The Ponds of Happenstance

When did the Power Rangers become a cultural icon?

2012-03-05T20:50:00.001-05:00

I have three children, aged fourteen, eleven, and four. The middle one is a boy, the other two are girls. And I remember when the oldest one became momentarily fixated on the Power Rangers, at the age of about four. Well no, exactly at the age of four. It was Power Rangers Wild Force that she watched; browsing through the various seasons on Wikipedia, I remembered the costumes immediately. And as I recall, her love affair with the show lasted for pretty much that one season, alone.

My son got the Ranger bug a bit earlier, latching on to the show in 2004, just before he turned four. That was the Power Rangers Dino Thunder year, a helluva combo--dinosaurs and superheroes--for a little boy. And once again, he was a fan for exactly one season (though to be fair, the oldest had a bit of a "relapse" and watched the show with him on occasion).

My youngest turned four last August and I hadn't even thought about Power Rangers at all, to be honest. Her tastes--after Sesame Street and Barney--have run more to Disney movies and whatever the older two happen to be watching. Until two days ago. Somehow--through a process that is beyond my ken--she specifically asked to watch Power Rangers. I didn't even know the show was still on the air and I know that I had never put it on for her, before. But there it was, the request. And imagine my surprise when--checking the TV guide--I found it for her, the latest incarnation Power Rangers Samurai. She asked for it again today, with a shout of "Power Rangers!"

What is it about this show that is so appealing to young children (apparently, especially to four year olds)? I thought perhaps that it was real people--who are young adults--in bright colors fighting with cool wepaons and moves, but with violence that's really less violent than in many cartoons. That and the shows are just so bland in dialogue, as to make them easily accessible to young children, even as they seem--to the same--like they are for older kids. And that's a big deal, being "older," in spirit if not reality. Plus, there's the running serial nature of the seasons, always a positive draw. But ultimately, it's a simpler thing: good guys stoppin' the bad guys.

So, when did this happen? Did the Power Rangers series establish a new rite of passage, of sorts? At first, I kind of thought this might be the case. But then I thought a little more on my childhood and remembered a couple of shows that were, if not the same, at least similar in feel.

There were a couple of live-action serial segments on the Hanna-Barbera variety show, The Banana Splits. This show ra from 1968 to 1970. Not coincidentally, I turned four in 1969. The live-action segments? Danger Island (staring a young Jan-Michael Vincent and directed by Richard Donner) and The New Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (initially a stand-alone show, but later incorporated into The Banana Splits.

True, these shows did not feature superheroes like the Power Rangers, but the feel was the same, especially for Danger Island: lots of action, goofy dialogue, and good guys fighting bad guys. But there are other shows that hit the superhero button from back then, as well. Not unsurprisingly, some are Japanese in origin, like Johnny Sokko And His Flying Robot (originally airing from 1967-1968) and Ultraman (airing from 1966-1967). Really, the last strikes me as so similar to Power Rangers that it was likely an inspiration for the series. If you've never seen it, give it a go.

All of these shows persisted on TV in rerun form for many years, well into the seventies. From there, I have to admit to unfamiliarity with children's television, so I leave it to others for finding shows like these. Overall, I think still that it's the good guys/bad guys motif with real people that appeals to the kids. That motif is--in my opinion--ever-present in civilization. Children learned to act it out with cops and robbers, or cowboys and Indians, or even Yangs and Coms. Perhaps--once upon a time--it was Roman legions and Germanic hordes, or Spartans and Persians. Barring that, they read it in books and comic books. And from there, they look for it on TV and in the movies.

S for now, it's Power Rangers and monsters that rule the day in four year old land. Hey, it's got to be less worrisome than dating or driving...

Cheers, all.

Evolution: Barack, Barry, Baraka, Barack

2012-03-05T11:08:00.001-05:00

Andrew Breitbart's legacy will likely be defined in the coming months ahead, as his website--Bretibart.com--plans on publishing a series of articles with the objective of properly vetting President Obama, something that Breitbart (along with many others) believed the media failed to do, prior to the 2008 Presidential Election.

The first piece is out. Written by Breitbart and entitled Barack's Love Song to Alinsky, it focuses on a play that premiered in Chicago way back in 1998. That play was The Love Song of Saul Alinsky, and Obama not only attended the premiere but was also a panelist for a post-performance discussion of Alinsky. The most interesting part of this expose is--to me--the poster advertising the play with the names of the panel on it. Here it is:

AlinskyPosterFullRez

Look carefully at that list of names, lest you believe the Breitbart piece is wrong. It includes Sen. Baraka Obama. Not Barack, but Baraka.

As has been well documented, "Barack" is of Swahili origin and means "blessing" (a very nice way of naming a child, by the way). But that's an anglicized form, as is "Barak." The name on the poster--"Baraka"--is the correct form and is--originally--Hebrew in origin. But the point is, "Baraka" suggests a closer affinity for an African heritage, as would another form, "Barakah" (though this would be more Arabian, as opposed to African). And we must surmise that this was Obama's intent, when he began calling himself Baraka, instead of Barack.

But prior to that, Obama went by the name "Barry" while in school. This Daily Beast story details the apparent transition from "Barry" to "Barack." Note that there is no mention of "Baraka" anywhere in it. And that's kind of perplexing, unless we allow that this poster (and press release) was some sort of aberration, that the name "Baraka" was an error (unlikely, though perhaps possible) or we allow that "Baraka" is something that needs to be buried.

Looking back at official documents from Obama's 1996 campaign shows him using his given name of Barack, not Baraka (and let's be clear about one thing: that name was given in Hawaii, because that is where Obama was born). Thus, Baraka was adopted to cull support from the the far left, the radical, the socialists, and the communists in Chicago. It was, in some respects, an "underground" handle for Obama, demonstrating that he was truly down for the struggle, was merely playing "the man" as it were.

So what does all of this really mean, what does it signify, taken as whole? The evolution of Obama, via his name? My take: Obama's use of Barry as a nickname is quite understandable. I have known many people who--when younger and in school--preferred a nickname over their given name to avoid either mistakes in pronunciation or ridicule. It's just not a big deal. Obama's "reawakening," so to speak, and his return to using his given name of Barack is also understandable. And also not a big deal.

But what of this apparent interlude with the name Baraka? It strikes me first as an affectation employed to ingratiate himself with radical sects in Chicago and elsewhere. And like his membership in Trinity Church, it would also appear to have always been a temporary thing, good for as long as it worked, no more. The calculations in this regard were easy enough to make: changing one's name to be perceived as more of a radical is no way to pursue higher office, no way to entice support from mainstream voters.

Radicalism aside, this is cold, hard political opportunism. And really, that would be okay if that's all it was. The problem--with regard to Obama--is that this opportunism is obscuring a reality, in my opinion, as has become evident by Obama's actions and policies. Obama is Baraka. He's always been Baraka, since he entered politics, since he became a disciple of Alinsky. And maybe people will finally start waking up to this.

Cheers, all.

Who's the greediest of them all?

2012-03-04T14:58:00.000-05:00

Previously, I talked about the coming Greek bailout and the fact that bondholders would take it on the chin:

The bondholders are like a credit card company, in a way, that is trying to collect from a delinquent customer, one that doesn't have any other assets to go after, but could possibly get back on their feet if they had some money (and really needs some money to eat, as well). But the reality is that the credit card company knows it will be lucky to see any money, whatsoever. Thus, it is willing to engage in negotiations to hopefully cut its losses. The alternative is to watch the customer go bankrupt and never see a dime of what it is owed.

So, the Greek government has negotiated with its bondholders (some of them, at any rate) to make huge cuts on what it owes them, thus allowing for the possibility that it can pay some portion of what it originally owed. By the way, the bondholders unwilling to cut the debt will be dragged kicking and screaming into the deal, but that's neither here nor there.

The day for the bondholders to sign off on this deal is approaching. In fact, it's this Thursday. And most people feel it's going to happen, to "get done." Why? Because as I noted, Greece will--supposedly--be able to force most of the bondholders to accept the plan, given that a good chunk has already agreed to it:

Analysts now believe that the deal will get done as more than 65 percent of holders — Greek banks and pension funds as well as large European banks — are likely to switch their old bonds for a package of new English law Greek bonds and securities issued by Europe’s rescue fund.

And, as Greece and its financial backers have insisted on a near universal participation, it is expected that Greece will deploy its new collective action clauses to compel those who decline the offer to take a loss as well.

But there are a few potential flies in this ointment. Some entities--hedge funds and other investment groups--have been actively seeking and buying Greek bonds that may fall outside the authority of the Greek government, with regard to this universal participation clause.

The idea--for these folks--is to hold out, to not participate in the debt exchange, then attempt to get much more for the bonds they hold from the Greek government, bonds they purchased at a steep discount, due to this impending deal.

Personally, I'm all for capitalism. I have no problem with someone seeing value where others see naught. But this is something else. Greece--by virtue of its government's greed and its citizenry's ignorance--is a wreck. If the second bailout goes through, the Greek economy will remain in a shambles and people will continue to suffer. Yet, to even make that happen, investors who bought Greek bonds in good faith will be forced to lose most of their investments' value. And that sucks. It's wrong because the Greek government was lying about a number of things, was less then forthcoming with regard to its real debts and liabilities.

But this move by some groups to find profit in the process is equally wrong. It's not predicated on finding unknown or unrealized value, or even on investing based on potential; it's predicated on extortion, plain and simple. And it not much different than lawyers who make their money by filing nuisance lawsuits, who hope companies will pay them off--even though there are no real damages--to avoid the cost and publicity of litigation.

The Greek government was greedy, yes. But this crowd--the ones that just bought in, looking for a payoff--is much worse.

Cheers, all.

Rousey-Tate delivers

2012-03-04T13:57:00.001-05:00

The highly anticipated match-up between Miesha "Take-down" Tate and "Rowdy" Ronda Rousey went down last night on Showtime. And, well, things went pretty much according to plan...if you happen to be Ronda Rousey. She submitted Tate via armbar at 4:36 of the first round to capture the Strikeforce Women's Bantamweight Championship.

For those unfamiliar with Rousey, this was her fifth--yes, fifth--professional fight. The other four all ended in the first round with Rousey submitting each foe in turn via an armbar. So, this result was hardly unexpected. But I guess one could say that last night's contest was a bit of a moral victory for Tate--the now-former champion--since she lasted for almost the entire first round. Rousey's previous four submission victories all came in under a minute, at 0:25, 0:49, 0:25, and 0:39, in chronological order.

To be fair, Rousey is no novice to competition, having won bronze in judo at the 2008 Olympics. Still, that's a far cry from having your opponent throw elbows, punches, and kicks at your face and body. But the experience angle--one Tate played up in pre-fight interviews--is dead now. The lady is the new champ and it's unlikely that anyone will move her anytime soon.

For Rousey--in many ways--is Tyson reborn. She's cold, all business, and absolutely without mercy. The armbar she applied to Tate did some real damage (that's partly Tate's fault, for not tapping sooner) and Rousey showed absolutely no remorse after the fight. Nor should she have, in my opinion.

But enough talk. Let's go to the highlights:

If you're thinking "hmmm, those two fighters are kind of attractive," you're not alone. And Showtime made liberal use of their good looks to promote the fight. Watch this clip:

There has been some talk of this being somewhat sexist. But I'd note that Rousey, herself, pushed for this fight because she believed hers and Tate's looks would build interest. Personally, I could have done without the shots in tight dresses, but I'm not particularly bothered by it. And at the end of the day, this fight is going to do a lot for women's MMA, perhaps even forcing the UFC to get into the game. Because last night's fight would have been a legitimate Pay-Per-View event (I'm certainly glad that it wasn't). The women in this game, from these two, to Sarah Kaufman (who triumphed in a bloodbath on the undercard and will likely be Rousey's next opponent), to former great Gina Carano, to the now-disgraced Cris Santos, are just as serious as the men and--frankly--just as good. They deserve more attention for their hard work and dedication. More money, too.

Congratulations, Ronda. Well done.

Cheers, all.

Then why isn't the economy booming? Tool.

2012-03-03T17:38:00.000-05:00

Katrina vanden Heuvel--editor of The Nation--weighs in on the issue of the government's role in the economy and society at large with her latest op-ed, Challenging the Self-Made Myth. Stressing the arguments of a soon-to-be-released new book, The Self-Made Myth: And the Truth about How Government Helps Individuals and Businesses Succeed, Ms, vanden Heuvel says:

Over the last thirty years, anti-government arguments by conservative pundits and politicians have gained prominence, and the rhetoric this 2012 campaign season seems more toxic than ever. Republicans are relentlessly pushing the notion that lower taxes, less regulation and small government (except for defense) will magically end the recession and create a better country, and “job creators” will lift all boats.

It’s BS.

The obvious questions: if bigger government, more government spending, and the like are such good things, why does the economy continue to ebb and flow, why is there still a business cycle, and why isn't growth through the roof right now, given the stimulus spending, health-care legislation, and increased regulatory powers we've seen under the current administration?

Any answer there, Ms. vanden Heuval? No, of course not. Because--and I can't say this any other way--you don't have a clue, don't know what you're talking about. The issues of the ineffectiveness of the Stimulus and of the costs to business of the healthcare legislation have been addressed ad nauseam, so let's take a quick look at the behemoth of government interference: regulation. The following chart shows just how bad things have gotten:

The number of rules and regulations impacting the citizenry--impacting business and the economy--continue to grow, year after year. And Ms. vanden Heuval would have us believe that this is a good thing as a matter of course, that these regulations are either positive or inconsequential factors, when it comes to economic growth:

A central thesis of the book is that the greater an individual’s success, the greater his or her dependence on public infrastructure, public investment in research and innovation, and regulations and fair rules—all of which business leaders in the book cite as essential to their own accomplishments.

Really, her biggest error lies in her inability to separate--to breakdown--the situation into specifics. Because the idea that there are far too many regulations and rules is not the same thing as the idea that there should be no regulations or rules.

In the realm of medical care, it has been posited--via research--that the typical doctor's office spends far too much time on paperwork, nearly four times as much as would be spent in Canada, for instance. And the new Obamacare legislation will only increase the load, as doctors struggle to follow new rules.

This is onerous regulation, no question about it. None of it is "vital" to a doctor's success and--to make matters worse--it serves to deprive patients of better care by limiting how much time doctors and nurses can devote to patient care. To suppose this is all a good thing, that it somehow leads to economic growth is beyond laughable. Yet, that is exactly the case Ms. vanden Heuval is trying to make.

And things are not much different in many other industries, where adherence to government regulation requires not only time and money, but often specialized employees who do nothing more than oversee compliance. Again, this is not a recipe for growth, but one for stagnation.

The idea that trimming the fat from the government's many regulatory bodies will lead "magically" to growth is just downright obnoxious. There's nothing magical about it, it's just common sense and easily verifiable in actual practice. That's not to say--again--that no rules or regulations are needed. Some certainly are. But the ones designed to achieve some sort of goal by government know-it-alls are--almost always--useless and costly. And it's these that need to go, if economic growth is what we're after.

Then again, maybe Ms. vanden Heuval doesn't really want economic growth...

Regardless, the chief point remains: if all of this stuff was of such a benefit, why doesn't the economy always grow? In fact, if this were the case, logically the more onerous regulations were, the more economic growth there would be. Right? They're a funny people, these liberals and progressives. Aren't they?

Cheers, all.

North Korea: the happiest place on Earth?

2012-03-03T15:32:00.000-05:00

In 1998, the DPRK and South Korea reached an agreement to allow tourism from the South into the Mount Kumgang region of the North, a place long famed for its scenic beauty. To that end, a joint venture was undertaken: the construction of the Diamond Mountain Resort in the region. The resort was intended to be a luxury destination with all of the usual expected amenities, including a golf course, various water sports, spas, and the like. The actual construction and operation of the resort fell to South Korea's Hyundai Group.

