
The UT student government, the graduate student assembly and the faculty advisory council have all passed resolutions against the campus guns bills.
"It's a recipe for disaster," said Brian Malte, state legislation and politics director for the Brady Campaign.
Woods has helped lead the charge against the bills and filed the student government resolution opposing them.
Woods, who wore a maroon "Virginia Tech Class of 2007" T-shirt during an interview, said he hasn't heard from any survivor of the Virginia Tech shooting who supports guns on campus.
He figures a classroom shooting would be too sudden to stop, even if a student or teacher had a gun.
"Everything happens too quickly," Woods said. "You either play dead or you are dead."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hqADC-O0diH8SD6cFG8jsoGeJbewD977QL6G0
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Lest We Forget Iraq
TW: What is our goal in Iraq again other than leaving with as many of our troops in one piece as possible? Given that our casualties have in fact declined greatly, I would call that a victory. Naturally never having been there in the first place would have truly minimized them.
Any other claims to victory are crap. We made a deal with the Sunni insurgents for a cease-fire. Will that deal hold in the face of Shiite government acts? Have many of the metrics by which the "surge" were meant to be judged born out? Not so much. Violence is down but are you confident it will remain so?
From Tom Ricks blog:
"I thought some of the surge-era deals in Iraq would unravel but I didn't think that would begin happening this quickly. It's only March 2009, and already Awakening fighters are fighting U.S. soldiers in the streets of Baghdad.
Anyone who tells you that the Iraq war is over should be forced to memorize this paragraph from the Sunday edition of the Washington Post:
'As Apache helicopter gunships cruised above Baghdad's Fadhil neighborhood, former Sunni insurgents fought from rooftops and street corners against American and Iraqi forces, according to witnesses, the Iraqi military and police. At least 15 people were wounded in the gunfights, which lasted several hours. By nightfall, the street fighters had taken five Iraqi soldiers hostage'
That is Iraq 2009. Does it sound peaceful to you? Does it seem like the political questions vexing Iraq have been solved?
Here is a quote of the day:
If they don't release Adil Mashadani, all the Awakening in Iraq will rise up like our uprising today," he [a local Awakening Council spokesman] added."
Along with the bombings in west Baghdad lately, the street fighting over the weekend doesn't quite form a trend. But it points toward one possible series of events. That is, the Maliki government is putting the screws to the Awakening movement (for those who just arrived, that's a mainly Sunni group of about 100,000 people, many of them former insurgents, who in late 2006 and 2007 arrived at ceasefires with the U.S. military presence in Iraq). The American plan was to integrate about 20,000 members of Awakening groups into Iraqi security forces, and help the rest find other work.
Meantime, the Baghdad government was supposed to take over the payments to the groups, which when I last checked totaled about $30 million a month. But the Shiite-dominated Baghdad government never really liked the idea. Indeed, the first deals were cut by U.S. officials behind the back of the Iraqi government. So Maliki's guys are:
Arresting some leaders of the "Sons of Iraq" (the American term for Awakening forces)
Attacking others
Bringing only 5,000 of the ex-insurgents into the Iraqi security forces
And stiffing others on pay, with some complaining they haven't been paid in weeks or even months
I think Maliki's gambit is to crack down on the Sunnis while American forces are still available in sufficient numbers to back him up. This is a turning into a test of strength, Sunni vs. Shiite.
There's more. If the Awakening fighting spreads, I wouldn't be surprised to see Moqtada al-Sadr's Shiite militia re-emerge. I've always thought the Sunni Awakening forced him to go to ground, because he didn't want to be the only guy taking on American forces. But if the Sunnis are on the attack again, it might be game on for him as well. I am reminded of Ambassador Ryan Crocker's worry, expressed in my new book and elsewhere, that the future of Iraq was something like Lebanon. That is, it has a government, but it is shaky, and there is violence in the streets, with some political parties having armed wings that are outside the control of the government.
The Washington Post's Anthony Shadid calls this all "potentially worrisome." When Shadid begins to worry, we all should. He's the guy who back in early 2004 used to encourage me to take taxis around Baghdad.
Proven provider John McCreary of NightWatch fame is even more emphatic:
This is a pre-cursor of the second round of the Sunni-Shia civil war to follow."
Question of the day: What should I say the next time someone tells me the surge "worked"?
Any other claims to victory are crap. We made a deal with the Sunni insurgents for a cease-fire. Will that deal hold in the face of Shiite government acts? Have many of the metrics by which the "surge" were meant to be judged born out? Not so much. Violence is down but are you confident it will remain so?
