(click to enlarge)TW: What the Treasury Department will likely find during their "stress test" of Citibank.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Things I Like - Vacation
Hey - we're taking some vacation. My posts over the next week will all be odds & ends rather than sticking to the daily schedule. Trey will just have some light stuff unless he gets fired up to post something...
Mom & Dad are coming to stay with the grandcats - enjoy and see you back here on the 12th!
Mom & Dad are coming to stay with the grandcats - enjoy and see you back here on the 12th!
Friday, April 3, 2009
Does Obama's Aggressiveness With GM Reconcile To His Financial Bailouts?
TW: Many have asked why is Obama being a hardass with GM while pandering to the banks. They are different situations requiring differing responses. A simple concept lost to many. The banks have a balance sheet problem, a very huge balance sheet problem whereby their assets are worth far less than book value but their underlying businesses do produce profits. In time the banks will be restored to "normalcy". In addition, it is a dead certainty without a viable banking system one does not have a viable economy.
The automakers as an earlier post showed are in a long-term sectoral decline. As currently structured their legacy costs not only related to retirees but also just old installed capital bases are not profitable now and will never realistically be profitable. Obama has a choice between the lesser of two evils, bite the bullet now or kick the can down the road. Those legacy costs have to be addressed through a combination of retiree concessions, bond holder haircuts and taxpayer subsidies. We can do it now or later. Now is not a good time to do it given the overall economy but there does not appear to be a viable alternative.
From Jim Suroweicki at New Yorker:
"In the wake of the Obama Administration’s decision to take a hard line on bailout funding for G.M. and Chrysler, there’s been a lot of talk about why there seems to be a double standard at work in the way the Administration is dealing with the automakers and the way it’s dealing with the banks. This may well be a premature conclusion: it’s not obvious that the Administration won’t adopt a tough line with at least some banks after the stress tests are completed next month. But to the extent that there does seem to be a difference between the Administration’s strategy for dealing with the two industries, there is an obvious explanation: it’s relatively easy to see how the banks can return to profitability, while it’s much harder to see how the automakers can become profitable again, at least in the absence of the kind of radical restructuring you’d get through bankruptcy or some kind of deal with the bondholders.
The money the government has been giving the automakers has been going not to shore up their capital base, but literally to pay their bills. In the absence of government aid, the automakers would have had to shut down their factories because of their inability to pay suppliers and workers. That’s not true of even the most troubled big banks, which are having no problem meeting their debt payments or paying their bills: the government’s aid has gone instead to replenish their capital and allow them to stay in regulatory compliance. That doesn’t mean the government’s aid was not essential, but it was different: the money the government gave G.M. has already gone out the door, while in the case of the banks it’s still, for the most part, sitting on their balance sheets (which is where it’s supposed to be)..."
The automakers as an earlier post showed are in a long-term sectoral decline. As currently structured their legacy costs not only related to retirees but also just old installed capital bases are not profitable now and will never realistically be profitable. Obama has a choice between the lesser of two evils, bite the bullet now or kick the can down the road. Those legacy costs have to be addressed through a combination of retiree concessions, bond holder haircuts and taxpayer subsidies. We can do it now or later. Now is not a good time to do it given the overall economy but there does not appear to be a viable alternative.
From Jim Suroweicki at New Yorker:
"In the wake of the Obama Administration’s decision to take a hard line on bailout funding for G.M. and Chrysler, there’s been a lot of talk about why there seems to be a double standard at work in the way the Administration is dealing with the automakers and the way it’s dealing with the banks. This may well be a premature conclusion: it’s not obvious that the Administration won’t adopt a tough line with at least some banks after the stress tests are completed next month. But to the extent that there does seem to be a difference between the Administration’s strategy for dealing with the two industries, there is an obvious explanation: it’s relatively easy to see how the banks can return to profitability, while it’s much harder to see how the automakers can become profitable again, at least in the absence of the kind of radical restructuring you’d get through bankruptcy or some kind of deal with the bondholders.