To handle this project and other work in the DPRK, Hyundai Asan was spun off from the Hyundai Group, proper, in 1999. Hyundai Asan's brief history is filled with deals falling apart (due to arbitrary actions by the DPRK), accusations of corruption and bribery, and failed projects. But the Diamond Mountain Resort is at the top--or rather the bottom--of the heap.

According to Bloomberg, the Hyundai Asan has spent over $427 million on the resort. From 1998 to 2008, the resort drew nearly two million visitors from South Korea. But it all came to an horrific end in 2008, as a 53 year-old South Korean tourist was shot to death by North Korean soldiers for allegedly entering a restricted area:

Park was shot twice from behind, hospital official Cho Yong-seok said. One bullet hit her in the chest, causing her death, and another shot struck her left hip, he said.

Rough neighborhood, that. Shortly thereafter, South Korea barred visits to the Kumgang Region by its citizens. Predictably, the DPRK leadership threatened the South if the tourism ban was not lifted immediately. It began seizing assets in the region owned by the South. Then in 2011, the DPRK simply seized all of the assets that were left, be they owned by the South Korean government or by Hyundai Asan:

The seizure announcement came via the North's state news agency.

"We consider that the South has completely given up all rights on properties owned by South Korean companies and now start legal disposal of them," KCNA said in a statement.

It said assets such as real estate, equipment and vehicles would be considered abandoned and disposed of.

No property could be taken from the site and South Korean personnel there had 72 hours to leave, it added.

By "legal disposal," the DPRK apparently means it will simply assume ownership, no paperwork required. Hyundai Asan--despite its apparent payoffs to the DPRK--is just out everything, at this point in time. And due to other ventures in the North, it is in a very precarious position.

The DPRK has now decided that it has waited long enough and is seeking to re-open the resort, hoping it will provide a desperately needed revenue stream. But with South Korean tourists unavailable, it is instead hoping to lure wealthy tourists from elsewhere, including the U.S. From the Bloomberg piece, above:

Cash-starved North Korea has hired an American company to help it revive a shuttered luxury resort and attract tourists, a plan that has raised objections from Seoul.

Korea Pyongyang Trading USA, a New York-based liquor importer, is working on a plan to attract travelers to Mount Geumgang on the east coast of North Korea, a country the U.S. State Department permits Americans to visit while warning it has a history of arbitrarily arresting foreigners.

Simon T. Bai, 67, director of marketing and planning for Korea Pyongyang, said the company wants Americans to visit North Korea to give the nation exposure to freedom and democracy. The company was hired in July to study opening a casino at Geumgang, according to documents it submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice in December under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

Maybe it's just me, but North Korea is the absolute last place I would want to visit for a little casino action. If--somehow--I won big, I might be rewarded with a trip to a sealed room and a game of "dunk the Yankee." But then, I'd assume all the games would be rigged, to begin with, so I can't imagine that anyone could actually win.

That said, the region really is breathtaking:

Who wouldn't want to spend some time there? Plus, the novelty of the experience is a major draw.

But at what cost? Feeding a totalitarian regime cash, enabling the continued oppression of its people? Sorry, no, I'm not having any. I'll give my dollars to the Mouse, first. He may be a greedy SOB and a corporate bully, but at least he won't torture his employees, starve them, then shoot me in the back. Literally.

Cheers, all.

Pointless Probing at Politico

2012-03-02T11:08:00.000-05:00

Darren Samuelsohn--senior energy and environment reporter for Politico Pro--has written what may very well be the lamest story I've every read. Entitled "Hard to put a price on Solyndra probe," the story opens with the following:

House Republicans love hyping the half-billion dollars they say the Obama administration squandered on Solyndra’s loan guarantee.

But they’re much less talkative about how much they’ve spent in their year-old probe of the Energy Department and the bankrupt California solar company that was once a stimulus poster child. And those numbers are hard to find.

Sounds enticing, doesn't it? No doubt there's a big payoff ahead, some serious investigative work that demonstrates massive spending, unprecedented spending, by these House Republicans. Right? Well, I'll save you the trouble of reading the story: there's nothing there. Zero, nada, zilch. Just some silly attempt at analysis revolving around the salaries of various staffers and aides for the House Energy and Commerce Committee and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

There isn't even a final tally of the costs offered, despite the allusions in the opening above. And after all of the pointless and ham-handed analysis, the article concludes with this:

No matter the figure, some Democrats acknowledge Republicans are justified in their oversight focus on DOE’s programs. Even if the committees’ spending were to exceed $1 million, it still is a relatively small number compared with the $535 million loan guarantee lost when Solyndra went belly-up.

“I don’t think you can put a value on keeping an eye on government behavior,” said former Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who chaired the Energy and Commerce oversight panel during the previous Congress.

Which begs the question: why the hell did this story even go up?

But the answer to that question is given in the first line of the story. Note the language employed: "House Republicans love hyping." Can anyone say agenda? Mr. Samuelsohn's partisanship is on full display, made even more obvious by the "they say" caveat, suggesting that the money to Solyndra perhaps wasn't squandered, that it may all be some sort of nefarious scheme ginned up by the Republicans in Congress.

There's no question that House Republicans are getting a lot of mileage from the Solyndra scandal, but there's also no question that the scandal really is a scandal. Yet, Mr. Samuelsohn eschews the actual real journalism that uncovered the scandal, in favor of less-than-subtle hinting that it's non-existent and accompanied by a hit piece without any meat.

Some days, all you can do is shake your head in disgust at the current state of journalism.

Cheers, all.

For making the morning brighter...

2012-03-01T11:00:00.003-05:00

...thank you Davy.

Former Monkees singer Davy Jones passed away yesterday in Florida at the age of 66. Born in England, Davy came to the United States to pursue an acting career. Oddly enough, his first television appearance was on The Ed Sullivan Show on the same day as The Beatles first appearance on the same. It's an odd moment to consider: a young actor juxtaposed with the the hottest band in the world. That was in February of 1964.

Flash forward to December of 1966--not quite two years later--and it's The Monkees' I'm a Believer taking over the top spot on Billboard, eventually becoming the number one song of 1967 (with Daydream Believer coming in at number three for the same year). And that was the second number one for the Monkees in 1966, with their debut single--Last Train to Clarksville--having already been at the top of the charts.

The Monkees--throughout their brief initial existence of three years with the original line-up--would have four number one albums, with More of the Monkees holding the top spot for eighteen consecutive weeks. For a brief period, they were the hottest band in the world.

Years later, we all know much of this was a mirage: The Monkees were created wholesale from sackcloth for the TV show, most of their songs were penned by other people, especially their big hits, and--while Michael Nesmith and Peter Tork were serious musicians--Jones and Dolenz weren't at all (Micky Dolenz couldn't even play the drums when the band was slapped together).

But thanks to the TV show, the band's legacy has endured. The show premiered in September of 1966 (when I was not quite a year old) and lasted only two seasons, yet lived on in reruns for many, many years.

I still remember waiting for the show on Saturday mornings in the mid-seventies. It was the highlight of my week, no question about it. It was goofy, outrageous, and just plain fun. And I loved the music. That love continued well beyond my younger years, continues to this day. In high school, my beat-up Maverick was full of heavy metal cassettes, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Motley Crue, what have you, but The Monkees Greatest Hits was ever-present. In colloge--in 1986--I bought Then and Now on the day it was released. The 1991 boxed set--Listen to The Band--is in my collection and indeed, has bee borrowed by my daughter on occasion.

They were a fake band. Right. I got it. But so what? The songs may have been written for them--mostly--and music may have been laid down by others, but it was their sound, their look. They sold it, for better or worse, and I see no reason not to credit them, Davy Jones, Peter Tork, Micheal Nesmith, and Micky Dolenz.

Now, Davy is gone and I am truly sad. He brought me joy, that funny little English guy. He was a great face for the band and it was his vocals on some of their most classic ballads. Of all the Monkees songs, there are several that will always be my favorites. The big hits--mentioned above--of course, but also What Am I Doing Hangin' Round, The Door into Summer (both written by Nesmith), and the following:

Incidentally, this song--Shades of Grey--comes from the 1967 album Headquarters. And on it, The Monkees play almost all of their own instruments on every track. And they also composed many of the songs, as well. The album still went to number one.

So, cheers Davy Jones. Thanks for the memories, the Saturday mornings, the long drives in the car, and everything else. You will be missed. Godspeed, sir.

Look, the robocall stuff was over the line

2012-02-29T10:31:00.000-05:00

After Romney's wins in Michigan and Arizona last night, the punditry world is abuzz with speculation on what this means. As usual. Romney's margin of victory--3 points--in Michigan was pretty small. And given that Michigan was a kind of "home state" for Romney, it begs the question, were there any significant numbers of Democrats that crossed over to vote for Santorum?

Because there were a number of attempts to make this happen--deliver Michigan to Santorum via Democratic votes--starting with "Operation Hilarity" from the clowns at Daily Kos. They're even soliciting donations to run ad campaigns on Facebook for the effort. In Michigan proper, there were localized efforts to achieve the same end from people like Tony Trupiano, host of a progressive talk-radio show in Detroit, and from Joe DiSano, a Democratic campaign consultant in Michigan. The latter used robocalls and mailers to convince Democrats in Michigan to vote for Santorum.

All is fair in politics, right? The Daily Kos effort mirrors--not unsurprisingly, given their lack of creativity--the Rush Limbaugh-promoted "Operation Chaos" in 2008. The goal there was to extend the Democratic Primary by having Republicans cross over to vote for Hillary Clinton, when it seemed that Obama was beginning to pull away.

Did it work? Some claim that Clinton's victories in the Ohio, Indiana and Texas primaries were because of Republican crossover, but it's a difficult thing to prove definitively, one way or the other. I think the effects of Operation Chaos were minimal, at best. Similarly, I doubt Operation Hilarity will go anywhere. It's a fun game to play, however. Limbaugh garnered a great deal of press on the matter and no doubt, so will the Daily Kos and people like Trupiano.

But here's a legitimate question to ask: did Hillary Clinton embrace Operation Chaos? Did she attempt to use it to her advantage? Not that I remember. Santorum--in contrast--did exactly that by unleashing his own program of robocalls in Michigan, calls that encouraged Democrats to come vote for him:

"Michigan Democrats can vote in the Republican primary on Tuesday. Why is it so important?" the voice on the call says. "Romney supported the bailouts for his Wall Street, billionaire buddies, but opposed the auto bailouts. That was a slap in the face to every Michigan worker, and we're not going to let Romney get away with it."

The call urges listeners to "send a loud message" to Romney by voting for Santorum, even though Santorum, too, opposed the auto industry bailout. It ends with the line: "This call is supported by hard-working Democratic men and women and paid for by Rick Santorum for president."

It reall doesn't make a lot of sense, the idea that voting for Santorum--if one is a Dem--would send a message to Romney. The Santorum campaign defended the calls, arguing that they were designed to turn out the so-called "Reagan Democrats" for Santorum. Rush Limbaugh--for his part--supported the action by Santorum, accepting the idea that the targets were these Reagan Democrats:

“There are, and particularly in Michigan, there are a lot of Reagan Democrats who are more socially conservative than there are moderate Republicans,” he said, according to a transcript of his show. “And it’s an open primary state, Santorum’s appealing to them. There are a lot of Reagan Democrats, and Obama has said he’s not going to go after those voters.”

With all due respect to Rush, the gist of Santorum's robocall doesn't really support that interpretation. Santorum didn't ask Democrats to vote for him because of his stance on social issues, he asked Democrats to vote for him based on class-warfare rhetoric, nothing more.

And either way, the reality is that the Santorum campaign had to be aware of the efforts by groups like Daily Kos to extend the race. If he really had the kind of principles he claims to have, he would have distanced himself from that kind of effort, if not openly condemned it. But he didn't. He embraced it. Which is--again--exactly not what Hillary Clinton did.

Unacceptable.

It's a sad day when a Clinton's ethics are superior to yours. Santorum needs to take a hard look at himself in the mirror and admit that he crossed a line.

Cheers, all.

LightSquared, one week later

2012-02-28T17:08:00.000-05:00

Last week, I discussed the company LightSquared, it's primary financial backer Harbinger Capital, and the apparent collusion with the Obama administration. All of this was insufficient to overcome a major problem with LightSquared's business plan: it's satellite network interferes with GPS signals.

Later on the same day--last Tuesday--LightSquared announced that it will be cutting it's workforce by nearly 50%. But true to form, Harbinger owner Philip Falcone insisted that that company is not shutting down:

LightSquared reportedly told Reuters Tuesday that it plans to lay off 45 percent of its workforce in a "prudent and necessary cost savings measure to ensure the long-term success of the company."

Philip Falcone, the hedge fund manager who is behind the company, has insisted that LightSquared won't shut down despite a series of disastrous developments. Reuters cited an unnamed source as saying LightSquared "is not considering bankruptcy."

Today, Harbinger and LightSquared investors--many of whom are suing Falcone and Harbinger--got some more "good" news. Lightsquared's CEO is stepping down. Sanjiv Ahuja, brought in as CEO by Falcone when SkyTerra first became LightSquared, was involved in some of those White House meetings prior to the formation of LightSquared and prior Mr. Ahuja actually being named CEO, as detailed by The Daily Caller.

But fear not for Mr. Ahuja. He will--for the moment--remain involved with LightSquared:

Ahuja will remain as chairman of the board and Philip Falcone, the billionaire hedge fund manager who has invested millions in building out a LightSquared LTE wireless network, was also appointed to the board, the company said in a statement.

Board positions are interesting things; inaccessible to the vast majority of people, they can be quite lucrative and often involve little or no work, with the added benefit of providing protection from various potential legal entanglements. So what we have here is some cover for both Ahuja and Falcone, plus access to some further cash payouts even as LightSquared is wound down and potentially shut down in the near future.

To be fair, Falcone has lost a ridiculous amount of money in this LightSquared venture. And with the pending lawsuits filed against him and his company, he probably needs every last cent he can get his hands on.

Where will LightSquared be in another week? Only the Shadow knows...

Cheers, all.

Keystone a go: what will Redford say?

2012-02-27T20:40:00.000-05:00

The White House has--I'm not kidding--agreed to allow TransCanada to begin construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Part of it, anyway. According to Politico, the White House signed off today on that portion of the pipeline that will run from Cushing, Oklahoma to Texas. White House spokesmodel Jay Carney had this to say:

We look forward to working with TransCanada to ensure that it is built in a safe, responsible and timely manner, and we commit to take every step possible to expedite the necessary federal permits.

That's nice. Of course, Carney also said this:

The reason why the Keystone XL required the review that it did is because it crossed, that pipeline crossed an international boundary. The State Department, by tradition and rule, reviews those requests for permits and was in the process of doing just that when the Republicans forced us to deny it because tried to compel the administration to grant a permit to a pipeline for which the route didn't even exist. Which was obviously was not the right thing to do.

Never mind that the sticking point was the Sand Hills region in Nebraska, not the international boundary, remember that only recently, Jay Carney claimed that "the President didn't turn down the Keystone pipeline." And today, he insisted that the now-approved portion of the pipeline was basically fine, all along. Funny how that tidbit was buried in previous briefings. And even funnier is how that tidbit escaped Obama's erstwhile environmentalist fan club, led by Robert Redford. Let's recall what Mr. Redford said, just last month:

The president stood up to Big Oil and listened to Americans saying: "We're done with fossil fuel schemes that destroy our land, poison our water and wreak havoc with our climate so that oil companies can make out like bandits." Now we need to continue to stand with the president and make it clear that tar sands pipelines are not in our national interest.

It should be fascinating to see what Redford has to say about this latest announcement from the White House. Will he brand the President a traitor to the cause, or will he excuse this portion of the project with a bit of sleight-of-hand, perhaps arguing that it possesses no real danger?

Of course, the Administration looks more than prepared to approve the remainder of the project. TransCanada indicated it would reapply for the cross-border permit, and the White House signaled that it will be accommodating:

The White House also welcomed TransCanada’s decision to reapply for the cross-border Keystone permit.