From Tom Ricks blog:
"I thought some of the surge-era deals in Iraq would unravel but I didn't think that would begin happening this quickly. It's only March 2009, and already Awakening fighters are fighting U.S. soldiers in the streets of Baghdad.
Anyone who tells you that the Iraq war is over should be forced to memorize this paragraph from the Sunday edition of the Washington Post:
'As Apache helicopter gunships cruised above Baghdad's Fadhil neighborhood, former Sunni insurgents fought from rooftops and street corners against American and Iraqi forces, according to witnesses, the Iraqi military and police. At least 15 people were wounded in the gunfights, which lasted several hours. By nightfall, the street fighters had taken five Iraqi soldiers hostage'
That is Iraq 2009. Does it sound peaceful to you? Does it seem like the political questions vexing Iraq have been solved?
Here is a quote of the day:
If they don't release Adil Mashadani, all the Awakening in Iraq will rise up like our uprising today," he [a local Awakening Council spokesman] added."
Along with the bombings in west Baghdad lately, the street fighting over the weekend doesn't quite form a trend. But it points toward one possible series of events. That is, the Maliki government is putting the screws to the Awakening movement (for those who just arrived, that's a mainly Sunni group of about 100,000 people, many of them former insurgents, who in late 2006 and 2007 arrived at ceasefires with the U.S. military presence in Iraq). The American plan was to integrate about 20,000 members of Awakening groups into Iraqi security forces, and help the rest find other work.
Meantime, the Baghdad government was supposed to take over the payments to the groups, which when I last checked totaled about $30 million a month. But the Shiite-dominated Baghdad government never really liked the idea. Indeed, the first deals were cut by U.S. officials behind the back of the Iraqi government. So Maliki's guys are:
Arresting some leaders of the "Sons of Iraq" (the American term for Awakening forces)
Attacking others
Bringing only 5,000 of the ex-insurgents into the Iraqi security forces
And stiffing others on pay, with some complaining they haven't been paid in weeks or even months
I think Maliki's gambit is to crack down on the Sunnis while American forces are still available in sufficient numbers to back him up. This is a turning into a test of strength, Sunni vs. Shiite.
There's more. If the Awakening fighting spreads, I wouldn't be surprised to see Moqtada al-Sadr's Shiite militia re-emerge. I've always thought the Sunni Awakening forced him to go to ground, because he didn't want to be the only guy taking on American forces. But if the Sunnis are on the attack again, it might be game on for him as well. I am reminded of Ambassador Ryan Crocker's worry, expressed in my new book and elsewhere, that the future of Iraq was something like Lebanon. That is, it has a government, but it is shaky, and there is violence in the streets, with some political parties having armed wings that are outside the control of the government.
The Washington Post's Anthony Shadid calls this all "potentially worrisome." When Shadid begins to worry, we all should. He's the guy who back in early 2004 used to encourage me to take taxis around Baghdad.
Proven provider John McCreary of NightWatch fame is even more emphatic:
This is a pre-cursor of the second round of the Sunni-Shia civil war to follow."
Question of the day: What should I say the next time someone tells me the surge "worked"?
A Silver Lining: Cheaper Public Works
TW: Not surprisingly taxpayer costs to get public works done are going down amidst the contraction. We are getting a bigger bang for our buck. Now would seem like the time for government to get moving on as much infrastructure as possible whilst hungry contractors are available. Obviously we are doing so as fast as the projects can be defined, this is how counter-cyclical spending is meant to work. Alternatively we could cut government spending, have the contractors sit at home (drawing unemployment) and hope the economy recovers and then spend more per project once the private sector recovers and is bidding for the use of the same workers and materials.
From Mish Shedlock:
"California's poor economy has led to surprisingly low bids on transportation projects across the Bay Area and state, as construction companies fight for their business lives to capture whatever work they can. In an industry where unemployment is at 18.5 percent and more than 30,900 jobs were lost last month, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, dozens of firms are vying for work that in the past might draw interest from a handful.
From major highway construction to small sidewalk improvements, bids are sometimes close to half as much as public works officials had projected.
When the Santa Clara County Roads & Airports Department recently sought a contractor to do bicycle and pedestrian improvements along three streets, it expected the cost to be about $975,000. The winning offering was just $543,533.
"Twenty bidders, with the low bid 44 percent under," said Dan Collen, a deputy director with the agency. "Six bidders would have been considered a good turnout, but things have moved beyond competitive. They are desperate."
On the carpool lane project on Interstate 680 from Fremont to Milpitas, the three contracts awarded last month totaled about $88 million — compared with the $136 million Caltrans anticipated.