The money the government has been giving the automakers has been going not to shore up their capital base, but literally to pay their bills. In the absence of government aid, the automakers would have had to shut down their factories because of their inability to pay suppliers and workers. That’s not true of even the most troubled big banks, which are having no problem meeting their debt payments or paying their bills: the government’s aid has gone instead to replenish their capital and allow them to stay in regulatory compliance. That doesn’t mean the government’s aid was not essential, but it was different: the money the government gave G.M. has already gone out the door, while in the case of the banks it’s still, for the most part, sitting on their balance sheets (which is where it’s supposed to be)..."
It Was Inevitable: Undertakers Ask For Bailout
TW: I admit once the bailouts start they are hard to stop. Monkey see, monkey do becomes the approach. If them, why not me etc. So naturally funeral directors have decided to petition for some bailout support. Luckily so far they have been thwarted, but they are suffering not because of fewer customers but because the customers are using fewer frills and extras. This, of course, is a clear example of what happens in a demand contraction, even the unavoidable consumption is impacted as consumers squeeze the spending down to only the minimum necessary to get by.
From Dana Milbank at WaPo:
"It has long been suspected that the funeral business is immune from economic cycles, that the Grim Reaper tends not to follow the stock market. But this time, funeral homes are discovering that their clients' thrift -- sheet-metal urns instead of bronze caskets, cheese-and-cracker nibbles instead of traditional funeral luncheons -- is positively killing profits.
So funeral directors did what everybody else does: They asked for a federal bailout.
"We recognized that there may be a situation where a lot of folks who were displaced or unemployed might need some help in paying for their funerals," John Fitch Jr., lobbyist for the National Funeral Directors Association, explained yesterday at the group's annual gathering, at the Mayflower Hotel. "We had some preliminary discussions about providing some stimulus payments to the states" for funerals, he added.
It was quite an undertaking, and it didn't work; apparently, funding funerals wasn't regarded as a spur to economic growth, because much of the benefit gets deep-sixed.
...(It's not that people have stopped dying. Though there's some evidence that the death rate drops during a recession (people drive less, for example, so they have fewer accidents), any such effect will soon be swamped as baby boomers prepare to shuffle off this mortal coil. When it comes to the death rate, "the statistics on this are fairly certain," funeral director Patrick Lynch explained at yesterday's news conference. "It's 100 percent."
...a trio of funeral directors, all in dark suits, lined up at a table, draped in black fabric, for the news conference. They looked much like the banking and automotive executives who came to town to ask for government help, except they attracted rather less interest: a grand total of two reporters.
The undertakers traded tales of penny-pinching mourners. Lynch, of Michigan, spoke about the "huge bowl of Bazooka bubble gum" displayed at one visitation. "Didn't cost a lot of money," he said. "That's what we see people doing."
"Instead of feeding everybody dinner or lunch, we've been throwing little, for lack of a better word, cocktail-party type things, cheese and crackers," added James Olson of Wisconsin. "Also," he said, "my cremation rate has gone up in the last two years. . . . I'm at 42 percent."
Lynch turned to the "merchandise" of the funeral. "People, rather than selecting a copper or a bronze casket, may choose a 20-gauge steel casket painted in a copper color," he said. "Instead of choosing a mahogany casket made of real mahogany, they may choose a poplar casket stained with a mahogany stain, which to most observers looks the same. Perhaps they would chose a crepe interior as opposed to a velvet interior in a casket. Perhaps they would choose a sheet-metal urn as opposed to a solid-bronze urn."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/31/AR2009033103477.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
From Dana Milbank at WaPo:
"It has long been suspected that the funeral business is immune from economic cycles, that the Grim Reaper tends not to follow the stock market. But this time, funeral homes are discovering that their clients' thrift -- sheet-metal urns instead of bronze caskets, cheese-and-cracker nibbles instead of traditional funeral luncheons -- is positively killing profits.