“We will ensure any project receives the important assessment it deserves, and will base a decision to provide a permit on the completion of that review,” Carney said in the statement.

Good news for the economy, good news Republicans that pushed for the pipeline (the White House can't spin it's way out of this: they capitulated, period), bad news for Redford and company. I think.

Cheers, all.

Third bailout? Greece can't even pay the vig on the first one

2012-02-27T10:49:00.000-05:00

With a second bailout of Greece pretty much agreed to by the EU and with the holders of Greek debt prepared to take some more heavy losses--all for the dim hope that they might somehow recoup a small measures of their investments--Angela Merkel is now openly proclaiming that "there is no 100 percent guarantee that the second bailout programme will succeed."

Of course, there is never a 100% guarantee that any plan will work, so why does Merkel bother to make the point? Obviously, I think, it is because she knows that there is very little chance of the second bailout working. The Economist agrees:

First, the demands being made of Greece will be almost impossible to meet: they will eventually need more money or some kind of forbearance. Wolfgang Schäuble, Germany's finance minister, and Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg’s prime minister, have both suggested in recent days that a third bail-out may well be needed.

The issue here is pretty simple: Greek bonds are worthless, more worthless than mortgage-backed securities even. Bond-holders have already seen their investments lose 70% or more of their value. The second Greek bailout is really no such thing, as the monies involved will mostly be used to make the drastically reduced payments to these bondholders. What is left will be used to keep the Greek government running--in a similarly drastically reduced form--for a another six months or so. Then what? How will Greece possibly meet it's next round of obligations? It can't, so it won't. That's when it will be time for bailout number three.

But who is going to--in their right minds--eat that loss? The EU banks? Not bloody likely. They're already saddled with truckloads of worthless Greek paper and they're more than a little worried about Italian and Spanish paper, as well. The IMF (i.e. the United States)? Talk about setting the table for 2012, mein Gott, I don't think so. The EU member-nations? Well that's pretty much all that's left, unless the EU agrees to sell Greece to China, outright.

I guess--in a way--one has to admire Merkel's tenacity here. She knows the end-game, but is apparently hoping for some sort of miracle. But where will it come from? A real default is the only answer and that means--for Merkel and the EU--admitting that the first two bailouts were pointless wastes of money and--for Greece--accepting that it must reorder its structures in total, allow that it must shrink back into a second-world nation (or worse). And that is just not gonna happen, as Tyler Durden as Zerohedge so eloquently notes, in answer to the question "would Greece accept a default?":

Why of course not: since nobody in Greece has the balls to say enough, why should the broke European banks, whose LTRO lifeline incidentally is ending, stop sucking the last remaining drops of blood from the Greek debt slaves? If we were in their shoes we would do precisely the same thing until the bitter end. And frankly, just like America is about to get a president it deserves, so Greeks are clearly the recipients of just the fate they so rightfully have 'earned' by doing absolutely nothing. But go ahead and throw a Molotov cocktail or two, and don't forget to loot that store right next to Syntagma square. After all, what is heroism if not stealing from others, just the way the despised banker uberclass steals from you?

If you think you're hearing a bit of anger in my words--not to mention in Durden's--you're right. And that's because this entire situation is the consequence of stupidity: stupidity on the part of Greek politicians (that goes back decades), stupidity on the part of the EU, and stupidity on the part of economic analysts who--via deeply flawed methodologies--have enabled all of this, who have crunched meaningless numbers extrapolated from a fantasy version of reality.

And who will pay for all of this stupidity? Everyday Greek citizens, who were promised a bill of goods not earned and never paid for. While I sympathize with their plight, they let it happen, failed to ask the right questions, and succumbed to the promises of their own elites, who were never much more than gangsters.

Cheers, all.

Want some cheese to go with that whine?

2012-02-26T18:22:00.002-05:00

Colbert King--in a Washington Post op-ed--openly whines about criticisms and attacks directed at President Obama. He begins with some theatrics about an over-the-top op-ed written by someone named Andrew Adler in something called the Atlanta Jewish Times. The op-ed was quite obnoxious, to be sure, essentially calling for Israel to order the assassination of President Obama (or any other U.S. President), if it proves necessary to guarantee Israel's existence. But then, most of us have probably heard far worse in everyday interactions.

King, however, uses this nonsense as a spring-board for his own self-pitying whine-fest. He proclaims--without a trace of irony--that:

To read in a mainstream publication that Barack Obama should be killed takes the breath away.

Wait, what? Here is the actual article in the Atlanta Jewish Times. Again, it's obnoxious. But it doesn't say Barack Obama should be killed, it says Netanyahu should be prepared to do whatever has to be done to protect Israels's existence. The writer is operating from the view that this existence is in real jeopardy and clearly he is more worried about that than anything else.

But more importantly, the Atlanta Jewish Times is not a "mainstream publication"! It's just not. Who is Colbert King trying to kid? Oh, that's right: the entire country.

The Atlanta Jewish Times is a small community newspaper with a supposed current readership of around 3,500 (down from 25,000 in 2005). The author of the article in question is the owner of the paper, which he purchased in 2009. I haven't been keeping up with the paper, but maybe that drop off in readership is related to silly articles like this one?

Regardless, this is not a "mainstream publication." To claim that it is--in order to justify some serious whining--is dishonest, to say the least. Note that the piece was published on January 13th. It took over a month for Colbert King to hear about it.

But based on this breathtaking article, King proceeds to lament the many barbs and arrows Obama has suffered, allowing that past Republican Presidents have dealt with similar attacks, but it is nonetheless different for Obama:

What sets anti-Obama foes apart from the persecutors of Bush, Reagan et al., however, is that the purveyors of this brand of inflammatory rhetoric include the GOP presidential candidates themselves.

Yah. Okay. I have to wonder where--exactly--Mr. King was in 2004, 2000, 1996, and so on. One example should suffice, I think. Howard Dean--Democratic candidate for President--said the following in January of 2004 about President Bush:

This president is not interested in being a good president. He's interested in some complicated psychological situation that he has with his father.

That's a pretty vicious attack, and rivals those provided by King on Obama. But I bet I know the problem: King probably agrees with the attack, therefore it's okay...

Cheers, all.

Rising star Kamala Harris subverts democracy

2012-02-25T13:45:00.000-05:00

Kamala Harris is currently serving as the Attorney General for the State of California. Elected in 2010, Ms. Harris has made a name for herself, but fast. She is a longtime Democrat and supporter of President Obama and was just recently named a co-chairperson for his reelection campaign. She has received many honors and awards for her work as a prosecutor (she truly excelled here) and is currently on the front lines of attempts to go after banks for misleading consumers on mortgage issues. Indeed, she's very big on protecting the citizenry.

And she doesn't limit her efforts to protect the citizenry to just private concerns, at all. As the DA for San Francisco, Harris created the Public Integrity Unit in 2004. The duties of this unit:

The Public Integrity Unit is a sub-unit of the Special Prosecutions Unit and is responsible for handling a wide spectrum of misconduct, including all forms of public corruption—ranging from bribery and theft of public funds to election fraud and illegal conflicts of interest.

For her election campaign in 2010, Harris trumpeted her own political integrity, as well:

Kamala Harris takes seriously the duty of all elected officials to firmly support their oath of office.

Given her background and the thrust of her work as a DA, it's therefore somewhat surprising to discover that Kamala Harris appears to be just another hypocrite in public office, not above using her position to dishonestly manipulate the public.

The arena of manipulations concerns attempts to reform California's State pensions, which are steadily and unavoidably forcing the State deeper and deeper into debt. The attempt by the California Pension Reform group to get an initiative in this regard on the next ballot has been withdrawn, thanks to--according to the group--Ms. Harris :

The decision was made "after determining that the Attorney General's false and misleading title and summary makes it nearly impossible to pass," Dan Pellissier, the group's president, said in a statement.

The title for the initiative that Ms. Harris came up with was "Reduces pensions for public employees." And in the summary for the initiative (these are the things voters would see on the ballot), the following language was used:

...Reduces pension benefits for current and future public employees...eliminates constitutional protections for current and future public employees' vested pension benefits...prohibits public retirement systems from providing death or disability benefits to future employees...

What hope would such an initiative have of passing? Zero. And that was the point. The AG's office insists that the language was accurate, of course, but it's not getting a lot of support in that regard even from people of a liberal persuasion. For instance, George Skelton of the Sacramento Bee calls Harris' summary "nonsense," even as he points out the history of manipulating ballot measures leads straight to a Republican AG. He offers a plea to Harris and notes the legal requirments for the AG, when it comes to ballot measures:

Give the voters a break. It's hard enough to figure out what most of these ballot measures do without the A.G. dishing out hard-core propaganda on official documents.

Under the 1974 Political Reform Act, the attorney general is granted sole authority to prepare the ballot title and summary. State law requires the A.G. to provide an "impartial statement of the purpose of the measure" in language unlikely "to create prejudice for or against" the proposal.

Given Ms. Harris' claims and background on public integrity, one would think such an admonishment would have been unnecessary.

Unfortunately, it turns out that Kamala Harris is in the pocket of California's public sector unions, as Steven Greenhut at Reason Magazine notes. And similarly to Mr. Skelton, he describes the AG's produced initiative and summary as being "filled with distortions meant to sway voters against them," exactly contrary to the requirements mandated by law.

It's a shameful spectacle, an Attorney General willingly subverting a democratic process to serve her special interest supporters. And it's probably not all that uncommon. But the facts are clear for all to see in this case and when a politician can be burned down for violating their oath of office, they should be burned down.

Cheers, all.

JFK's political acumen: near the top of the heap

2012-02-24T20:54:00.002-05:00

I recently discussed Mimi Alford's allegations concerning President Kennedy, noting that if true, these new details do a great deal of damage to what remains of the Camelot myth. But I also note that, despite his flaws as a person, Kennedy's achievements are--and will always be--the stuff of greatness. Kennedy himself was a formidable politician and intellect, that can also not be denied.

To that end, it is fascinating how small bits of information, details of activities, and even short conversations can often provide the most compelling evidence with regard to a person's capabilities and even intelligence. Consider this phone call between President Kennedy and General Godfrey McHugh:

The background of the call: it was mid-1963, Kennedy was President and Jackie was pregnant. Otis Air Force base--located on Cape Cod--was a potential location for delivery, if the First Family happened to be in the area when it was time. Given the possibility of such a development, officials at the base--wisely, they believed--decided to prep a delivery room for Mrs. Kennedy, just to be safe. Somehow, the press got wind of this and reporters from the Washington Post were actually allowed to view the room and even take pictures for a story on the "special" delivery room. Shots from this story are in the YouTube video, above.

And that brings us to the phone call. President Kennedy was furious when he saw the story in the Post. The first thing he did was give both barrels to Arthur Sylvester, press officer for Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara:

I'd just like to send that goddamn furniture back…to Jordan Marsh in an Air Force truck this afternoon with that captain [who made the furniture purchase] on it...What about transferring his ass out of here in about a month?…for incompetence, not for screwing us. And that silly fellow who had his picture taken next to the bed, I'd have him go up to Alaska, too.

Clearly, Kennedy saw the incident as a PR nightmare. But there more there than just that. From the phone call in the YouTube video:

Did you see that fella's picture by the bed. And did you see that furniture they bought from Jordan Marsh? What the hell did they allow reporters in there for? Are they crazy up there? Now you know what's going to do…any Congressmanis going to get up and they'll say, "If they can throw away $5,000 on this, lets cut them another billion dollars. You just sank the Air Force budget. They're crazy up there. Are they crazy? That silly bastard with his picture next to the bed. I want to find out who paid for that furniture and I want itto go back to Jordan Marsh. Then I want that incompetent fellow who had his picture taken next to Mrs. Kennedy's bed, if that's what it is. He's just a silly bastard. I wouldn't have him running a Cat House. I hope they're not all incompetent. Is that the way they are throwing money around over there. You better look into it, especially after you told me it wouldn't cost a cent.

Look carefully at what Kennedy is saying. He's not upset about the arrangements being made, per se, he's upset that they not only became public knowledge, but that officials used them for a photo op. He doesn't want the furniture sent back because he really thought it was too extravagant and/or a waste of money, but because he's been forced to play it that way; he anticipates the potential responses from the story and immediately adjusts his perspective accordingly. And he doesn't suffer fools at all, let alone not gladly.

This really is an impressive display of political acumen on Kennedy's part, something that our current politicians should take note of, learn from. I doubt Kennedy would have allow his press secretary to make the White House look foolish on two successive occasions. And he--Kennedy--wouldn't have inserted his foot down his own throat by spewing the talking points of his ideological adversaries.

The politicians of today: pale shadows of those from the past?

Cheers, all.

Carney is Tapper's Beyotch

2012-02-24T10:06:00.000-05:00

After slapping Carney around on the issue of the Keystone pipeline a few days ago--even getting Carney to contradict himself--ABC News' Jake Tapper is at it again. This time, the subject is journalism in general and what Tapper suggests is an inconsistent message coming from the White House:

Given the praise coming from the White House, with regard to the investigative work in Syria of recently killed journalist Marie Colvin and recently deceased journalist Anthony Shadid, Tapper says the following:

This is the sixth time you’re suing a CIA officer for allegedly providing information in 2009 about CIA torture. Certainly that’s something that’s in the public interest of the United States; his administration is taking this person to court. There just seems to be a disconnect here. You want aggressive journalism abroad -- you just don’t want it in the United States.

Carney's rather mealy-mouthed response:

And as somebody who knew both Anthony and Marie, I particularly appreciate what they did to bring that story to the American people. As for other cases, again, without addressing any specific case, I think that there are issues here that involve highly-sensitive, classified information, and I think that those are -- divulging that kind of information is a serious issue and always has been.

And Tapper's conclusion:

So the truth should come out abroad; it shouldn’t come out here?

Personally, I think there can be wholly legitimate reasons for the government to act against whistle-blowers, to prevent certain information from coming out. But Tapper is right on the issue of consistency. The error being made by the White House is it's attempt to "cuddle up" to the media. It's enough to note the deaths of these journalists and to express sympathy. Biden's statement on Shadid's death:

I've spent much of my career working on America's policy toward the Middle East, and particularly Iraq. Like millions of other readers around the world, I have enriched my understanding of that complex region through the reporting of Anthony Shadid. In the finest tradition of foreign correspondence, Shadid was never content merely to opine from afar. He went where the story took him--from the fall of Saddam Hussein, to the battlefields of Southern Lebanon, to the profound transformations of the Arab Spring--often at extraordinary personal risk. Few foreign correspondents of his generation, or any other, could match his mastery of the language and cultures in the region he covered. And he used those gifts to seek out those far from the corridors of power--giving voice to Iraqis, Lebanese, Egyptians and many others who might otherwise not have been heard.

Biden, unfortunately, is in that corridor of power. And given the current situation and recent history, it's a bad time for him to praise some truth-seekers when he's actively engaged in silencing others.

Cheers, all.

February's Chart of the Month

2012-02-23T17:46:00.000-05:00

From Scribe at the Heritage Foundation:

The scuttlebutt about almost half of all Americans not paying any income tax has been out there for quite a while now. And truth be told, I've always thought it was a little inflated. After all, there are legitimate reasons for being off of the tax rolls. There are young people, people in college, retired people, people on disability, people on unemployment insurance, etc. And there are--of course--people on welfare and/or other forms of government assistance.

But how many people, what percentage of the population, would fall into those categories? If we allow that thirteen percent or so of the population is retired and another twenty-seven percent or so is too young to work, employed in jobs that pay very little, and/or in school, that gives us around 40% of the population that wouldn't be paying any taxes. Kick in another ten percent that is out of work or on public assistance--for one reason or another--and we're at 50%. Everything's copacetic, right?

Unfortunately, my thinking here is deeply flawed. Note that if I was right, if 50% was a realistic number, then past history wouldn't make any sense. After all, how could the number have possibly been below 30% for so many years? U.S. demographics haven't changed that much.