Repairing bridge decks on Highway 237, Highway 84 and El Camino Real will cost $982,000 — $529,000 less than forecast. Repaving four streets in Cupertino will cost $3.6 million, nearly $1 million under what the city figured it would have to pay. And making the northeast corner of the Virginia-Budd street intersection accessible to the disabled will cost $2,090 instead of $3,000.
..."I've never seen better bidding in my 35 years in transportation," said Dennis Fay, head of the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency."
From Mish Shedlock:
"California's poor economy has led to surprisingly low bids on transportation projects across the Bay Area and state, as construction companies fight for their business lives to capture whatever work they can. In an industry where unemployment is at 18.5 percent and more than 30,900 jobs were lost last month, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, dozens of firms are vying for work that in the past might draw interest from a handful.
From major highway construction to small sidewalk improvements, bids are sometimes close to half as much as public works officials had projected.
When the Santa Clara County Roads & Airports Department recently sought a contractor to do bicycle and pedestrian improvements along three streets, it expected the cost to be about $975,000. The winning offering was just $543,533.
"Twenty bidders, with the low bid 44 percent under," said Dan Collen, a deputy director with the agency. "Six bidders would have been considered a good turnout, but things have moved beyond competitive. They are desperate."
On the carpool lane project on Interstate 680 from Fremont to Milpitas, the three contracts awarded last month totaled about $88 million — compared with the $136 million Caltrans anticipated.
Repairing bridge decks on Highway 237, Highway 84 and El Camino Real will cost $982,000 — $529,000 less than forecast. Repaving four streets in Cupertino will cost $3.6 million, nearly $1 million under what the city figured it would have to pay. And making the northeast corner of the Virginia-Budd street intersection accessible to the disabled will cost $2,090 instead of $3,000.
..."I've never seen better bidding in my 35 years in transportation," said Dennis Fay, head of the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency."
Real Estate the Not So Good Investment
TW: We have all heard for our entire lives BS about the immutability of real estate investments. These numbers should make one fairly skeptical of those claims. They symbolize the massive Ponzi scheme Americans (and many internationals) have participated in since about 1980 or so. Keep in mind these are nominal figures, if one were to inflation adjust the dates to which one would have to go to achieve break even would be farther back (1980's maybe 1970's for Detroit, 1990's for most others). Real estate figures by market:
From Floyd Norris at NYT:
Depth of Decline/How far back the decline takes you to achieve break even (nominally)
1. Phoenix -49%/February 2003
2. Las Vegas -46%/May 2003
3. Miami -43%/October 2003
4. San Francisco -43%/October 2000
5. San Diego -41%/August 2002
6. Los Angeles -39%/October 2003
7. Detroit -39%/August 1996
8. Tampa -37%/March 2004
9. Washington -32%/March 2004
10. Minneapolis -30%/June 2001
Twenty city composite -29%/October 2003
11. Chicago -22%/June 2003
12. Atlanta -20%/June 2001
13. Seattle -20%/September 2005
14. Portland -18%/August 2005
15. Boston -17%/April 2003
16. Cleveland -17%/August 2000
17. New York -16%/October 2004
18. Denver -13%/April 2002
19. Charlotte -11%/March 2006
20. Dallas -11%/May 2002
http://norris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/how-low-can-they-go/
From Floyd Norris at NYT:
Depth of Decline/How far back the decline takes you to achieve break even (nominally)
1. Phoenix -49%/February 2003
2. Las Vegas -46%/May 2003
3. Miami -43%/October 2003
4. San Francisco -43%/October 2000
5. San Diego -41%/August 2002
6. Los Angeles -39%/October 2003
7. Detroit -39%/August 1996
8. Tampa -37%/March 2004
9. Washington -32%/March 2004
10. Minneapolis -30%/June 2001
Twenty city composite -29%/October 2003
11. Chicago -22%/June 2003
12. Atlanta -20%/June 2001
13. Seattle -20%/September 2005
14. Portland -18%/August 2005
15. Boston -17%/April 2003
16. Cleveland -17%/August 2000
17. New York -16%/October 2004
18. Denver -13%/April 2002
19. Charlotte -11%/March 2006
20. Dallas -11%/May 2002
http://norris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/how-low-can-they-go/
Things I Like - Art
Amy Casey is obsessed with houses. And they aren't behaving normally.