So funeral directors did what everybody else does: They asked for a federal bailout.
"We recognized that there may be a situation where a lot of folks who were displaced or unemployed might need some help in paying for their funerals," John Fitch Jr., lobbyist for the National Funeral Directors Association, explained yesterday at the group's annual gathering, at the Mayflower Hotel. "We had some preliminary discussions about providing some stimulus payments to the states" for funerals, he added.
It was quite an undertaking, and it didn't work; apparently, funding funerals wasn't regarded as a spur to economic growth, because much of the benefit gets deep-sixed.
...(It's not that people have stopped dying. Though there's some evidence that the death rate drops during a recession (people drive less, for example, so they have fewer accidents), any such effect will soon be swamped as baby boomers prepare to shuffle off this mortal coil. When it comes to the death rate, "the statistics on this are fairly certain," funeral director Patrick Lynch explained at yesterday's news conference. "It's 100 percent."
...a trio of funeral directors, all in dark suits, lined up at a table, draped in black fabric, for the news conference. They looked much like the banking and automotive executives who came to town to ask for government help, except they attracted rather less interest: a grand total of two reporters.
The undertakers traded tales of penny-pinching mourners. Lynch, of Michigan, spoke about the "huge bowl of Bazooka bubble gum" displayed at one visitation. "Didn't cost a lot of money," he said. "That's what we see people doing."
"Instead of feeding everybody dinner or lunch, we've been throwing little, for lack of a better word, cocktail-party type things, cheese and crackers," added James Olson of Wisconsin. "Also," he said, "my cremation rate has gone up in the last two years. . . . I'm at 42 percent."
Lynch turned to the "merchandise" of the funeral. "People, rather than selecting a copper or a bronze casket, may choose a 20-gauge steel casket painted in a copper color," he said. "Instead of choosing a mahogany casket made of real mahogany, they may choose a poplar casket stained with a mahogany stain, which to most observers looks the same. Perhaps they would chose a crepe interior as opposed to a velvet interior in a casket. Perhaps they would choose a sheet-metal urn as opposed to a solid-bronze urn."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/31/AR2009033103477.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
Colbert Shreds Beck
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| The 10/31 Project | ||||
| ||||
TW: I repeat as long as Fox carries Glenn Beck they are not a serious news organization. To the extent people believe Beck then they are fools.
Things I Like - Vacation
This video is a little long (just over 9 minutes) but really cool - reminded me of the movie Minority Report
By Bruce Branit
By Bruce Branit
Drug Legalization: The Libertarian View
TW: I have pounded the table on this, here is a libertarian economist making some of the same points we have previously expressed.
From Jeff Miron via CNN:
"...The U.S. and Mexican responses to this violence have been predictable: more troops and police, greater border controls and expanded enforcement of every kind. Escalation is the wrong response, however; drug prohibition is the cause of the violence.
Prohibition creates violence because it drives the drug market underground. This means buyers and sellers cannot resolve their disputes with lawsuits, arbitration or advertising, so they resort to violence instead.
Violence was common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after. Violence is the norm in illicit gambling markets but not in legal ones. Violence is routine when prostitution is banned but not when it's permitted. Violence results from policies that create black markets, not from the characteristics of the good or activity in question.
The only way to reduce violence, therefore, is to legalize drugs. Fortuitously, legalization is the right policy for a slew of other reasons.
Prohibition of drugs corrupts politicians and law enforcement by putting police, prosecutors, judges and politicians in the position to threaten the profits of an illicit trade. This is why bribery, threats and kidnapping are common for prohibited industries but rare otherwise. Mexico's recent history illustrates this dramatically.
Prohibition erodes protections against unreasonable search and seizure because neither party to a drug transaction has an incentive to report the activity to the police. Thus, enforcement requires intrusive tactics such as warrantless searches or undercover buys. The victimless nature of this so-called crime also encourages police to engage in racial profiling.