What I am missing is right there on the chart: it shows "the percentage of the population not represented on a taxable return." That big chunk of young people and students I was including are--or should be--represented on taxable returns as dependents:

"One of the most worrying trends in the Index is the coinciding growth in the non-taxpaying public,” wrote Heritage authors Bill Beach and Patrick Tyrrell. “The percentage of people who do not pay federal income taxes, and who are not claimed as dependents by someone who does pay them, jumped from 14.8 percent in 1984 to 49.5 percent in 2009."

Excuse me for a moment while I silently say a curse word, or two...

Okay, I'm back. So is there anything else I'm missing? Carving out my earlier mistake leaves us with around 23% as a reasonable number for the non-tax paying public. And indeed, that's just about where things start on the chart. But what happened in the sixties to cause such a huge drop in the percentage? Vietnam? The Civil Rights Movement? JFK's tax initiatives (he lowered rates)? Nope, none of the above (well, maybe in small ways). Instead, it was a couple of basic things: inflation and economic growth.

Very simply, people got moved into higher brackets because of these factors. When the economy started to slow down, the trend reversed itself and the stagflation of the seventies made it even worse. Reagan's economy--predictably--reversed the trend yet again, as the economy hummed.

Then something strange happened: the economy really hummed through the nineties, but the percentage not paying taxes increased. Why? Simple, the government expanded entitlements and tax breaks (and the percentage of the population entering retirement on Social Security alone also increased). This should explain things:

Look at how this chart--starting around 1987--tracks with the first. Eerie, isn't it? We--meaning the government--started giving away the farm and, surprise, surprise, people came running to get a share. It's those nasty old incentives at work, once again. The giveaways are so significant as to dwarf the effects of the economy, by and large. And when the economy is bad--as it is now--the percentages not actually paying taxes can truly explode, especially given that so many in that group are receiving funds from the government.

It almost reads like a blueprint for a doomsday scenario...

Cheers, all.

Soprano Life Lessons

2012-02-23T11:47:00.003-05:00

A few years a go, I bought my father a rather nice Christmas gift: The Sopranos: The Complete Series. He was quite appreciative. About a month ago, after having seen a Sopranos repeat on A&E, I remembered the gift and decided to re-watch the entire series from beginning to end, so I borrowed the collection from my father. I've just started the third season. For those that may have forgotten, the second season ends with the deaths of Richie Aprile (at the hands of Tony's sister, Janice) and Big Pussy (at the hands of Tony and his crew), along with Meadow's (Tony's daughter) graduation from high school.

As the third season begins, Meadow is a freshman at Columbia and AJ--Tony's son--is in high school. Tony's wife Carmela is enjoying a new mink coat Tony gave her, while hoping that Tony's womanizing ways may finally be ending.

Taken as a whole, the show presents this mobbed-up family as a typical American family, in many ways. And though Tony is a stone-cold killer, a thief, and an unbelievable sonofabitch, he is the hero of the show, very much a tragic hero in fact. One can't help but sympathize with his various dilemmas. For as he struggles to maintain control of his own internal problems and his mob business, he also is tries to protect and provide for his family. His love for them--his wife and children--is a major theme of the show. And though fictional, it rings true in this regard.

And therein lies the lesson: bad people can still love their children, can still be good family men (or women), can even raise mostly good--or at least typical--kids. In the world of politics, we forget this far too easily. Politicians routinely use their families for photo ops, play up the idea that they love their children, and that they try to do a good job in raising them. And for this, we are supposed to give them credit, to either swoon at the sight of their families (when we support them) or grudgingly admit that they have nice families, even if their politics are wrong (when we oppose them).

In short, we are supposed to believe that loving one's family makes someone--as a matter of course--a good person, when nothing could be further from the truth. So don't buy into the rhetoric and the pictures; a sonofabitch can still be a good spouse, a crook can still be a good parent, a bad guy might have no problem shooting you in the head or robbing you blind, then going home and reading stories to his or her kids and lovingly tucking them into bed. And a politician with a beautiful family can still be a very dangerous thing.

Cheers, all.

Semiannual Cell-Phone Bitch Session

2012-02-23T10:17:00.000-05:00

Many years ago--a little more than fourteen of them, actually--my wife found herself to be with child (how that happened is beyond me). At that point in time, I was in grad school and my wife was working full-time. She was able to continue working right up until her "time" came. Now, this raised an issue: how would she contact me on a moment's notice, if she needed to? The idea that a mobile phone might be a good solution to the situation never even crossed our minds. I'm going to carry one of those things around and pay through the nose for the service? And for what? One phone call. After all, I was certain that such a thing--a mobile phone--would never really become commonplace. They were luxury items for the rich and always would be, I thought.

So what did we do? We got a beeper. Much cheaper and recommended by three out of four doctors, it just made a lot of sense. As it turned out, the event happened while we were both home together, so the beeper was never needed. I carried it around for another six months or so, just in case. But in those days, it was easy enough to drop a quarter in a pay phone and check on things, if I felt I needed to.

Shortly after that we actually did get a mobile phone (actually, we still have the account; we've had the same cell pone number for almost fourteen years), but it was for my wife's commute and traveling, mostly. She barely used it for the first year or so that she had it. And I honestly don't think I ever called her on it. Of course, that was still in the era of minute-watching; every call cost money, to and from a mobile phone.

Fast forward to today. As I said, we still have out original account and number. It goes to my iPhone 4. My wife has a Blackberry provided by her company, my oldest has an iPhone 4, and my middle guy has a Blackberry (though it wants to save up and switch to an iPhone 4). Given everyone's schedules, they see a lot of use, just within the family. The kids, of course, use them with their friends as well. And my wife uses hers for work constantly. Me? Aside from keeping up with the family when I'm out, I rarely use it. My friends have my number, but know I really don't want to talk to them on the phone; text messaging and twitter serve me much better in that regard, though I use the phone there, as well.

In short, mobile phones have become an integral part of my family's life, and we're quite obviously not alone on this. Still, I can't help but think about the "why" behind it all, can't help but remember when I didn't see a reason to have one, at all. When I was growing up, not only were mobile phones exceedingly rare, so were answering machines. And somehow, that wasn't an impediment to a happy and productive life, at all. Now, I'd wager that many people would be lost without their mobile phones. Hell, some States even provide free mobile phones to people with low incomes, apparently based on the idea that the phones are actually a necessity.

But that's not what I want to bitch about. Rather, it's the breakdown of manners precipitated by the widespread usage of mobile phones. People use them all the time. They use them in restaurants, in grocery stores, in cars, and in line at Starbucks (and many other businesses). The last just kills me. People yap on their phones even as they make their drink order to the unfortunate barista. Then, when the drink is wrong, these rude people take it out on the baristsa, holding up everyone else, when the problem was caused by their attempt to carry on a phone conversation while ordering their drink. I did, in fact, hang up on my wife on time when she called me on her mobile phone--from San Francisco--when I realized she was ordering a drink at the same time.

Then there's the other thing that drives me up the proverbial wall: people using their phones in public restrooms. I don't want to hear it, when I'm relieving myself. Similarly, I'm quite certain that the person on the other end of the call has no interest in hearing the sounds of me--or others--relieving ourselves. It is truly a disgusting habit, aside from being downright rude. And there's just no justification for it. If you're on a call, don't hit the head. If you're in the head, don't take a call. Wait the minute or two it takes to finish one, before starting the other. Please. I beg of you. Please.

Cheers, all.

Obama tax proposal: gambit or not, it's a smart move

2012-02-22T10:16:00.000-05:00

Supposedly, today President Obama will unveil his plan for taxing corporate America. According to the Washington Post, he will propose cutting--yes, cutting--the corporate rate to 28% while simultaneously eliminating many of the tax breaks and reductions for corporations in the tax code.

Of course, specifics matter here. The WaPo article suggests Obama will target oil and gas companies for tax increases--i.e. look to eliminate deductions that benefit them--while trying to forge tax reductions for manufacturing companies. Personally, I'd like to see all of the deductions, tax breaks, and the like go the way of the dodo. There's little chance of that, though.

Obama's plan for the corporate tax code is really Geithner's plan, and it's one the latter has been working on for quite a while (which does not, by the way, necessarily make it a good plan). And there's no doubt that the tax code is a mess, when it comes to corporations. There are so many specialty exemptions that have been carved out as to make the whole thing a joke.

People complain that the U.S. corporate rate is too high, and that's absolutely true. It's one of the highest in the world at 35%, higher than almost all of the industrialized world. But businesses in many industries are not paying a 35% rate--not even close--because of all the loopholes and exemptions that have been added to the code via Congress (it's just another kind of pork).

Look at this table, from an American Enterprise Institute study:

The effective marginal rate for corporations in the United States--in 2010--was 23.6%, lower than a number of European and Western nations and not substantially higher than many others. Given the infrastructure--in both a financial and physical sense--that the US possesses and that benefits corporations here, a slightly higher rate is simply not that unfair. But of course, these numbers are predicated on averages, and they are lower--again--because specific companies get huge breaks, while others pay through the nose.

So, the idea of cutting away all of those deductions and exemptions is a good one. As is the idea of lowering the overall rate. The American Enterprise Institute, however (along with many on the right), has already launched an attack on the administration's recommendations. To be sure, the plan does not go far enough, with regard to lowering the overall rate, and there will no doubt be many specific problems, but it is a start, it does begin to address problems that need to be addressed.

The plan--once fully revealed--still needs to work its way through Congress, as well. And given the Republican-controlled House, there will be ample opportunity to make necessary changes.

I realize this is an election year and I concur with the general idea that the Obama Administration has done serious damage to the US economy and needs to go, but I think it's a bad idea to attack every idea presented by the administration just because they present it. This is a perfect case in point. Geithner's plan revolves around cutting rates and streamlining the tax code; that's exactly where the conversation needs to be and a plan that makes that happen should be welcomed with open arms by conservatives for the opportunities it will present.

Many pundits have recently argued that the OWS movement was effective because it changed the conversation in Washington, put progressive issues on the table. But as we can from Obama's proposal here, that's really not the case. Fiscal sanity remains a powerful talking point and by making these suggestions, the administration is--in a sense--admitting to problems and accepting the parameters of the discussion desired by conservatives and libertarians, when it comes to taxation and corporate America.

Attack the administration where it deserves to be attacked, but not just for the sake of the attack.

Cheers, all.

Jay Carney: idiot

2012-02-21T19:05:00.000-05:00

The latest White House press briefing, featuring Jay Carney:

During the Q&A portion, Carney says--as reported at RCP (which also has a shorter clip, for those that don't want to watch the whole thing)--the following:

In terms of Keystone, as you all know, the history here is pretty clear. And the fact is because Republicans decided to play political with Keystone, their action essentially forced the administration to deny the permit process because they insisted on a time frame in which it was impossible to completely approve the pipeline.

Got that? The administration was forced to deny the permit.
Pressed by Jake Tapper on the administration's efforts to improve the economy, Carney later says this:

But the President didn't turn down the Keystone pipeline. There was a process in place, with long precedent, run out of the State Department because of the issue of the pipeline crossing an international boundary, that required an amount of time for proper for review after an alternate route was deemed necessary through Nebraska at the request of the Republican Governor of Nebraska and other stakeholders in Nebraska and the region that needed to play out, to be done appropriately. You can't review and approve a pipeline, the route for which doesn't even exist.

So according to Carney, the administration was forced to deny the permit for the pipeline, yet somehow Obama didn't actually turn down the pipeline. And even more hysterically, he then accuses the Republicans of playing politics on the issue, while he is playing politics in the briefing:

The Republicans were the ones who unfortunately decided because they were looking for scalps, I guess, or wins in a situation where they somehow found themselves on the wrong side of cutting taxes for 160 million Americans last December. They decided to play politics with this decision and attack the payroll tax cut extension. Even though it was made clear by the State Department that doing so would make it impossible for them to conduct the review responsibly, they did it anyway knowing what the result would be.

Because of course--as we all know--the payroll tax holiday is not actually a tax cut and will do nothing more than increase the debt.

Way to go, Jay.

Cheers, all.

LightSquared: Corruption Cubed

2012-02-21T11:50:00.000-05:00

Technology company LightSquared was launched by Harbinger Capital Partners--the hedge fund of Philip Falcone--in 2010. It is essentially the rebranding of the company SkyTerra, which Harbinger gained control of in 2008. The principal goal of the company is develop a nation-wide, satellite-based 4g wireless network, through which it could sell access to various telecommunications companies like AT&T, Verizon, and cable companies, along with many smaller companies.

Sounds like it has potential, right? Unfortunately, LightSquared has run into some major complications, as interference from its network appear to effect GPS signals, thus potentially endangering air traffic and disrupting GPS signals, in general. So, as of right now, the company is stalled according to the Wall Street Journal:

The hedge-fund manager who poured billions of dollars into a plan by LightSquared Inc. to build a new national wireless network found out Tuesday that federal regulators had moved to block it, saying it was likely to interfere with Global Positioning System devices.

That left investors in his hedge fund, Harbinger Capital Partners, which had provided much of the funding, wondering what would become of their money.

On Friday morning, addressing those investors in an hourlong conference call, Mr. Falcone offered no details on how he planned to overcome the setback and took no questions from listeners.

LightSquared investors had already seen a massive loss in their investment values, due to a previous markdown of LightSquared's value. Harbinger iteself--once with assets above $25 billion--lost big, now with total assets at less than $4 billion.

And the news is getting worse for LightSquared. Yesterday, LightSquared missed a payment due to UK company Imarrsat:

A lucrative revenue stream appeared to have ended for Inmarsat on Monday when the UK satellite operator said that LightSquared, its US partner, had failed to pay a $56.25m instalment for use of radio spectrum in the US.

This loss of revenue for Imarrsat--whose own financials haven't been super--might have serious repercussions for the company and could turn it into a potential takeover target.

Last Friday, a number of investors also filed suit against Falcone and Harbinger Capital. All in all, this could just be the story of a risky business venture that went bad. But the Daily Caller has discovered that there is a lot more to this story. Apparently, Falcone, Harbinger, and LightSquared have engaged in an extended game of influence-buying with the current Administration. Some highlights from TheDC investigation:

According to White House visitor logs, Obama’s new FCC chairman, Julius Genachowski, a classmate of the president’s from Harvard Law School, met with White House Personnel Director Don Gips on Feb. 18, 2009. Gips’ personal financial disclosure forms show he had between $250,000 and $500,000 of his personal finances invested in SkyTerra via stock options. Gips bundled at least $500,000 in donations to Obama’s 2008 election campaign, and served on the advisory board of Obama’s White House transition team.

It’s unclear what specifically Gips and Genachowski were discussing at that White House meeting; but shortly after that meeting SkyTerra named two members of Obama’s White House transition team to senior leadership positions at the company. On March 9, 2009, SkyTerra hired Gary Epstein, an FCC political appointee for the first few months of the Obama administration and a member of Obama’s transition team, as its executive vice president. On May 11, 2009, SkyTerra named Jeff Carlisle, another Obama transition team member, to serve as its vice president of regulatory affairs.

And:

On March 22, 2010, SkyTerra’s shareholders approved the merger with Falcone’s Harbinger. Four days later, on March 26, 2010, FCC staffers approved the merger. Commissioners never got the opportunity to vote on the merger, a move that is uncommon for such a large-scale deal with far-reaching implications in the marketplace and in the federal wireless policy realm. Usually, with a decision this important, the FCC would elevate it from the bureaucratic staff level to the full Commission for approval.

Three days later, Epstein acquired several hundred thousand shares of SkyTerra stock, according to SEC filings. On April 5, 2010, Gips, a top Obama aide who later became the U.S. ambassador to South Africa, cashed in his stock options for about a half-million dollars.

Note what has happened, so far: Obama insiders Gips and Epstein, after greasing the skids for SkyTerra/LightSquared, bank big money and stocks.