Pull Together
Limited Possibilities
Hive Study
Windy - this one reminds me of those carnival rides
Pull Together
Limited Possibilities
Hive Study
Windy - this one reminds me of those carnival rides
Will Sports Suffer Amidst the Contraction? Plus Convenience Fees Piss Me Off
TW: Norris' piece brings up several issues. One, those damn convenience fees one faces now when ordering tickets. As Norris points out why would a fee vary in cost by ticket value? But generally paying 10% and more for a fee on a ticket is merely a disguised base price component. We are becoming a fee soaked society (check out the details on a rental car bill next time! or almost any travel related bill). Fees are becoming ubiquitous and barely disguised base price components. I hate them.
Next, I certainly would not want to be the Yankees or Mets opening gold plated stadiums amidst the great contraction. Baseball should be interesting this year. Baseball has no salary cap unlike football and basketball where teams are limited in their spending but also obligated to spend just about the cap amount. Baseball teams have been increasingly careful with their dollars as the off-season progressed. I fully expect attendance to be off significantly. For those of you who attend games you know how expensive games are with the tickets being almost an afterthought compared to sky high concessions, parking etc. I really feel for folks trying to take kids to the games. There may be some very unhappy owners and players used to living the good life by mid-season.
Finally sports teams have become very good at squeezing the last penny out of their seats. Long gone are the days when all games regardless of the time of year or opponent were priced the same. Now April tix are far cheaper than those post June and the series against say the Cardinals at Wrigley Field are far more expensive than games against the Giants. This pricing makes economic sense and replaces much of the value scalpers extracted previously. Of course this year teams may need to deploy their micro pricing in reverse to put some fannies in the seats.
From Floyd Norris at NYT:
"This is the year that both the New York Yankees and the New York Mets open new stadiums, with fewer seats than the stadiums they replace. Both also have raised prices to levels that only an unlimited expense account could appreciate.
Will it work? Will some tickets go unsold because no one will pay the prices being asked? If so, will the teams act like airlines, selling tickets for what the market will bear at big discounts?
It’s a fair bet that when baseball executives designed the stadiums they did not expect Lehman Brothers to vanish. Nor did they anticipate the bailout backlash. (How do you feel about bankers partying in seats that cost more than $2,000 each?)
I received an e-mail message today from the Yankees proclaiming that “Tickets for Yankee Stadium’s inaugural week are still available.”
So I checked out the second home game of the season, on Friday afternoon, April 17. The cheap seats are sold out, but there are still some good seats left, at prices ranging from $375 (plus a $12.45 convenience fee) to $900 (plus a $23.45 convenience fee).
As it happens, the Mets are in town that same night. There you can get tickets for as little as $60 (plus $7 fee) for seats in what I would have called the bleachers but they call left field reserved. Seats costing as much as $270 (plus a $12 fee) are also available.
Let me know if anyone notices the teams cutting prices to fill seats.
And while I’m complaining, can anyone explain why the fee for buying an expensive ticket online should be higher than the fee for buying a less expensive one?
http://norris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/this-is-the-year-that-both-the/
Next, I certainly would not want to be the Yankees or Mets opening gold plated stadiums amidst the great contraction. Baseball should be interesting this year. Baseball has no salary cap unlike football and basketball where teams are limited in their spending but also obligated to spend just about the cap amount. Baseball teams have been increasingly careful with their dollars as the off-season progressed. I fully expect attendance to be off significantly. For those of you who attend games you know how expensive games are with the tickets being almost an afterthought compared to sky high concessions, parking etc. I really feel for folks trying to take kids to the games. There may be some very unhappy owners and players used to living the good life by mid-season.
Finally sports teams have become very good at squeezing the last penny out of their seats. Long gone are the days when all games regardless of the time of year or opponent were priced the same. Now April tix are far cheaper than those post June and the series against say the Cardinals at Wrigley Field are far more expensive than games against the Giants. This pricing makes economic sense and replaces much of the value scalpers extracted previously. Of course this year teams may need to deploy their micro pricing in reverse to put some fannies in the seats.
From Floyd Norris at NYT:
"This is the year that both the New York Yankees and the New York Mets open new stadiums, with fewer seats than the stadiums they replace. Both also have raised prices to levels that only an unlimited expense account could appreciate.
Will it work? Will some tickets go unsold because no one will pay the prices being asked? If so, will the teams act like airlines, selling tickets for what the market will bear at big discounts?
It’s a fair bet that when baseball executives designed the stadiums they did not expect Lehman Brothers to vanish. Nor did they anticipate the bailout backlash. (How do you feel about bankers partying in seats that cost more than $2,000 each?)
I received an e-mail message today from the Yankees proclaiming that “Tickets for Yankee Stadium’s inaugural week are still available.”