Prohibition has disastrous implications for national security. By eradicating coca plants in Colombia or poppy fields in Afghanistan, prohibition breeds resentment of the United States. By enriching those who produce and supply drugs, prohibition supports terrorists who sell protection services to drug traffickers.
...Prohibitions breed disrespect for the law because despite draconian penalties and extensive enforcement, huge numbers of people still violate prohibition. This means those who break the law, and those who do not, learn that obeying laws is for suckers.
Prohibition is a drain on the public purse. Federal, state and local governments spend roughly $44 billion per year to enforce drug prohibition. These same governments forego roughly $33 billion per year in tax revenue they could collect from legalized drugs, assuming these were taxed at rates similar to those on alcohol and tobacco. Under prohibition, these revenues accrue to traffickers as increased profits.
The right policy, therefore, is to legalize drugs while using regulation and taxation to dampen irresponsible behavior related to drug use, such as driving under the influence. This makes more sense than prohibition because it avoids creation of a black market. This approach also allows those who believe they benefit from drug use to do so, as long as they do not harm others.
...It is impossible to reconcile respect for individual liberty with drug prohibition. The U.S. has been at the forefront of this puritanical policy for almost a century, with disastrous consequences at home and abroad...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/miron.legalization.drugs/index.html
From Jeff Miron via CNN:
"...The U.S. and Mexican responses to this violence have been predictable: more troops and police, greater border controls and expanded enforcement of every kind. Escalation is the wrong response, however; drug prohibition is the cause of the violence.
Prohibition creates violence because it drives the drug market underground. This means buyers and sellers cannot resolve their disputes with lawsuits, arbitration or advertising, so they resort to violence instead.
Violence was common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after. Violence is the norm in illicit gambling markets but not in legal ones. Violence is routine when prostitution is banned but not when it's permitted. Violence results from policies that create black markets, not from the characteristics of the good or activity in question.
The only way to reduce violence, therefore, is to legalize drugs. Fortuitously, legalization is the right policy for a slew of other reasons.
Prohibition of drugs corrupts politicians and law enforcement by putting police, prosecutors, judges and politicians in the position to threaten the profits of an illicit trade. This is why bribery, threats and kidnapping are common for prohibited industries but rare otherwise. Mexico's recent history illustrates this dramatically.
Prohibition erodes protections against unreasonable search and seizure because neither party to a drug transaction has an incentive to report the activity to the police. Thus, enforcement requires intrusive tactics such as warrantless searches or undercover buys. The victimless nature of this so-called crime also encourages police to engage in racial profiling.
Prohibition has disastrous implications for national security. By eradicating coca plants in Colombia or poppy fields in Afghanistan, prohibition breeds resentment of the United States. By enriching those who produce and supply drugs, prohibition supports terrorists who sell protection services to drug traffickers.
...Prohibitions breed disrespect for the law because despite draconian penalties and extensive enforcement, huge numbers of people still violate prohibition. This means those who break the law, and those who do not, learn that obeying laws is for suckers.
Prohibition is a drain on the public purse. Federal, state and local governments spend roughly $44 billion per year to enforce drug prohibition. These same governments forego roughly $33 billion per year in tax revenue they could collect from legalized drugs, assuming these were taxed at rates similar to those on alcohol and tobacco. Under prohibition, these revenues accrue to traffickers as increased profits.
The right policy, therefore, is to legalize drugs while using regulation and taxation to dampen irresponsible behavior related to drug use, such as driving under the influence. This makes more sense than prohibition because it avoids creation of a black market. This approach also allows those who believe they benefit from drug use to do so, as long as they do not harm others.