Lastly:

On April 12, 2010, just one week after Gips cashed in his personal stock, the Public Interest Spectrum Coalition – a left-wing group comprised of the New America Foundation, Free Press, Media Access Project and Public Knowledge — filed comments with the FCC opposing efforts to reconsider part of the agency’s decision to allow the Harbinger–SkyTerra merger. That coalition wanted to preserve the FCC’s requirement that LightSquared would not provide spectrum to AT&T and Verizon without prior FCC approval.

Left-wing billionaire George Soros is reported to have $200 million invested in Harbinger. His Open Society Institute has donated more than $1 million to the four groups that comprise the Public Interest Spectrum Coalition.

This move by the Public Interest Spectrum Coalition led to a big drop in LightSquared's value on paper. Luckily (right), Gips (and others, I am sure) cashed out just in time to get a quick profit. Of course, long term insider investors--like Soros--saw this as a bump in the road and something--cutting out giants like At&T and Verizon--that would pay big dividends in the future, though it now appears they were quite wrong in that regard.

There's a great deal more in TheDC piece, well worth the read if it doesn't make you sick to your stomach, and taken as a whole, it actually provides a pretty good blueprint for how to manipulate the system.

But personally, I'm struck by something else: the LightSquared-Solyndra comparisons being made. In the case of both, government agencies that would have regulatory oversight on the business activities of these companies were approached--as they should have been--during planning and start-up. In both cases, this occurred during the Bush Administration, which--though certainly accommodating to a degree--failed to provide the blanket approvals that were sought. The Obama Administration, however, had no problem pushing through these companies' agendas.

Criticisms of the Obama Adminsitration's apparent collusion with various private interests are often met with the "that's just the way it's done" defense. But apparently, the Obama administration is prepared to go that extra mile to really give people maximum return on the money they spend paying off politicians.

Cheers, all.

A deeply troubling story: the consequences of a foolish Court

2012-02-20T20:50:00.000-05:00

A little more than a year ago, on the 2nd of January in 2011, three people--one of them a fifteen year old girl--were brutally murdered in a North Miami Beach home. On January 20th--just a few weeks later--the man who committed these crimes--or at least participated in them--killed himself in a shoot-out in Bradenton, Florida during the commission of another crime.

Nothing all that shocking so far, right? We already know the world is full of people like this, capable of cold-blooded murder or worse. But here's the kicker: this man--Kesler Dufrene--was from Haiti and had been previously convicted of two felonies in the United States. His second conviction was in 2006. He was sentenced to five years, followed by a court-ordered deportation to Haiti.

So when his sentence was up in October, 2010, what happened? He was simply released. Not deported, despite the court order. The reason: the Haitian earthquake in January 2010. Due to the devastation in Haiti, the Obama Administration put a halt to all deportations to that country on humanitarian grounds.

Frankly, it's easy to understand the justifications for the moratorium. After all, criminals deported back to Haiti in the aftermath of the quake would have made matters worse, if they were allowed back on the streets. And the Haitian government hardly had the resources to put them back in jail. Remember, the earthquake had already destroyed Haiti's largest jail, releasing thousands of prisoners back onto the streets.

Given that reality, the obvious decision--the obvious fix--would be to keep people like Dufrene locked up, either in jail or in a detention center, until Haiti was ready to take them back. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision--Zadvydas v. Davis, 2001--that the ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) cannot detain such people indefinitely. The ICE has six months to carry out the deportation, or release the subject. Unsurprisingly, the dissenting Justices in the case were Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Rehnquist. It is worth quoting from Kennedy's dissent:

The 6-month period invented by the Court, even when modified by its sliding standard of reasonableness for certain repatriation negotiations...makes the statutory purpose to protect the community ineffective. The risk to the community exists whether or not the repatriation negotiations have some end in sight; in fact, when the negotiations end, the risk may be greater. The authority to detain beyond the removal period is to protect the community, not to negotiate the aliens’ return. The risk to the community survives repatriation negotiations.

Note the issue here for Kennedy: statutes in place already gave the Attorney General the right to detain people scheduled for deportation as long as necessary in order to complete the process, because of the possibility that the deportee might pose a real danger to society. The majority--in creating the six-month limit--ignores this issue completely, setting aside public safety in order to extend Constitutional protections for individuals who have either forfeited their citizenship or who never had citizenship to begin with.

Remember, this ruling was handed down over a decade ago, yet we now see how prescient Kennedy's dissent was, with regard to the case of Kesler Dufrene. And he likely has some company. The Miami Herald has confirmed that nearly 700 Haitian convicts were released in the same way during 2010. And it gets worse:

Tens of thousands of deportees, most of them Cubans convicted of serious felonies, are currently out on supervised probation because Cuba won’t accept them back. A Texas Republican House Representative last year unsuccessfully pushed a bill that would have given the government the right to indefinitely detain people who cannot be deported.

This is exactly the issue that Kennedy was addressing in his dissent of 2001. The fact that negotiations with another country have not been successful in achieving an agreement to accept deportees does not relieve the government--or should not, I have to say, since the Supreme Court ruled otherwise--of its responsibility to insure public safety.

While I cannot fault the Obama Administration for halting deportations to Haiti on humanitarian grounds, I can and do fault it for not revisiting this ruling by the Court. Good sense should have prevailed; dangerous and career criminals scheduled for deportation should not have been released. They should have remained behind bars and the Attorney General should have explained why this had to be. If some wanted to question such actions, they could have taken the issue back to the courts and perhaps--eventually--the Supreme Court would revisit the issues and make a proper ruling.

If that had happened, perhaps fifteen year old Ashley Chow would not have been brutally murdered in her home. And who knows how many more cases like hers are out there.

Cheers, all.

Note to E.J. Dionne: buy a dictionary, dude

2012-02-20T10:22:00.002-05:00

In a Presidents' Day screed that is embarrassingly simplistic, Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne attempts to chide conservatives for their hypocrisy, apparently having no understanding of what the word actually means. After a gratuitous shot at the family values crowd, he sets the stage thusly:

But the hypocrisy that matters far more is the gap between ideology and practice that has reached a crisis point in American conservatism.

Sounds pretty intense, no? Marx would call this a failure of praxis, but I digress. Dionne gives some specific examples of the hypocrisy he espies. First, there's the career politician hypocrisy:

Begin by asking yourself why so many conservative politicians say they're anti-government but spend long careers in office drawing paychecks from the taxpayers.

Hey, I'm with him on the idea that politicians--in general--stay in office for far too long. But politics has been a career for a long, long time. That aside, look at the multiple fallacies inherent in just this one statement. First, Dionne gives no specific examples, he just talks about "conservative politicians," as if they were all the same. Then, he mistakenly claims that these unnamed politicians--"so many" of them--say they're anti-government. But who says that, really? Anti-government is what people like E. J. Dionne call others, it's a pejorative for the most part, not a label of self-description. Finally, he implies that these unnamed politicians who don't all think the same things and who aren't actually anti-government are hypocrites just by being politicians. Clearly, logic is not Mr. Dionne's friend.

More to the point, even if his fallacies are ignored and his statement is taken at face value, he hasn't identified any hypocrisy. Conservatives aren't anarchists. Arguing for a limited government is not the same thing as arguing for no government.

Dionne's next big "gotcha" moment of hypocrisy involves government funding of various projects and the willingness of conservatives to pursue shares of the moolah:

Why do they bash government largesse while seeking as much of it as they can get for their constituents and friendly interest groups?

Once again, Dionne is light on actual examples, of both particular politicians and specific examples of the largesse he is referring to. But I'll help him out with the latter: after the Stimulus Bill was rammed down the nation's throat, there were a number of articles from the addle-minded in the media criticizing some Republicans for opposing the bill, but then willingly accepting some of the monies in it for their own districts and/or States. Hello? Is this the children's hour? The money was going to be spent, regardless. There's standing on principle and there's practical reality. Do anti-war Democrats in office refuse monies for their districts that are related to defense spending?

And if Mr. Dionne wants to see some real hypocrisy involving officials pushing an agenda on everyone but themselves and their big-money supporters, he might try looking at the former Speaker and many other Democrats, who pushed for minimum wage hikes everywhere, except for American Samoa.

Next, Mr. Dionne finds hypocrisy in calls to cut back on entitlements:

Why do they criticize "entitlements" and "big government" while promising today's senior citizens -- an important part of the conservative base -- never, ever to cut their Medicare or Social Security?

And I guess in this one, we really see how badly Mr. Dionne needs that dictionary, because I can't even fathom where he sees hypocrisy in this bit. Telling someone you intend to keep a promise that was made--in the case of seniors who retired based on promised returns for their lifetime contributions to Social Security--is not hypocrisy. Suggesting that such a promise may no longer be possible for future generations, as things currently stand, is also not hypocrisy. And one can do both and still not be a hypocrite.

Given that a common bit of election-time fear-mongering on the part of Democrats, when it comes to seniors, is that "the Republicans want to cut your Social Security/Medicare," this statement is particularly weak and particularly transparent. Could Mr. Dionne be any more of a political hack? I think not.

There's more silliness in the article, but it fits the same mold, by and large. And to think, this is from a writer whose columns are often held up as examples of thoughtful, effective analysis. Pity.

Cheers, all.

Data-dump: the return of Stagflation

2012-02-19T19:13:00.003-05:00

Given the rousing cheers from the media, the Administration, and pundits on the left for the recent news that unemployment rates appeared to be decreasing (which we already know was based on something of a fantasy), it's perhaps appropriate to discuss the elephant in the room at the Fed: stagflation.

For those unfamiliar with the term, it was coined in England during the 1960's, but quickly appeared in the United States with regard to the economy under Presidents Richard Nixon and Jimmy carter. Basically, it refers to a situation wherein there is both a stagnating economy (recession and continuous high unemployment) and inflation (rising prices for common goods like fuel, food, and clothing). Theoretically--in Keynesian and post-Keynesian world--this shouldn't happen. There shouldn't be any inflation during a recession and when there is heavy inflation occurring, recessions are supposed to be highly unlikely, if not impossible.

Obviously, the 1970's disproved this element of Keynesian theory (for most people, anyway). Still, it is supposed to be rare. In the 1970's, many Keynesian economists argued that stagflation was the result of a highly unusual confluence of circumstances, in particular the OPEC-induced oil crisis, in a period of recession.

Sounds reasonable, in a way. After all, fuel costs impact every sector of the economy. Thus, the increase in oil/gas prices led to inflation, even though the economy was fairly stagnant. Still, the interjection of government spending should theoretically trump such a rise in fuel prices. Theoretically.

Last year, Tyler Durden at Zerohedge warned of the possibility of stagflation, based on a jump of .5% in the CPI (consumer price index) in July of 2011, much higher than expected, that restarted a trend many hoped was over:

Following yesterday's upside surprise in the PPI, it was only logical that CPI would come higher than expected. However, printing at a 0.7% swing M/M, or the highest in years, was not expected. Broad CPI came at 0.5% in July after dropping -0.2% in June, or 3.6% Y/Y. This was far more than consensus which expected 0.2%. Core CPI however was in line with expectations at 0.2%. The reason for the surge? Gas, food and clothes. "The gasoline index rebounded from previous declines and rose sharply in July, accounting for about half of the seasonally adjusted increase in the all items index. The food at home index accelerated in July and also contributed to the increase, as dairy and fruit indexes posted notable increases and five of the six major grocery store food groups rose...The apparel index continued to rise sharply, increasing 1.2 percent in July; it has increased 3.9 percent over the past three months.

Fast forward six months and what do we find? Anthony Mirhaydari sums it up at MSN Money:

This week's' report on inflation shot holes through the Fed's official stance that inflationary pressures are "subdued" and not a big concern. The takeaway is that food and fuel inflation -- gas prices are up 23% off their December lows, something I gave my readers the heads up on in early January -- is beginning to creep into core measures of inflation that the Fed focuses on. Core consumer price inflation jumped 2.3% over last year, the biggest increase since September 2008.

It isn't a one-month fluke either: On a three-month annualized basis, core CPI was up 2.2%. This is exactly what Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke doesn't want to see, since it weakens his case for more quantitative easing. Indeed, this week a Fed official called expectations for QE3 later this year a Wall Street "fantasy," as the rationale isn't supported by the facts.

Get that? Already, we're 2.3% higher than last year. And at the same time, the Iranian situation promises to only make matters worse, as oil exports to the UK and France--so far--are cut off, which will certainly tend to lead to higher oil prices on the world market.

But there's more. Mirhaydari also takes a look at copper:

What does copper have to do with anything, you ask? Well, as I've noted before, it turns out that copper prices are--historically--an excellent predictor of recessions: lower copper prices mean a coming recession, higher copper prices mean a rebound (for the short term). Looking at the above chart, what is absolutely clear is that copper prices are going the wrong way over the long term. This means--at best--minimal real growth. At worst, it means protracted recession, if we assume artificial price hikes are associated with rising fuel costs and--here's the kicker--added production costs apart from fuel.

For what even Keynesians now recognize is that stagflation can also be brought on by increases in production costs due to government policy or anticipated government policy. Thus, everything points towards stagflation in the very near future. This doesn't mean some kind of collapse or market correction is necessarily on the horizon. But it suggests that there is still no real recovery. And there won't be anytime soon. Because of policy.

So, in the immortal words of Short Round, "hang on lady, we're going for a ride!" Or maybe just the opposite: we're going nowhere fast.

Cheers, all.

The New Aristocrats are here!

2012-02-19T10:04:00.002-05:00

I have nothing against Joseph P. Kennedy III. I really don't. Hell, I don't even know the man. He might very well be a fine, upstanding citizen, well-educated and with a kind heart, strong core principles and a firm grasp of economics and diplomacy. In short, he might be everything we could possibly hope for in a politician. Or not.

Either way, he's a Kennedy. So, he's going to get his shot in public office, whether or not he deserves it, whether or not he has potential, whether or not anything else. On Thursday, Joe III launched his campaign for the House seat being vacated by Barney Frank. He comes fully equipped with the pro-package political pedigree: Stanford, Harvard, Peace Corps, a stint as an ADA in Massachusetts, and the ever-popular "boyish good looks."

For those with doubts about the real class divide in this country, Joe III's pedigree fits the rubric perfectly. As I noted--building on Charles Murray's work--in that piece:

...This group has their own culture, their own lifestyle. Their children live sheltered lives, largely interacting with others in this group, alone. Once upon a time, this was purely a function of wealth and restricted to the very tippy-top of the wealth pyramid. Not so, anymore. And why? Because of the growth of government. It is, in fact, a realization of Max Weber's fears of continued bureaucratization of society. For the political access of this group is very much a permanent thing; nepotism rules, both for appointed and elected offices. Career paths to both are largely limited to those with the access to specific schools and institutions.

Joe III's twin brother Mathew, by the way, is currently serving as the Administrator to the White House Counsel’s Office in the Obama Administration. He comes with a near-identical pedigree to that of Joe III.

But again, I don't want this to be some kind of smear piece. I have no reason to suppose either of these two young men (they're thirty-one years old) are anything other than what they claim to be. Both very likely think they've worked hard to get where they are. Joe III no doubt thinks he can be a good Representative, can serve the people of Massachusetts well. I doubt either sees their careers as solely products of their name and connections.

Still, the bubble-quality here is what it is. Not only is a Stanford to Harvard pedigree an expensive thing, it's also an exceedingly limited thing. As is access--at such young ages--to ADA jobs and to posts in the White House. Born and bred to rule, people like these Kennedy brothers take it as a given that all of this makes sense. Introspection is a rare thing, and that's to be expected. Who among us would not reach out and take the keys to the kingdom if they were dangled before us?

The only means of ending this kind of multi-generational nepotism--i.e. aristocracy--is via an informed electorate willing to step up and end it in the voting both. But given party machines, this is simply an unreasonable expectation. Predictably, people in Massachusetts, when asked about Joe III, insisted they would not vote for him just because of his name. But what many of them will do is vote for him just because of his party affiliation. And as long as he has the right support--from people like Frank and Obama--he'll win party nominations. And some, frankly, will vote for him just because of his name. Taken together, that's enough to win an election, especially in a region that leans so heavily in one direction.