So I checked out the second home game of the season, on Friday afternoon, April 17. The cheap seats are sold out, but there are still some good seats left, at prices ranging from $375 (plus a $12.45 convenience fee) to $900 (plus a $23.45 convenience fee).
As it happens, the Mets are in town that same night. There you can get tickets for as little as $60 (plus $7 fee) for seats in what I would have called the bleachers but they call left field reserved. Seats costing as much as $270 (plus a $12 fee) are also available.
Let me know if anyone notices the teams cutting prices to fill seats.
And while I’m complaining, can anyone explain why the fee for buying an expensive ticket online should be higher than the fee for buying a less expensive one?
http://norris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/this-is-the-year-that-both-the/
Monday, March 30, 2009
Why Can't We Deal With the Right Issues?
TW: Economist uses the Newsweek Krugman piece to frame a real issue. Others have mentioned the same thing with the cover story Newsweek put out this week. The story implies one thing, Krugman as a strong lefty critic of Obama's econ policies, but then proceeds to spend the vast majority of the article focused on Krugman's personality.
If we as a nation are to address the considerable challenges facing us, we need to have good debates. Those debates are occurring in the blogosphere. On the specific issue mentioned below, bank nationalisation, the debate rages to and fro with very well-informed economists dealing out their views. MSM misses most of this, however, some of it is structural, some of it is simply that most of us cannot keep up with the complexity of the debates.
Ultimately the Economist blogger's point is simply that ideology is much easier to define, trumpet and argue than practical executional policies. We should all keep that in mind as we sort through the information, disinformation, hyperbole, demagoguery and politics associated with these various crises permeating our country at the moment.
From the Economist:
"...that's what Newsweek can do—profile a big personality. They're not up to the task of answering the big questions on banking policy, and probably wouldn't even know where to begin.
...To me, the problem is that we're having the wrong conversations. Newsweek is writing about Paul Krugman instead of writing about what Paul Krugman is saying. The rest of the financial press overwhelmingly casts the nationalisation debate in ideological terms, rather than focusing on the practical challenges. And Mr Krugman, who should be well aware of the practical challenges, particularly as they are embodied in the populist Congress and the bottleneck Senate, focuses his ire instead on the administration, which can only operate within the leeway extended by the legislature.
If this story represents anything, it's our monumental ability to miss the point. And in that sense, it is a damning indictment of decision making in America. "
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2009/03/let_us_now_talk_about_paul_kru.cfm
If we as a nation are to address the considerable challenges facing us, we need to have good debates. Those debates are occurring in the blogosphere. On the specific issue mentioned below, bank nationalisation, the debate rages to and fro with very well-informed economists dealing out their views. MSM misses most of this, however, some of it is structural, some of it is simply that most of us cannot keep up with the complexity of the debates.
Ultimately the Economist blogger's point is simply that ideology is much easier to define, trumpet and argue than practical executional policies. We should all keep that in mind as we sort through the information, disinformation, hyperbole, demagoguery and politics associated with these various crises permeating our country at the moment.
From the Economist:
"...that's what Newsweek can do—profile a big personality. They're not up to the task of answering the big questions on banking policy, and probably wouldn't even know where to begin.
...To me, the problem is that we're having the wrong conversations. Newsweek is writing about Paul Krugman instead of writing about what Paul Krugman is saying. The rest of the financial press overwhelmingly casts the nationalisation debate in ideological terms, rather than focusing on the practical challenges. And Mr Krugman, who should be well aware of the practical challenges, particularly as they are embodied in the populist Congress and the bottleneck Senate, focuses his ire instead on the administration, which can only operate within the leeway extended by the legislature.
If this story represents anything, it's our monumental ability to miss the point. And in that sense, it is a damning indictment of decision making in America. "
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2009/03/let_us_now_talk_about_paul_kru.cfm
High Stakes Poker With the Automakers
TW: I suspect this week's drama with the automakers is merely another inning in the on-going fandango with the automaker bondholders (the bondholders hold tens of billions of notes on the automakers, they must take significant haircuts if the automakers are to have viable recovery plans, the stocks are toast except for casino playing traders). Below Smith outlines the downside of the hardball Obama is playing this week. While at a certain level the bigwigs being held to the fire is enjoyable, the risks are considerable. Ultimately I strongly doubt Obama wants any of the Big Three in Chapter 11, naturally the bondholders know this hence the need for the game of chicken. The southern Republicans may relish the world auto industry losing American based manufacturers, I am not convinced the rest of the American public is ready for that step.
From Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism:
"It would be better if we were wrong, but we are of the school that putting the big automakers into bankruptcy, despite its attractions (being able to restructure debt and dealer networks; the UAW contracts are far less significant economically than the media makes them out to be) misses out on one crucial element: you don't have a business if you don't have customers. And a GM bankruptcy would be a protracted affair. Even if consumers believe the company will make it, what about their local dealer? If they worry they might have to schlepp to get their car serviced, is it worth it?
In typical backwards American deal and contract focused thinking, the officialdom has not spent enough time assessing the single most important issue: how would customers react? If GM and Chrysler were to lose as many as 20% of sales they'd otherwise get as a result of a bankruptcy filing, that it is a very big change in outcomes. And the drop could be considerably higher than that.
I worry that this punitive move will wind up being Lehman redux. Recall that bailout disgust was running high post Bear and Fannie and Freddie, and Someone Had to Suffer to show the Administration was made of real men. Now since no one even dares bitch slap a bank (the bonus stuff is mere Punch and Judy), all the hostility is channeled at Big Auto. And the danger is going into overkill literally, not just figuratively, to make up for being too easy on the financiers. And if GM or Chrysler were to be liquidated, the knock-on effects would be grim. They are important to quite a few parts suppliers. If those suppliers fail, it threatens the viability of the foreign transplants."
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/03/auto-company-plans-rejected-by-task.html
From Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism:
"It would be better if we were wrong, but we are of the school that putting the big automakers into bankruptcy, despite its attractions (being able to restructure debt and dealer networks; the UAW contracts are far less significant economically than the media makes them out to be) misses out on one crucial element: you don't have a business if you don't have customers. And a GM bankruptcy would be a protracted affair. Even if consumers believe the company will make it, what about their local dealer? If they worry they might have to schlepp to get their car serviced, is it worth it?
In typical backwards American deal and contract focused thinking, the officialdom has not spent enough time assessing the single most important issue: how would customers react? If GM and Chrysler were to lose as many as 20% of sales they'd otherwise get as a result of a bankruptcy filing, that it is a very big change in outcomes. And the drop could be considerably higher than that.
I worry that this punitive move will wind up being Lehman redux. Recall that bailout disgust was running high post Bear and Fannie and Freddie, and Someone Had to Suffer to show the Administration was made of real men. Now since no one even dares bitch slap a bank (the bonus stuff is mere Punch and Judy), all the hostility is channeled at Big Auto. And the danger is going into overkill literally, not just figuratively, to make up for being too easy on the financiers. And if GM or Chrysler were to be liquidated, the knock-on effects would be grim. They are important to quite a few parts suppliers. If those suppliers fail, it threatens the viability of the foreign transplants."
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/03/auto-company-plans-rejected-by-task.html
Texas Fumbles Around With Evolution
TW: Have posted on the Texas state education board's efforts to inject creationism into our nation's science curricula. The board issued a muddled ruling last week falling short of explicitly pushing creationism into science classes but leaving many doors open by which local entities can do so on their own. I especially like Hitchens final paragraph. If one is going to open things up for comparative debate why should the Christian Genesis explanation be the only alternative (personally I would insist upon the Druids getting some level of recognition).
From Chris Hitchens in Newsweek:
"...last week Texas and schoolbooks meant something else altogether when the state Board of Education, in a muddled decision, rejected a state science curriculum that required teachers to discuss the "strengths and weaknesses" of the theory of evolution. Instead, the board allowed "all sides" of scientific theories to be taught.
...let's "be honest with the kids," as Dr. Don McLeroy[chief creationist tout], the chairman of the Texas education board, wants us to be. The problem is that he is urging that the argument be taught, not in a history or in a civics class, but in a biology class. And one of his supporters on the board, Ken Mercer, has said that evolution is disproved by the absence of any transitional forms between dogs and cats. If any state in the American union gave equal time in science class to such claims, it would certainly make itself unique in the world (perhaps no shame in that). But it would also set a precedent for the sharing of the astronomy period with the teaching of astrology, or indeed of equal time as between chemistry and alchemy. Less boring perhaps, but also much less scientific and less educational.
The Texas anti-Darwin stalwarts also might want to beware of what they wish for. The last times that evangelical Protestantism won cultural/ political victories—by banning the sale of alcohol, prohibiting the teaching of evolution and restricting immigration from Catholic countries—the triumphs all turned out to be Pyrrhic. There are some successes that are simply not survivable. If by any combination of luck and coincidence any religious coalition ever did succeed in criminalizing abortion, say, or mandating school prayer, it would swiftly become the victim of a backlash that would make it rue the day. This will apply with redoubled force to any initiative that asks the United States to trade its hard-won scientific preeminence against its private and unofficial pieties. This country is so constituted that no one group, and certainly no one confessional group, is able to dictate its own standards to the others. There are days when I almost wish the fundamentalists could get their own way, just so that they would find out what would happen to them.