...It is impossible to reconcile respect for individual liberty with drug prohibition. The U.S. has been at the forefront of this puritanical policy for almost a century, with disastrous consequences at home and abroad...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/miron.legalization.drugs/index.html
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Metaphor For Change
TW: No doubt this photo will be remarked upon ad nauseum. For me it simply speaks to a bridge between the past and the future- westernized Eurocentricity towards decentralized multi-ethnicity. Good be for the better or worse, most likely a combination there of.All You Need To Know About GM
TW: Nate Silver nails GM. Any company or industry (I would think Ford/Chrysler have similar charts), with a similar chart would be doomed. Anyone who invested in a U.S. automaker over the past 40 years (other than a trader playing the movement around the general decline) was on a fool's errand. Why does the chart look this way? Two things, massive competition from the internationals and retirement benefit deals made decades ago which larded the present day company with unsustainable burdens. If this concept was merely limited to the U.S. automakers it would be bad enough. Unfortunately the automakers in many respects are metaphorical for the overall U.S. fiscal system. Workers have been promised retirement benefits which are also unsustainable. Folks have taken out mortgages for which they will be unable to support. Banks have made unsustainable loans etc., etc. The common thread short-term gain for long-term pain.
Our states are creating pension time bombs that will make the automakers seem tame. The housing bubble at least is bursting in rapid if too spectacular a form. Benefits (health care/pensions etc.) must come down!!
From Silver at 538.com:
"...The auto business is highly cyclical because consumers are buying expensive assets that last for years at a time. Nobody ever really has to buy a new car (they can buy a used one if their car breaks down), and therefore consumers are willing to hold on to their existing vehicles and wait out economic slumps. You can't do that with, say, a loaf of bread, or even something like a cellphone, which has a much shorter lifespan.
...If I were an alien beaming down from Rigel-3 looking at this pattern -- an alien with an MBA degree -- my first guess is that it would reflect some sort of systemic problem, some chronic imbalance that magnified over time. Something, in other words, like the costs of GM's retiree pension and health care programs. It's difficult to get a precise figure on these so-called legacy costs, but they averaged about $7 billion per year between 1993 and 2007 and are probably at least $10 billion per year now. Considering that GM has never made as much as $10 billion in profit in a year and that its entire operating lossses in 2008 were $13.8 billion, you can see why this is a significant problem.
...Of course, GM benefited by promising its employees access to lucrative retirement programs -- it benefited by being able to pay less to those employees in the form of salary. But whereas the benefits to GM came long ago, the costs come now...GM was willing to cut its employees some very attractive deals in the 1950s through the 1980s -- provided that they took them in the form of retirement benefits rather than salary
...This issue is wrongly portrayed by both the liberal and the conservative media as one of management versus labor, when really it is a battle between General Motors past and General Motors present. In the 50s, 60s and 70s, everyone benefited: GM and its shareholders got the benefit of higher profit margins, and meanwhile, its employees benefited from GM's willingness to cut a bad deal -- for every dollar they were giving up in salary, those employees were getting a dollar and change back in retirement benefits. But now, everyone is hurting.
...most of the excess costs it requires to produce a Buick versus a Toyota come in the form of legacy costs, not what those employees are receiving in salary and benefits today. And the taxpayer is bound to to get screwed either way, either picking up the tab to bail out GM, or bearing the costs of the pension programs, which are guaranteed by the government (although the legacy health benefits aren't guaranteed)..."
Why I Voted For Obama (cont.)
TW: In contrast to the Hooverite, head in the sand (or wherever) Republicans, Obama is making bold moves. I said back in 2007 Obama had a chance to be a home run hitting POTUS. The Clintonian singles and sacrifice bunts were nice in the 90's but given where things stand today- we NEED a slugger. For too long the can has been kicked down the road on many aspects of domestic policy: fiscal/entitlements, education, infrastructure, environment. Foreign policy got totally sideways with W. Bush and the world is evolving...quickly, with or without competent American leadership. Western democracies are for the first time in a millennia losing relative power (think about that one). A myopic nationalist approach would only hasten the decline.