And make no mistake, the nepotism exists on the other side of the aisle, as well. Perhaps we'll finally get to see a Kennedy-Bush Presidential contest in the future. Maybe 2028?

Cheers, all.

More marriages are a good thing, period.

2012-02-18T15:23:00.000-05:00

Some time ago, I offered a kind of plea to other conservative and libertarian type thinkers. Basically, I suggested that--given the critical issues we are facing, with regard to government spending and the economy--it would be a good idea to drop the single issue politics stuff, especially with regard to abortion and same-sex marriage.

My own feelings on these two issues were offered there, but I'll repeat them here. First: abortions are legitimate medical procedures and must be allowed, though they should not be encouraged and no one has a right to such a thing, given that it requires the services of another. Second: people in this country are supposed to be free to chart their own course in life, to find happiness, and there is no reason to prevent a same-sex couple from getting married.

On the abortion issue, I do want to be crystal clear on my position, especially with regard to the recent attempt by the Administration to mandate that all organizations with employees must provide contraceptives and the like, as a part of a health insurance package. Even though I feel abortions must be allowed and even though I think women (and men) should be free to use contraceptives, it is beyond the authority of the government to mandate that either or both of these things must be provided by private concerns to employees. If people want contraceptives, they should buy them. If they can't afford them, well...

Now, as to the issue of same-sex marriage, there has been a great deal of hoopla on this over the past several years. And just yesterday, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey vetoed a bill that would have permitted same-sex marriage in that State. This is--in my opinion--wrong-headed in the extreme. Forgetting all of the moral arguments for and against same-sex marriage, let's consider something else: incentives (a concept I often mention, because I think it's very, very important to understand).

What are some of the incentives for individuals to get married? Well, there's love, of course, and the desire establish a bond with another person. Then there are children: people get married because they want to have and raise children, because they wish to be parents. Also significant are the economic incentives, and there are quite a few of these. Marriage allows a pooling of resources or may--in some cases--provide resources to one participant that they previously lacked. Such a pooling provides significantly greater opportunities when it comes to purchasing power, credit, and investing. Then there is the issue of status: married couples have a higher status level--in general--than unmarried couples, and this can be a significant advantage in many arenas.

But there are also incentives for society to allow--even promote--marriage as an institution. Marriage creates easy-to-identify familial ties that extend for generations and generations. Such relationships are important elements for the individual in understanding social structures as a whole. And the above mentioned economic incentives also benefit society as a whole, for they increase economic activity and lead to greater wealth production. In fact, the very idea that one is responsible for a spouse and children spurs on productivity, even promotes an entrepreneurial spirit. Max Weber built an entire theory of the history of capitalism around this idea in his seminal work, The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.

One may ask, is their any evidence for all of this, any evidence that marriage is somehow linked to economic success, both for the individual and society as a whole? In fact, there is quite a bit. Recently, I have been commenting extensively on Charles Murray's new book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010. Let's look back at The real class divide:

Consider this: In 1994, Murray and Herrnstein found higher marriage rates among the lower and middle classes than in the upper classes. Now, a mere eighteen years later, the reverse is true. Marriage rates for the lower and middle classes have dropped off a cliff, while they have not changed all that much for the upper classes. The divergence in inequality follows the change in rates, suggesting that the rates are not a consequential, but rather a causal factor.

This is a significant point, for those in the middle and lower classes that follow the traditional paradigm of American success--work hard, raise a family, etc.--still can and do achieve wealth, significant wealth even.

Upper and upper-middle class families are more likely to be married. And for middle and lower class families, marriage and success--in terms of economic mobility--go pretty much hand in hand. Thus, higher marriage rates are better for society as a whole, from both social and economic perspectives.

And there's a weird dichotomy on this issue, when it comes to typical left/right talking points. For decades, many on the left have been trumpeting the right people have to eschew the traditional paradigm of the family unit, arguing that living together and even having children outside of marriage was as valid a choice as any other and that this did not imperil society in the least. Indeed, single motherhood--ala Murphy Brown--was also presented as an equally valid choice. Now, these same people are arguing for the need to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. And the reverse is true for many on the right: they argued that the undermining of marriage, that validating these alternate choices, did have negative consequences for society (and in this they were and are absolutely correct), but now are arguing against extending marriage rights to same-sex couples, even though this could not help but increase marriage rates.

That's the penultimate point here: increasing marriage rates are a good thing. They promote a healthier, more vibrant, and more cohesive society. Look at the incentives listed above. All of them are equally applicable to a same-sex couple. And same-sex couples have the same desires and needs of heterosexual couples. They seek to be married for the same reasons, as well. And there simply are no costs for others or for society as a whole, with regard to same-sex marriages. Sure, one could argue that a different designation like "civil union" could serve the same purpose, but what's the point? Same-sex couples would still be free to identify themselves as a married couple. Why not accept such self-identification, when denial provides no benefits?

And again--even if one simply cannot fathom why the concept should be extended to same-sex couples--there are other issues that are so much more critical for the future of our republic, why take a stand on this one? Let it go, give people the tools they need to be happy and society the structures it needs to grow stronger.

Cheers, all.

Regulatory Suicide

2012-02-17T20:16:00.000-05:00

In 2000 The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Elseby Hernando De Soto was published. It's a very well researched book, certainly worth the read. In it De Soto endeavors to discover--per the title--why capitalism is so much more successful in the West than practically everywhere else. He investigates the economies of various second and third world countries in South America, the Middle East, and Asia and discovers what he believes to be the core issue, with regard to the question: property rights.

People of a more marxist or progressive point of view will no doubt argue that the reason for capitalism's success is that it is based on exploitation and the West has the wealth to engage in such exploitation more effectively. Thus the apparent success of capitalism is an illusion, as the second and third world nations will forever operate from a disadvantage. And others with a libertarian or conservative perspective will argue that De Soto puts too much emphasis on property rights, that government, cultural, and social institutions have a significant role, as well.

Nonetheless, I believe De Soto captured an important--nay, critical--idea. And he did so not by merely theorizing, but by actually digging in to processes in other nations, where capitalism has had limited success. In many cases, property rights in these nations are near-impossible to exercise legally. Government bureaucracies are so corrupt and inefficient as to make it virtually impossible to--for instance--open a new business that is legally licensed to operate, to actually do business, without extended wait times and massive out-of-pocket expenses. Similarly, selling property can be just as difficult.

These situations are particularly true in urban areas, where there should be, of course, far more opportunities to do business. As a result, a great many businesses operate outside of the law, businesses that are otherwise engaged in wholly legal activities, from selling food and merchandise to providing various services and even insurance.

And because of this situation, capital accumulates for reinvestment at a much slower rate; profits are technically extralegal so are kept outside the financial markets or are effectively laundered, thus decreasing potential growth. Also, property and business values are largely unavailable as sources for added capital, as a means to expand business, aside from illegal options like loan-sharking. The markets are there, they exist, but are so severely constrained as to prevent large-scale wealth creation via capitalism.

Since the publication of De Soto's book, things have changed in some places. Many governments--eager to partake of the wealth created by consumerism--have made efforts to ease the burden on businesses, some businesses at any rate. Oftentimes, preferential treatment is given to international companies based in the West, thus the proliferation of companies like McDonald's and Starbucks in second and even third world nations. And ultimately, while such situations do benefit local populaces from an economic perspective, created wealth is not wholly available for reinvestment in a given country, since much of it is moved back outside. Thus, the leftist claim of exploitation is something of a reality, but not for systematic reasons but instead for systematic failures.

Given this reality, that bureaucratic structures strangle free market capitalism, the growth of such measures in the United States is both disheartening and somewhat unbelievable. The Economist gives an overview of such stupidity, focusing narrowly in on the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, signed into law by President Obama in 2010:

Consider the Dodd-Frank law of 2010. Its aim was noble: to prevent another financial crisis. Its strategy was sensible, too: improve transparency, stop banks from taking excessive risks, prevent abusive financial practices and end “too big to fail” by authorising regulators to seize any big, tottering financial firm and wind it down. This newspaper supported these goals at the time, and we still do. But Dodd-Frank is far too complex, and becoming more so. At 848 pages, it is 23 times longer than Glass-Steagall, the reform that followed the Wall Street crash of 1929. Worse, every other page demands that regulators fill in further detail. Some of these clarifications are hundreds of pages long. Just one bit, the “Volcker rule”, which aims to curb risky proprietary trading by banks, includes 383 questions that break down into 1,420 subquestions.

Such legislation not only slows economic growth in the short term (amazing how little attention this reality has received), it also undoes the structures of the economic system--the capitalist system--that enable it to function as a capitalist system.

Capitalism as a system is not all peaches and cream. It exists because of the business cycle which necessarily must lead to periods of anemic growth or even actual contraction. That is a part of the cost for its ultimate success in creating wealth, far more wealth that can otherwise be created, which establishes higher and higher standards of living for all, even those at the lowest levels, and provides governments with the necessary revenues to create safety nets--limited ones--for those who desperately require them.

The attempt to remove these negative consequences of capitalism and somehow keep only the positive ones is doomed to fail and will--if not checked--ultimately doom the U.S. economy. But those who think they know better, who believe in such a utopian vision seem unable to recognize this. They would do well to review De Soto's work and see where this path will truly lead.

Cheers, all.

Another myth collapses: Deep Throat

2012-02-17T12:06:00.000-05:00

In July of 2005, Bob Woodward published The Secret Man: The Story of Watergate's Deep Throat, after Deep Throat's identity was revealed to be Mark Felt by Vanity Fair on May 31, 2005. The book acknowledged that Felt was the sole source of leaks Woodward and Bernstein had attributed to Deep Throat, shattering ongoing speculation that there was no actual Deep Throat, that there were instead a multitude of sources responsible for the leaks, a claim actively promoted by L. Patrick Gray, former FBI Director and Felt's boss during the time of the scandal.

Beyond that, the book was also a defense of sorts for Felt's motives. As Deputy Associate Director of the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover, Felt had designs on the top spot after Hoover's death in May of 1972. But Nixon temporarily appointed Gray to that position, knowing that the current number two man--Associate Director Clyde Tolson--would be retiring. Felt, of course, knew that too and expected he would take the reigns. Instead, he ended up in Tolson's position, subservient to Gray, a man who was coming over from the Justice Department and lacked an FBI pedigree.

Felt was, of course, not happy with this state of affairs. Woodward admits this in his book, but still maintains that in the end, Felt was motivated by a desire for justice, not for personal gain. However, Max Holland's soon to be released new book--Leak: Why Mark Felt Became Deep Throat--shatters Woodward's defense of Felt. It demonstrates that Felt's goal was the obvious one all along: get rid of Gray and take over the FBI.

Glenn Garvin at the Miami Herald provides some tidbits:

Felt began systematically leaking material from the FBI’s Watergate investigation. He knew Nixon, whose paranoia about leaks was legendary in Washington, would figure out that the source was somewhere in the FBI. Gray would be blamed, lose his job (he hadn’t yet been confirmed by the Senate and was officially only acting director) and Felt would be the logical replacement.

Contrary to the heroic myth that he always pointed reporters in the right direction, Felt’s leaks were often either carelessly inaccurate or maliciously false.

Even more damning to the romantic image of Deep Throat as the guy in the white hat standing up to the Nixon Gang at high noon is what he didn’t leak. For instance, the unsuccessful but quite genuine blackmail the FBI used against Martin Luther King Jr., using illicit tapes of sexual incidents to try to force his resignation. Or the FBI campaign of burglaries (“black-bag jobs,” they were called) against anti-war groups, which were directed by Felt himself.

The original myth, of course, plays much better to the average psyche, not unlike the Camelot myth of JFK's Presidency. The idea that a President was brought down in the name of Truth, Justice, and the American Way is just too appealing and even with the publication of this new book, it is unlikely that the popular perception of Deep Throat--and indeed, the historical perception--will change all that much. Because at the end of the day, Felt's actions led to Nixon being rightly forced to step down.

Still, the reality of Felt's motivations demonstrate that Nixon was never his real target; he had hoped for Nixon to simply dismiss Gray, at which point Felt would become Director, the leaks would suddenly stop, and Nixon would never have been in any real jeopardy. But Felt miscalculated in this regard, as Nixon doubled down on Gray, nominating him as the permanent Director in 1973, well after the scandal and Felt's leaks had begun. Gray's mishandling of his confirmation hearing--by saying that White House Counsel John Dean had lied to the FBI--was the beginning of the end for the Administration and, in hindsight, for Felt's hopes to replace Gray. From that moment on, Felt had to become the hero, and Woodward assisted him in that regard.

But the truth is what it is; Felt apparently was just another ladder-climbing, power-hungry Washington bureaucrat, not above skulduggery to advance his own career. His heroism was accidental, at best.

Cheers, all.

Ryan v. Geithner: Thrilla with Manila (folders)

2012-02-17T09:50:00.004-05:00

At a House Budget Committee hearing on Obama's proposed budget, Representative Paul Ryan and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner exchanged a few body blows:

The essential point of contention in the brief exchange is the following chart, based on a chart taken from--of all places--the Administration's proposed budget (Analytical Perspectives, p. 58):

The blue and red lines show the past totals of public debt and the projection of that debt into the future by the Administration, based on the 2013 budget. That's right, the budget Obama is trumpeting, the one that will "cut the deficit to less than 3 percent of GDP, and stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio" by 2018 leads to this out-of-control exponential growth well before 2018 even arrives.

Geithner argues--in the clip--that this growth is a consequence of costs associated with the millions of Americans that will be retiring in these years (the Baby-Boomers) and admits that more work still needs to be done, but still maintains that the 2013 Budget is a responsible one, that it's a good first step.

Ryan's rebuke is simple and can be restated as "Look at the bones!" The chart says it all and the future is so bad, the Administration cannot even fudge the numbers to make it look palatable. And let's not forget this point: numbers are routinely "massaged" by government offices--like the OMB--by assuming best-case types of scenarios. So the reality here is likely even much, much worse. But Ryan doesn't even need to go there, since things look catastrophic anyway.

Now, the green line in the chart shows the future if Ryan's plans are followed. And no doubt, it's equally idealized. But even so, look at the difference in outcomes. Ryan's plan hinges on a critical idea: start fixing things now, this year, not ten years down the road. The Obama Administration--like previous ones--is trying to table responsibility, is seeking to keep spending mostly at current levels and even increase it, while playing accounting games with the debt, then promising to reduce it in the future, even thought it will no longer be in power in that future.

And frankly, Geithner knows this. His last words to Ryan in the clip:

We're not coming before you to say we have a definitive solution to our long-term problem. What we do know is we don't like yours.

Strange, isn't it? For three years, we've been hearing from the Democrats, the Administration, and the liberals that the Republicans "have no plan." Yet apparently, it's just the opposite.

Cheers, all.

The telephone excise tax shows us the way

2012-02-16T11:12:00.001-05:00

Article first published as How Temporary Measures Become Permanent Ones on Technorati.

Government often responds to emergencies or the like with policies or programs that are designated as "temporary," as things that need to be done in the short term, but will ultimately be unnecessary and repealed/cancelled/eliminated. And we all know--I would hope--that more often than not, many such temporary measures become essentially permanent.

Take a look at this newspaper article from 1967. Entitled "Temporary Measures Can Become Pretty Permanent," it mentions a luxury tax on telephones enacted during the war (World War II) that ended in 1966, only to immediately be re-enacted in 1967. In reality, the history of this particular tax extends back to 1898. Yes, 1898. It was established then to help pay for the Spanish-American War and was--surprise, surprise--based on the idea that only the rich had telephones, so they could afford to pay the tax easily.

Now, the tax was actually repealed in 1902, but at the start of World War I, it was enacted once again (a 1% tax on calls over a certain threshold, by the way) until 1916. The start of World War II saw it's re-enactment, this time starting at a rate of 6% and eventually moving up to as high as 15%. In 1958, the minimum threshold was eliminated, making the tax applicable to all phone calls. As noted above, the end of this iteration came in 1966, only to see it return--due to the Vietnam War-- in 1967 at a 10% rate.