...It's not just that the overwhelming majority of scientists are now convinced that evolution is inscribed in the fossil record and in the lineaments of molecular biology. It is more that evolutionists will say in advance which evidence, if found, would refute them and force them to reconsider. ("Rabbit fossils in the pre-Cambrian layer" was, I seem to remember, the response of Prof. J.B.S. Haldane.) Try asking an "intelligent design" advocate to stipulate upfront what would constitute refutation of his world view and you will easily see the difference between the scientific method and the pseudoscientific one.
But that is just my opinion. And I certainly do not want it said that my side denies a hearing to the opposing one. In the spirit of compromise, then, I propose the following. First, let the school debating societies restage the wonderful set-piece real-life dramas of Oxford and Dayton, Tenn. Let time also be set aside, in our increasingly multiethnic and multicultural school system, for children to be taught the huge variety of creation stories, from the Hindu to the Muslim to the Australian Aboriginal. This is always interesting (and it can't be, can it, that the Texas board holdouts think that only Genesis ought to be so honored?). Second, we can surely demand that the principle of "strengths and weaknesses" will be applied evenly. If any church in Texas receives a tax exemption, or if any religious institution is the beneficiary of any subvention from the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, we must be assured that it will devote a portion of its time to laying bare the "strengths and weaknesses" of the religious world view, and also to teaching the works of Voltaire, David Hume, Benedict de Spinoza, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. This is America. Let a hundred flowers bloom, and a thousand schools of thought contend. We may one day have cause to be grateful to the Texas Board of Education for lighting a candle that cannot be put out."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/191400/page/1
From Chris Hitchens in Newsweek:
"...last week Texas and schoolbooks meant something else altogether when the state Board of Education, in a muddled decision, rejected a state science curriculum that required teachers to discuss the "strengths and weaknesses" of the theory of evolution. Instead, the board allowed "all sides" of scientific theories to be taught.
...let's "be honest with the kids," as Dr. Don McLeroy[chief creationist tout], the chairman of the Texas education board, wants us to be. The problem is that he is urging that the argument be taught, not in a history or in a civics class, but in a biology class. And one of his supporters on the board, Ken Mercer, has said that evolution is disproved by the absence of any transitional forms between dogs and cats. If any state in the American union gave equal time in science class to such claims, it would certainly make itself unique in the world (perhaps no shame in that). But it would also set a precedent for the sharing of the astronomy period with the teaching of astrology, or indeed of equal time as between chemistry and alchemy. Less boring perhaps, but also much less scientific and less educational.
The Texas anti-Darwin stalwarts also might want to beware of what they wish for. The last times that evangelical Protestantism won cultural/ political victories—by banning the sale of alcohol, prohibiting the teaching of evolution and restricting immigration from Catholic countries—the triumphs all turned out to be Pyrrhic. There are some successes that are simply not survivable. If by any combination of luck and coincidence any religious coalition ever did succeed in criminalizing abortion, say, or mandating school prayer, it would swiftly become the victim of a backlash that would make it rue the day. This will apply with redoubled force to any initiative that asks the United States to trade its hard-won scientific preeminence against its private and unofficial pieties. This country is so constituted that no one group, and certainly no one confessional group, is able to dictate its own standards to the others. There are days when I almost wish the fundamentalists could get their own way, just so that they would find out what would happen to them.
...It's not just that the overwhelming majority of scientists are now convinced that evolution is inscribed in the fossil record and in the lineaments of molecular biology. It is more that evolutionists will say in advance which evidence, if found, would refute them and force them to reconsider. ("Rabbit fossils in the pre-Cambrian layer" was, I seem to remember, the response of Prof. J.B.S. Haldane.) Try asking an "intelligent design" advocate to stipulate upfront what would constitute refutation of his world view and you will easily see the difference between the scientific method and the pseudoscientific one.