Obama is not our only hope but he is the best hope, bitch (whine) if u must but really who would you prefer in the office at this point?
From Jon Alter at Newsweek:
"Mid-tweet in last week's press conference, reporters were already complaining that President Obama wasn't making news. And by the old standards, they were right. Obama didn't drop any bombshells, or rein in his agenda, as so many have been urging, or tee up a YouTube-ready sound bite. The same gasbags who had blasted him for demeaning the presidency by cracking jokes on "The Tonight Show" and drinking a beer at a basketball game (hadn't some favored George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000 precisely because he was better "to have a beer with"?) now claim Obama's boring. On Sunday he had to defend himself on "60 Minutes" from the charge that he was "punch drunk" with mirth; by Wednesday, he was derided as too serious and professorial.
...In doing so, I'd venture that he was making news in a larger sense. He was signaling that he actually trusts people to stick with him through a complex, long-term argument. This is a radical idea and a helluva bet for an American president.
...He looks steady and competent and accomplished. While it was sold poorly, the recovery bill he signed was actually four or five major pieces of legislation in one, and adds up to more public investment than at any time in nearly half a century. It was also the largest tax cut in American history.
...Obama is tripling down, wagering not just that his recovery plan will work but that he can simultaneously dent three huge problems (not fix, dent) that keep getting worse. He's telling the people exactly what to expect from him for the duration of his presidency. He's insisting that repairing the nation's "foundation" begins right now, in this year's budget. And he's set himself up for failure if he doesn't bring big changes in our new policy trinity of Health, Energy and Education
Washington isn't bored by Obama; it's dazed and confused by him. I was on Capitol Hill in early March on the day the president's proposed budget came out. It was as though an IED had hit the place. Congressional aides asked each other in amazement...Can you believe it? The guy is trying to do what he said he would!...Last week a Democratic senator told me with a mixture of awe and worry that "every time I think he's gonna step on the brake, he hits the gas."
The critique comes in many metaphors. He's overloading the circuits. Putting too much freight on the truck. Biting off more than he can chew. That might be right. It's much easier to stop an idea in Congress than to get it through. ..."They're accustomed to incrementalism in this town," says David Axelrod. "Their answer is to muddle through—take the path of least resistance. Their lesson is, 'We're in a tough spot, so let's do less..."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/191407
Obama is not our only hope but he is the best hope, bitch (whine) if u must but really who would you prefer in the office at this point?
From Jon Alter at Newsweek:
"Mid-tweet in last week's press conference, reporters were already complaining that President Obama wasn't making news. And by the old standards, they were right. Obama didn't drop any bombshells, or rein in his agenda, as so many have been urging, or tee up a YouTube-ready sound bite. The same gasbags who had blasted him for demeaning the presidency by cracking jokes on "The Tonight Show" and drinking a beer at a basketball game (hadn't some favored George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000 precisely because he was better "to have a beer with"?) now claim Obama's boring. On Sunday he had to defend himself on "60 Minutes" from the charge that he was "punch drunk" with mirth; by Wednesday, he was derided as too serious and professorial.
...In doing so, I'd venture that he was making news in a larger sense. He was signaling that he actually trusts people to stick with him through a complex, long-term argument. This is a radical idea and a helluva bet for an American president.
...He looks steady and competent and accomplished. While it was sold poorly, the recovery bill he signed was actually four or five major pieces of legislation in one, and adds up to more public investment than at any time in nearly half a century. It was also the largest tax cut in American history.
...Obama is tripling down, wagering not just that his recovery plan will work but that he can simultaneously dent three huge problems (not fix, dent) that keep getting worse. He's telling the people exactly what to expect from him for the duration of his presidency. He's insisting that repairing the nation's "foundation" begins right now, in this year's budget. And he's set himself up for failure if he doesn't bring big changes in our new policy trinity of Health, Energy and Education
Washington isn't bored by Obama; it's dazed and confused by him. I was on Capitol Hill in early March on the day the president's proposed budget came out. It was as though an IED had hit the place. Congressional aides asked each other in amazement...Can you believe it? The guy is trying to do what he said he would!...Last week a Democratic senator told me with a mixture of awe and worry that "every time I think he's gonna step on the brake, he hits the gas."