From there, the tax became pretty much permanent--though the rate eventually dropped down from 10% to 3% or less, depending on the year--as it was extended each time it was set to expire, despite a lack of wars to justify it. Legislation that would have ended the tax permanently passed Congress in 2000, but was vetoed by President Clinton.

Since then, the impact of the tax was lessened in 2005--after a court battle--and another attempt was made in 2011 to repeal it permanently. But it's still with us, even if not at the punitive levels of the forties and fifties. Thus, we can see how a "temporary measure"--a narrow tax--essentially became permanent: the original action provided a template that was easy for the government to follow. Early on, it justified the tax as necessary for the added expenses of wars, but eventually it became a stream of revenue for any and all government needs.

But it's not just taxes that follow this pattern; tax breaks do it, too. Most recently, we have the "payroll tax holiday," first enacted in 2010 (for FY 2011). This tax break was extended--following a great deal of showmanship--at the end of 2012 for two additional months and is now set to expire at the end of the month. Sold very clearly as a "temporary measure," it is fast-becoming something that is likely to mirror the history of the telephone excise tax.

On Saturday, the President--in his weekly radio address--called for another extension of the holiday:

You see, at the end of the month, taxes are set to go up on 160 million working Americans. If you’re one of them, then you know better than anyone that the last thing you need right now is a tax hike. But if Congress refuses to act, middle class taxes will go up. It’s that simple.

Now, if this sounds familiar, it’s because we’ve been here before. Back in December, Congress faced this exact same predicament. Ultimately, thanks to your voices, they did the right thing – but only after a great deal of bickering and political posturing that put the strength of our economy and the security of middle class families at risk. We can’t go through that again.

Congress needs to stop this middle class tax hike from happening. Period. No drama. No delay. And no ideological side issues that have nothing to do with this tax cut. Now is not the time for self-inflicted wounds to our recovery.

Nevermind that this tax holiday leads directly to an increasing debt, nevermind that the SSA is paying out more in benefits than it is actually receiving, the holiday must be extended because the situation demands it, according to the President and others. And lets not forget that the reduction amount was increased by the last extension, as well. Also, note the language the President is employing: a failure to extend the holiday amounts to a "tax hike." Given such a characterization, ending the holiday--by failing to extend it--becomes a treacherous task for any politician, as they can be attacked for wanting to increase taxes on the middle and lower classes.

Even if the holiday finally ends sometime in the near future--assuming, for instance, that the economy really starts growing--the die is now cast. Every time there is any sort of economic crisis in the future, there is a ready-made "solution" for the Federal Government: a payroll tax holiday. And make no mistake, someone will champion this idea again and--as should be crystal clear--it's just too easy to sell, even if it makes no sense.

The lesson of the turkey sandwich

2012-02-16T10:48:00.002-05:00

Recently, I commented on a story out of North Carolina that involved a pre-schooler's brought-from-home lunch and the decision on the part of someone at the West Hoke Elementary School that this lunch was not sufficiently nutritious, thus requiring the school to supplement it with some chicken nuggets. That's the short version.

The long version includes the USDA standards for school lunches, actual North Carolina State rules concerning lunches brought from home, the issue of who was doing the lunch inspection, and the the school's decision to at first charge the parent for the cafeteria lunch then later rescind that decision. But let's not dwell on those minor points.

Instead, let's look at the consequences of this admittedly minor story. On one side of the ideological fence are people who find the incident troubling, who see an overreach on the part of government through the school system, and who fear this story may just be the tip of an iceberg, so to speak. On the other side of the ideological fence are, well, people who just don't want to talk about this story, either because they don't see a problem here, or for some other reason.

Allow me to submit that the "other reason" is--in many cases--fear. Fear that even admitting to this story's mere existence will cost them something within their own world-view; fear that maybe, just maybe, their ideological foes are right on this issue, even if it is a very minor thing. But that's the trouble with "minor" things like this. They're always minor on their own, but add to the volume of incidents offered as evidence of increasing government overreach and involvement in people's daily lives.

As to whose world-views are in jeopardy, part of that answer is crystal clear: the liberal-oriented mainstream media. Do a google search for "turkey cheese sandwich" in "News," see what you find. As of the writing of this piece, there are currently some 117 stories on this incident. Exactly none of them are on CNN. Or on CBSNews.com, or on ABCNews.com, or on MSNBC.com, much less at the New York Times, WaPo, or other leading media sites. There is a story at HuffPo, to be fair, but aside from FoxNews, local entities, and right-leaning magazines/blogs like Hot Air and NRO, this story is just not being covered.

And that just can't be argued away with a "well. it's not much of a story." It's too easy to sell, from the perspective of the media: "food cops take preschooler's turkey sandwich," or some such thing. The story need not have a political angle, at all. But you won't see it on MSNBC, unless some sort of "gotcha" moment emerges, that allows the story to be used as a means of embarrassing the people who thought it deserved some attention.

And frankly, that's a big problem. I think it goes the other way, too: conservative sources avoiding little stories that are crowd-pleasers for the left. Still, the great majority of the media--the people that work in it, that write stories, that make daily decisions on what to cover and what not to cover--lean left. They always have and always will, for a variety of reasons.

So it's worth quoting the words of the 4th Earl of Chesterfield, Philip Dormer Stanhope, from 1737 on this occasion:

The stage, my lords, and the press, are two of our out-sentries; if we remove them, if we hoodwink them, if we throw them in fetters, the enemy may surprise us.

The lack of a story is--in this case--the real story. And its a very clear warning sign, as well.

Cheers, all.

The Tax-Exempt Game

2012-02-15T11:01:00.000-05:00

According to The Daily Caller, there is renewed interest on the part of Republicans in Congress in examining the tax-exempt status of Media Matters for America. And why not, given that Media Matters is very obviously interested in political outcomes and, as previously noted by TheDC and talked about here, has regular strategy meetings with the administration:

Media Matters also began a weekly strategy call with the White House, which continues, joined by the liberal Center for American Progress think tank. Jen Psaki, Obama’s deputy communications director, was a frequent participant before she left for the private sector in October 2011.

Tax-exempt organizations have to meet the requirements of the IRS code in that regard, specifically those in section 501(c)(3):

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Now come on, who can seriously argue that Media Matters meets the bold-faced requirement? How is this even an issue? But the truth is, Media Matters is far from alone in this regard. Check out this website. Tax exempt organizations have over $5 trillion in assets and over $3 trillion in income. No doubt, many of these organizations are quite legitimate, do good things, fund research, help people in need, and/or provide valuable information and services.

Many of these organizations do not, however, fall under 501(c)(3) requirements. Here's a breakdown, according to 501(c) categories. Taking out all of the other categories still leaves the largest portion in the 501(c)(3) grouping, however. Hit the "play" button and watch how the size of this group has grown since 1991. That's some serious growth.

But back to the listings at Tax Exempt World (the first website). Assume--just for fun--that these organizations were not tax exempt. If that $3 trillion in income was taxed at an average rate (assuming corporate tax rates were applicable) of 25%, that would be $836 billion dollars in tax revenues (to be fair, changing the status of these orgs would impact income substantially, if donations by individuals were no longer tax deductible).

Of course, the idea behind tax exemption is that it allows charitable-type organizations to do more with the monies they have and receive, since taxes are forgiven. But here's the thing: all of these organizations--all of them--utilize services and infrastructure provided by state, local, and federal governments. So, why should they not pay for the services they use, the same as the rest of the population (well, most of the rest of the population at any rate)?

In the interest of full disclosure, other tax exempt organizations in the 501(3)(c) category include the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Federalist Society, all three of which I am a member of and write off contributions to on my own taxes.

And by the way, the fact that the first two enjoy tax exempt status is probably why you won't hear much from them on the issue of Media Matters' tax exempt status. Let's face it, both are politically active in ways similar to Media Matters. But I'd like to think that the powers-that-be at both (especially Cato) would welcome an end to the tax exempt farce.

The Food Police are on the prowl!

2012-02-14T21:17:00.002-05:00

From the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

A state inspector (not sure what that means) checking a Raeford, N.C., elementary school lunchroom decreed that a 4-year-old’s lunch from home — a turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice — did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the Carolina Journal story. Instead, the child was given cafeteria chicken nuggets.

That article is based on a story from the Carolina Journal:

The girl’s mother — who said she wishes to remain anonymous to protect her daughter from retaliation — said she received a note from the school stating that students who did not bring a “healthy lunch” would be offered the missing portions, which could result in a fee from the cafeteria, in her case $1.25.

So, apparently what went on--at the West Hoke Elementary School--is that an inspector from some State agency was busy inspecting preschool lunches brought from home and determined that at least one of them did not meet the USDA standards for a healthy lunch. A turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, chips, and some juice. Not a healthy meal. Uh-huh. The child was instead fed processed, pressed, breaded, and fried pieces of chicken, along with some other things that she chose not to eat. And the parent was then charged a fee--$1.25--for this "healthier" alternative.

Super.

In all fairness, as the AJC article points out, we don't have the whole story here. Maybe the child was habitually not eating her lunch at all and the school was merely trying to make sure she ate something. But then, I have a preschooler whose lunch I pack everyday and frankly, she's gonna eat what she's given if she's hungry. If she's not, she'll eat when I pick her up from school. Sure, we want children to eat foods that are good for them, but they can't be forced to eat. If the child here was having problems, the proper course of action would have been to contact the parents/guardians and discuss the issue, not declare a wholly appropriate lunch "unhealthy" and force the child to eat cafeteria food, then bill the parents.

So while there may be missing information, I can't see how the incident could look much better. It's still crossing a line, and I'm pretty sure the last thing we need is a cadre of food police inspecting the bag lunches of children.

Cheers, all.

Greasy deals, greasy palms, Greecey World

2012-02-14T10:56:00.001-05:00

Athens was in flames the other night. Stores were looted and property was destroyed, there was violence against government agents and against private citizens. And why? Because the Greek government is choking down the demands of the EU, the so-called austerity measures that include tax hikes, spending cuts, wage and salary cuts, layoffs, etc.

And why must the Greeks accept these austerity measures? Because without them, the EU will not engage in another bailout of the Greek government which, incidentally, is pretty much flat broke.

And why does that matter, since most governments just borrow money when they run out (or print some more)? Because the bondholders--the people Greece has already borrowed money from--are not willing to lend the Greek government any more money. Already, these bondholders are looking at significant losses. And this is an important issue to fully understand.

The bondholders are like a credit card company, in a way, that is trying to collect from a delinquent customer, one that doesn't have any other assets to go after, but could possibly get back on their feet if they had some money (and really needs some money to eat, as well). But the reality is that the credit card company knows it will be lucky to see any money, whatsoever. Thus, it is willing to engage in negotiations to hopefully cut its losses. The alternative is to watch the customer go bankrupt and never see a dime of what it is owed.

So, the Greek government has negotiated with its bondholders (some of them, at any rate) to make huge cuts on what it owes them, thus allowing for the possibility that it can pay some portion of what it originally owed. By the way, the bondholders unwilling to cut the debt will be dragged kicking and screaming into the deal, but that's neither here nor there.

With the lowered debt on the books, Greece will then be able to borrow more money from the EU, in order to keep the government running, keep making all the payments it needs to make on a daily basis, keep its economy from collapsing completely.

But as Andrew Lilico of The Telegraph points out, there's a bit of a problem here. A number of EU nations are very clearly opposed to giving Greece any more money, whatsoever. They'd just as soon see it burn:

When the second bail-out was originally agreed, part of the deal was that Greece would sell off 50 billion euros of state assets. It isn’t even 10 per cent of the way through; the current proposal is to reduce the programme to just 19 billion euros. Since the 50 billion was supposed to be integral to Greece supporting itself, that implies that Athens hopes to get billions more from the rest of Europe later on. If I were a Finnish or Slovak diplomat, I’d turn up to the next summit with a copy of the original agreement, and ask how the privatisation is going.

The truth is that Europe doesn’t want to pay – so despite all the drama in Athens, the Greeks will probably default outright in March anyway.

If things play out this way--and they very well might--it means that all of the bailout drama was for naught; the billions spent will have been wasted and the bondholders for the Greek debt will see maybe one more interest payment, then eat the principal.

It's easy to see the bondholders and the EU as villains in all of this. After all, their demands are essentially destroying Greece and will leave it in rubble, with or without the riots. And to be fair, many of the bondholders have made tidy sums loaning money to Greece and many other nations. Eating the losses here won't break them, at all (most of them). Looking at it through the credit card analogy once again, these bondholders kept extending Greece credit, in return for interest payments (maybe a loanshark is a better analogy). But they should have known--and probably did know--that the end-game was bankruptcy/default.

But what of the Greek government's culpability? On what basis did it think it could keep borrowing money? Olive oil futures? It's tourism industry? No, the Greek government was certainly aware that it was living on borrowed time. And that begs the question, where did all of the money go?

Greece has enjoyed a very high standard of living, as compared to much of the rest of the world. The UN ranks Greece 29th on its 2011 Human Development Index (the UK is 28, the US is 4). At the same time, it's government is perceived to be exceedingly corrupt, ranking number 80 on that index (the UK is 16, the US is 24, higher is better here). On The Heritage Foundation's benchmark Index of Economic Freedom, Greece ranks 119th (the UK ranks 14, the US ranks 10).

The last metric--Labor Freedom--is particularly telling. What it measures:

The labor freedom component is a quantitative measure that looks into various aspects of the legal and regulatory framework of a country’s labor market. It provides cross-country data on regulations concerning minimum wages; laws inhibiting layoffs; severance requirements; and measurable regulatory burdens on hiring, hours, and so on.

Given that Greece has the largest debt-to-GDP ratio in the EU, it's not particularly difficult to understand why Greece is in the situation it is in: its government has largely funded the high standard of living the citizenry has enjoyed. That standard of living was not a product of hard work and industry, but of simple government expenditures: high public sector salaries and benefits, mandated employment rights and high minimum wages in the private sector, and entitlements like healthcare for all.

And now--surprise, surprise--the Greek citizenry is furious that the high standard of living they had enjoyed may be gone, the standard of living that was largely unearned and unwarranted. Really it's a tragic situation, for the average citizen of Greece was promised things by the government that were beyond the power of the government to actually deliver, unbeknownst to that citizen. Who wouldn't be furious? I know I would be. Yet at some point, introspection becomes necessary, for the only way to save Greece is to undo what it has become, to eliminate the unrealistic expectations that have been created by the reckless borrow-and-spend mentality of the government, coupled with its unworkable regulations on employment and business.

And of course, the Greek lesson calls out for other Governments to recognize their own failings in this regard, to avoid following the same path as Greece.

Cheers, all.

A factual error was corrected in this article on February 14th at 6:32 pm

How 'bout budgeting your own spending for a change?

2012-02-13T19:23:00.001-05:00

With the unveiling of the President's latest budget proposal, the political and economic analysts are out in full force, ripping it apart or praising its vision. David Boaz at Cato offers his take (and some good graphs), which is essentially that there's just no real attempt to control spending:

The problem on Capitol Hill is spending, deficits, and debt. Members of Congress need to tell the president that you don’t rein in out-of-control spending by increasing it. And if voters want members of Congress to insist on cuts, they’re going to have to let their representatives know that.

And that's absolutely true. But what bugs me about these budget proposals supposedly designed to lower the debt is that the "lowering" always takes place down the road. Here's the White House overview of the budget proposal. Look at this bit:

Of course, even as we invest in the areas critical to creating an economy that’s built to last, we also have to reduce our deficit and bring down the debt. That’s why the Budget lives within very tight spending caps that reduce discretionary spending by $1 trillion over the next 10 years and, including that amount, has more than $4 trillion of balanced deficit reduction. In fact, discretionary spending in this Budget is reduced from 8.7 percent of GDP in 2011 to 5.0 percent in 2022. And by 2018, we cut the deficit to less than 3 percent of GDP, and stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio.