But that is just my opinion. And I certainly do not want it said that my side denies a hearing to the opposing one. In the spirit of compromise, then, I propose the following. First, let the school debating societies restage the wonderful set-piece real-life dramas of Oxford and Dayton, Tenn. Let time also be set aside, in our increasingly multiethnic and multicultural school system, for children to be taught the huge variety of creation stories, from the Hindu to the Muslim to the Australian Aboriginal. This is always interesting (and it can't be, can it, that the Texas board holdouts think that only Genesis ought to be so honored?). Second, we can surely demand that the principle of "strengths and weaknesses" will be applied evenly. If any church in Texas receives a tax exemption, or if any religious institution is the beneficiary of any subvention from the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, we must be assured that it will devote a portion of its time to laying bare the "strengths and weaknesses" of the religious world view, and also to teaching the works of Voltaire, David Hume, Benedict de Spinoza, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. This is America. Let a hundred flowers bloom, and a thousand schools of thought contend. We may one day have cause to be grateful to the Texas Board of Education for lighting a candle that cannot be put out."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/191400/page/1
Things I Like - Humor
I never wanted a hamster before. And then I saw this:
(there's music, if you can call it that)
Hamster On a Piano Eating Popcorn - watch more funny videos
I'm sure the cats would be thrilled to have a new friend...
(there's music, if you can call it that)
Hamster On a Piano Eating Popcorn - watch more funny videos
I'm sure the cats would be thrilled to have a new friend...
German Views On Afghanistan
TW: The German news magazine Der Spiegel summarizes some reaction from German editorials regarding the latest initiatives in Afghanistan. What strikes me is the lack of any consensus or clear mission in the editorial voices.
One sees the center-right paper patting Germany on its back for having invented the concept of nation-building (huh?) and excusing Germany's ability to avoid combat because they picked the quiet region first before others picked their regions (a kind nyah, nyah approach). The lefty paper rightly mocks the German commitment to increase their police training force by a whopping 150 or so while acknowledging even that paltry change will run into resistance. The German financial paper basically says the U.S. will be left holding the bag.
I have read before that European public opinion has melded the extremely unpopular Iraq situation with the poorly understood AfPak conflict far more so than even here in the U.S. Obama and European leaders have much work to do in order to motivate the European publics to commit their blood and treasure to the AfPak theater.
From Der Spiegel:
"In the run-up to next week's NATO summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel gave a speech on Thursday in which she offered support for Obama's plan and described the war in Afghanistan as the "most important contemporary test" of the 26-state NATO alliance. At the same time, she said Germany had no plans to send any additional troops to the country. The relatively small number of additional civilian helpers Berlin plans to dispatch to the country has come in for some criticism. On Germany's editorial pages on Friday, commentators are scathing of the country's contribution.
The financial daily Handelsblatt writes:
"Every member of NATO wants a success in Afghanistan But it is the US that has had to handle most of the military work. That will be the conclusion at next week's NATO summit after the niceties have been filtered out of the closing statement. German Chancellor Merkel made that very clear for Germany on Thursday. Germany will not increase its number of troops in Afghanistan. Instead it wants to intensify its civilian reconstruction efforts. But that can't be truly successful without the security that only the military can provide."
"If Obama had any illusions whatsoever when he took office about whether his partners would abandon their increasing reserve on the issue of Afghanistan, then those have been buried by now...Germany may be willing to keep its current 3,400 troops in the country, but other countries are firmly holding to their plans to withdraw. Holland will pull out 1,700 troops by 2010, and a year later Canada's 2,800-soldier contingent will return home. The success or failure on the main front in the battle against radical Islam will be determined by the US's engagement there."
The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:
"Germany can 'really stand by' what it has achieved in Afghanistan since December 2001 -- and with that remark, Chancellor Merkel was right...The fact that NATO's most important mission is in the Hindu Kush is, after all, due to a German initiative. And because Germany was the first to send a reconstruction team to the region, it gave them the chance to select the comparatively peaceful north of the country. There the German forces...were able to fulfil the task set before them."
"Now they are boosting the size of the team, they are sending more trainers for the Afghan army, and more troops in time for the election. But they are always being deployed in the north. Sending troops to other parts of the country, places where there is fighting, will become difficult to avoid in the long term. And experience shows: Taking the initiative yourself early is preferable to being forced into something late in the day."
The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung writes:
"..NATO, of course, understands that, in places like Afghanistan, it can only play a small part in any solution and that the rebuilding of civil society is the most important priority."
"It is a platitude which fails to gain extra meaning through repetition in parliament. Merkel's suggestion would only be revolutionary if it were followed by action. But in that respect, Merkel keeps quiet. The fact there are German forces in Afghanistan speaks for itself, according to the chancellor -- and that was all she had to say. There was no mention of Germany sending more police trainers to Afghanistan than those already planned. In total 120 are due to be sent, along with 45 military police. But that's a joke. What is needed are hundreds of civil trainers."
"But that would leave the chancellor in a difficult conflict with the German states, which would be in charge of committing police. Angela Merkel sidestepped this conflict by announcing a revolution -- and then taking a well-trodden path. That is nothing more than political window dressing."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,615878,00.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)