The critique comes in many metaphors. He's overloading the circuits. Putting too much freight on the truck. Biting off more than he can chew. That might be right. It's much easier to stop an idea in Congress than to get it through. ..."They're accustomed to incrementalism in this town," says David Axelrod. "Their answer is to muddle through—take the path of least resistance. Their lesson is, 'We're in a tough spot, so let's do less..."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/191407
Terrorism About Which I Worry
TW: I concur with Klein. The type terrorist attacks I have always considered most likely are where heavily armed folks start shooting or exploding things amidst crowds (a mall, stadium, crowded street, airport check-in, schools etc.). This is what happened in Mumbai, the ease with which motivated (i.e. suicidal) terrorists could pull off such acts is not particularly high I would think regardless of security measures. This would essentially be Columbine on steroids.
The manic means by which American media and the public reacts to domestic sourced shootings overlaid with the emotion associated with "terrorism" would lead to a populist trauma that would have little bounds. Such trauma is exactly what the terrorists would be seeking of course.
"The leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud--who likely planned the assassination of Benazir Bhutto--has claimed credit for [the recent] horrific attack at the Pakistani police academy near Lahore, and he is threatening similar attacks in Washington:
"Soon we will launch an attack in Washington that will amaze everyone in the world," Mehsud told The Associated Press by phone.
This is not an insignificant threat: U.S. intelligence officials have been worried since the Mumbai slaughter in December that a new wave of low-tech terrorist attacks are in the offing, less spectacular that 9/11--but horrific nonetheless. "We've been lucky, if you can call it that, that Al Qaeda has been fixated on duplicating spectacular plots like 9/11," one intelligence expert told me.
...The Mumbai effort required no local infrastructure--no sleeper cells in India, nothing more than a few boats to ferry the attackers into Mumbai harbor, plus communications equipment and smalls arms. Similarly, and unlike the elaborate planning that preceded 9/11, Al Qaeda or Taliban terrorists could sneak across the porous Mexican or Canadian borders and hit a shopping mall, a government building, a sports event, a school anywhere in the United States..."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/31/terrors-next-wave/
The manic means by which American media and the public reacts to domestic sourced shootings overlaid with the emotion associated with "terrorism" would lead to a populist trauma that would have little bounds. Such trauma is exactly what the terrorists would be seeking of course.
There will come a time when Americans have to face up to sacrificing tremendous liberty in a likely futile effort to limit any losses to terrorists or learn how to absorb the risk and move on with their lives.
From Joe Klein at Time:"The leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud--who likely planned the assassination of Benazir Bhutto--has claimed credit for [the recent] horrific attack at the Pakistani police academy near Lahore, and he is threatening similar attacks in Washington:
"Soon we will launch an attack in Washington that will amaze everyone in the world," Mehsud told The Associated Press by phone.
This is not an insignificant threat: U.S. intelligence officials have been worried since the Mumbai slaughter in December that a new wave of low-tech terrorist attacks are in the offing, less spectacular that 9/11--but horrific nonetheless. "We've been lucky, if you can call it that, that Al Qaeda has been fixated on duplicating spectacular plots like 9/11," one intelligence expert told me.
...The Mumbai effort required no local infrastructure--no sleeper cells in India, nothing more than a few boats to ferry the attackers into Mumbai harbor, plus communications equipment and smalls arms. Similarly, and unlike the elaborate planning that preceded 9/11, Al Qaeda or Taliban terrorists could sneak across the porous Mexican or Canadian borders and hit a shopping mall, a government building, a sports event, a school anywhere in the United States..."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/31/terrors-next-wave/
Things I Like - Vacation
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)