Pardon my French, but WTF?
It is the 2013 budget, isn't it? What does it have to do with spending ten years from now? I'll tell you: zero, nada, zilch. Newsflash: no matter what happens in November, Obama will not be President in 2018, much less 2022. His budget for FY2013 can't curb spending when he is out of office because--let's be crystal clear on this--future Congresses and Administrations are not bound by the plans in Obama's budget for 2013.

And the President is hardly alone on this issue; past Presidents and Congresses have engaged in the same kind of shenanigans. Put simply, it works like this: we're gonna spend a lot of money right now because we have to, but then really take control of the spending down the road. Of course, the second part never happens. And that's exactly why we're in the mess we're in today.

So I suggest a new approach for budgets: no more plans for future cuts; deal with the money being spent and coming in for just the one year the budget is for, no more. That's the only way to actually control spending. Every schoolboy knows that.

Cheers, all.

Color me shocked: Media Matters runs MSNBC

2012-02-13T10:46:00.003-05:00

In the first piece of a series of investigative articles on Media Matters, the Daily Caller drops the bombshell:

Donors have every reason to expect success, as the group’s effect on many news organizations has already been profound. “We were pretty much writing their prime time,” a former Media Matters employee said of the cable channel MSNBC.

That claim, if true, is...well...pretty much what everyone, everywhere has known for quite some time now. Other dogs on the Media Matters leash include Ben Smith (formerly of Politico), Greg Sargent (of the Washington Post), and HuffPo as a whole.

The idea that many pundits are being led around the nose, are continuously parroting talking points they have received from others is nothing new, of course. Pundits on the right and left have been arguing that this is the case, even as they themselves often seem to do the exact same thing that they are criticizing. But the Daily Caller points out that Media Matters is in full and open collusion with both the White House and the Center for American Progress:

Media Matters also began a weekly strategy call with the White House, which continues, joined by the liberal Center for American Progress think tank. Jen Psaki, Obama’s deputy communications director, was a frequent participant before she left for the private sector in October 2011.

There has been a great deal--to put it mildly--of criticism from the left-leaning pundits (and from some of the right-leaning ones, as well) on the SCOTUS decision in the Citizens United case and the resulting "Super-pacs" the decision has led to, as if some sort of mystical floodgate had been opened, allowing politicians greater access to more money from corporations and the like. But look where many of those pundits are.

Look at the Media Matters talking points page for the Citizens United decision. A few of the "points":

By declaring that corporations have the same free speech rights as people, the Court opened the floodgates for corporations to spend as much money as they want in any election -- all in secret.

Our democracy was founded on the belief that every voice deserves to be heard. But with Citizens United, the voices of regular people are getting drowned out.

There was a reason our country restricted corporations from using their money to meddle in politics for more than a century: to prevent corruption and protect our free and fair elections. But Citizens United undid all that.

Now, consider those complaints in the context of what Media Matters has done and is doing. It is--for all intents and purposes--running MSNBC. It's also directing the content of political pundits in various other media outlets. And it's doing all of this in concert with the Administration and the Center for American Progress. For the upcoming election, the Daily Caller uncovered the following:

According to an internal memo obtained by TheDC, Media Matters intends to spend nearly $20 million in 2012 to influence news coverage.

All of this has nothing to do with the Citizens United ruling. Media Matters is spending millions and millions to influence policy and elections as a matter of course. It was doing the same long before the Citizens United ruling. But somehow, that's okay?

The entire piece at the Daily Caller is well worth the read, by the way. And I'm eager to read the next installment.

Cheers, all.

Peak People?

2012-02-12T13:25:00.001-05:00

Doug Saunders at The Globe and Mail tackles an issue that has been steadily increasing in exposure over the last ten years: the rise in the world's elderly population. As he notes, the percentage of people over the age of sixty in populations around the world is growing rapidly, if not alarmingly, even in some less-than-expected places:

About 11 per cent of the world’s people are over 60 at the moment. In the next 25 years that will double, to almost a fifth, and one in six of those people will be over 80, according to a forthcoming book, Global Aging in the 21st Century, by sociologists Susan McDaniel of the University of Lethbridge and Zachary Zimmer of the University of California.

While this is affecting every country and region – even sub-Saharan Africa is now seeing a very fast rise in its proportion of seniors – some countries are being hit very hard. While 12 per cent of Chinese are now over 60, in two decades, there will be more than 28 per cent. Brazil faces a similar blow.

The situation--from a policy perspective--can easily be viewed through an economic prism, along the lines of determining how many workers there are whose incomes can be used--via taxation--to pay for the costs associated with caring for the retired population. According to Saunders, there are five workers for every retiree in Canada right now, but in the near future the ratio will be down to three to one.

Many European nations are already dealing with that kind of ratio and it only looks to get worse. In the United States--where the current demographics are actually far more favorable in this regard than in Europe and many other places--the trend has nonetheless led to the Social Security Administration paying out more in benefits than it takes in. And of course, the current payroll tax holiday isn't helping matters in that regard at all.

Given the global impact of aging populations, Saunders coins what I think is a great term: Peak People. Peak oil theories hold that we've reached the halfway point of the usable oil supply on the planet, that we're now headed downhill and oil will become more and more scarce, even as we use it at a faster and faster rate. Peak people is the idea that the world's population--thanks to increased longevity and lower birthrates--will continue to increase in average age, but we've hit a tipping point with regard to paying the costs for those no longer working, as--per the Canada example--the ratio of workers to retirees is now decreasing and will continue to do so at an increasing rate.

This idea makes for some interesting speculation and modeling. And it raises the question of when--exactly--do the costs become too large to manage, when would the costs for the retired population be so large as to prevent the working population from--on average--caring for themselves. They need to eat too, after all.

But note the underlying cause for all of this: the expectation that it is up to the working population--via taxes and government programs--to bear most of, if not all of, these costs. Given the expectations that we have allowed to be created, that's the current reality. And it's this reality that needs to be changed.

Cheers, all.

Our Flawed Heroes

2012-02-12T12:10:00.002-05:00

First the Sandusky scandal , then the revelations of former intern Mimi Alford, and now the passing of legendary singer Whitney Houston under somewhat mysterious circumstances. What do all three situations have in common? They all demonstrate how tragically flawed a hero can be.

Joe Paterno's legacy has suffered greatly from the revelations involving Sandusky. At the very least Paterno was haplessly ignorant of things involving his once-trusted assistant coach, at worst he knew things that might have made him culpable. But regardless, the scandal will be more than a footnote on his otherwise great and memorable career.

Mimi Alford's allegations involving President John F. Kennedy are hardly ground-breaking, insofar as JFK's infidelities are well-known, but they paint a darker picture of the man, they suggest his personal flaws in this regard are something more then mere peccadilloes. And for a President still fondly remembered by many, still written of in laudatory terms, they force a reassessment for future historians.

Whitney Houston's death at such a young age--forty-eight--brings back to the public discourse her sad history of abuse and drug use. As of now, the cause of her death has not been made public, but speculation is unsurprisingly focusing on substance abuse, especially given her appearance and actions on the days previous to her death.

All three--Paterno, Kennedy, and Houston--are larger than life public figures. Sports, politics, and entertainment--the trifecta of public spectacles--depend on publicity, on fandom, and on hero worship as a means to their various ends: filling seats at games, creating policy, and selling music/movies. We ask for these heroes and we receive them. And to be fair, the heroes deliver. They really do. Who can argue against the accomplishments of these three, against their talent and hard work?

In the balance, none will be found wanting in my opinion. Even with the footnotes and scandals, all three will continue to be recognized for what they did, moreso than who they were or what they failed to do. And that's the way of things in most cases. Few real-life heroes can truly measure up to their own legends.

And in the classic sense, to be a hero is to be flawed, as a matter of course. The "tragic hero" is really the hero, since time immemorial. As Aristotle noted, the proper course for the tragic hero is from good to bad. The hero's tragic flaw--be it trust, appetite, dependence, or something else--only becomes apparent after their heroic character is established by deed. In fiction, the pattern is easy to see, from Medea, to Hamlet, to even Willie Loman. In real life it happens in the same way. Yet where we easily accept the fictional hero as a hero still, we are often less forgiving of those who actually lived and breathed, perhaps unfairly forgetting that we are all flawed in some ways.

Still, there are those rare heroes in life that defy the pattern, that seem unblemished by a tragic flaw. Few and far between, they are. In the United States, the principal example is George Washington, of course. And a few others, I think, including my personal favorite Davy Crockett. But the expectation that people can or should live up to such a standard is unrealistic. And unfair.

Whitney Houston has passed away. She gave joy to millions, inspired them, entertained them, and--in a real sense--loved them. Joe Paterno stood on the summit of college sports, demanding the best from his players on the field, in the classroom, and in life. JFK changed America for the better, ushering in a new era of civil rights while standing firm on the things they made the nation great.

All three deserve to be lauded for what they did; they were heroes, in every sense of the word.

Cheers, all.

A Tribute to Snackwells

2012-02-11T19:56:00.001-05:00

Have you ever eaten Snackwells cookies? It's a brand name Nabisco introduced in 1992, according to Wikipedia. But I think the year is wrong. I remember my mother buying Snackwells Devil's Food Cookies for my father while I was still in high school. That's the mid to late eighties.

And I remember these cookies being darn tasty. While shopping today, I spotted Snackwells Vanilla Creme Cookies in snack size--four cookies a pack, twelve packs a box--and decided they might make a nice addition to the kids' lunches. I know that they're not uber-healthy, but they certainly are better for the kids than Oreos.

Of course, an apple would be better than either and truth be told, I've noticed that my kids rarely make it to the desert portion of their lunches. My daughter informs me that she often hands over the desert I pack for her to one boy or another. Still, I remember the good taste of Snackwells and thought the kids might like them, too.

But that's all really beside the point here, which is: the exponential growth in food product varieties over the past twenty five years or so. For people like me--born in the sixties--there just weren't all that many choices to make, as compared to today. For people born in the fifties and before, there were even fewer.

Consider milk. Once upon a time--not all that long ago--there was just milk. The milkman delivered it to many people in clear glass bottles. It didn't matter what farm it came from, it wasn't really branded--except by the company delivering it--it was just plain milk. There was buttermilk and cream, as well, but that was about it. Then came low-fat milk, followed by 1%, 2%, and non-fat milk. The milkman slowly disappeared in the fifties and sixties, as carton milk sold in grocery stores became the new standard. Plastic gallon and half-gallon jugs followed not long after.

By the seventies, these were the norm. Chain grocery stores tended to sell their own branded milk in plastic containers, while carrying one or two other brands alongside them (Borden, Pet, etc.). Then....boom! The next time you're in the local grocery store, take a look at the milks that are available, the brands, the kinds, the sizes. If your store has a health food section, you'll have to look there as well. Think back to your own childhood and going shopping with mom or dad. See it?

And milk is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Look at hotdogs, or cheeses, or cereals. And to stock these varieties, grocery stores have had to get larger and larger and larger.

So, why did I bring up Snackwells? Simple: it was one of the first "health-conscious" brands to be introduced. And its initial success led to what? A proliferation of similar "health conscious" varieties of all sorts of snack foods. Low fat this, low salt that (low salt saltines always cracks me up), sugar free that, low cal this, and on and on.

This is not to say that the proliferation of products is only about healthier eating; it's not in the least. It's merely to note how trends can cause such proliferation. The same thing is true in other markets, as well. Look at the television market. In 1970, how many brands of televisions were available? And in how many sizes? Today? It's stunning, if you think about it.

But there's method--of sorts--behind the madness. Having all of these varieties allows producers and sellers to gauge demand by differentiation; profit margins can then be tailored to fit the demand in order to maximize profit. And make no mistake, profit margins are very different for each variety, sometimes drastically different.

Some would argue that this is all bad news, that people are being "tricked." Me? I'd argue that it's just the opposite, that this allows people to--in essence--vote with their pocketbook and get exactly what they want. Of course, some product varieties are eliminated, due to demand and profit margin (something with a high profit margin and low demand can be offered effectively, as compared to something else with the same demand but low profit margin). And really, that's exactly the way things should work.

Now, consider all of this with respect to the economy at large. If there is limited demand for a product and low profit margins for it as well, why should it be offered? Suppose someone in charge insists that it be offered, insists that it be produced. Do you think that such a person should remain "in charge"? Do you think that such a person even knows what the hell they are doing?

Food (pun intended) for thought.

Cheers, all.

Ann Coulter at CPAC

2012-02-11T18:47:00.001-05:00

You might not like her, you might not agree with her, but she'd worth listening to. Because anyway you slice it, she speaks for a large chunk of conservatives in the country.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Cheers, all.

The Wages of Compassion

2012-02-10T12:51:00.001-05:00

Charles Krauthammer's latest op-ed compares Obama's appeal to religion as a justification for increasing taxes on the wealthy with his fundamental disregard for religion, as demonstrated by the rules being established for Obamacare (which I have previously addressed). Krauthammer sums up the administration's hypocrisy succinctly:

To flatter his faith-breakfast guests and justify his tax policies, Obama declares good works to be the essence of religiosity. Yet he turns around and, through Sebelius, tells the faithful who engage in good works that what they’re doing is not religion at all.

But the first issue--the idea that there is religious justification behind raising taxes on the rich--deserves some more analysis.

Obama said the following at the National Prayer Breakfast on February 2nd of this year:

And when I talk about shared responsibility, it's because I genuinely believe that in a time when many folks are struggling, at a time when we have enormous deficits, it's hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income, or young people with student loans, or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone. And I think to myself, if I'm willing to give something up as somebody who's been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that's going to make economic sense.

But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus's teaching that "for unto whom much is given, much shall be required." It mirrors the Islamic belief that those who've been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others.

The gist of Obama's words is that those with more owe more. Who do they owe? As Krauthammer points out, they owe the government in Obama's world, in the world of progressive and liberal leaders and thinkers. This is hardly a new idea; objections to increasing taxes are almost always met with emotion-based criticism of those who object. They are labeled as "uncaring," "greedy," or the like, the assumption being that they have too much and should be more willing to share with those in need.

And who can argue against such an appeal, as given? It's a powerful bit of rhetoric. But it's also based on a fundamental idea that is grossly flawed: that the government exists to redistribute wealth and that paying taxes is, in essence, equivalent to "giving" in a charitable sense.

In this world view, compassion is measured by funding; the compassionate people are those who desire greater funding for government programs to help the poor, the needy, the sick, and the young. The more aggressive one is in this regard, the more compassionate one is. But it's easy to be compassionate under this rubric, since you don't actually have to give of yourself; instead, you target others and complain that they should give more, that the onus is on them, not you.

Actual charitable works are inconsequential. For the standard is not based on behavior and giving, but on support of government programs and taxation. And it's a powerful delusion, for it allows people to be morally indignant, to argue that their happiness is contingent on others who do not pay their "fair share." The government is by definition the agent of morality, the principal arbiter of social justice. The more it takes in, the greater the level of justice it can deliver.

For the individual, success through hard work is not a road to self-fulfillment, financial security, and happiness under this rubric, but rather a road to greater obligations to the government. And those obligations are not to be viewed as costs, per se, but as badges of honor. The more one can pay in taxes, the better they are as a person. And those who cannot pay more earn their honor by castigating those who can.

And through it all, responsibility for one's own life, own happiness, own success or lack thereof, is abrogated in full to the government, the New Church, which then demands more. And more. And more.

Cheers, all.

Did the Black Knight Rule in Camelot?

2012-02-10T11:13:00.000-05:00

It is one of the most legendary periods in American history, one of the most magical and glorious. It is wistfully recalled by major media and political figures and has been idealized on paper and on screen, the Camelot years of the U.S. Presidency, the administration of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

The term itself--Camelot--was first used to describe the period by the First Lady, Jacqueline Kennedy (later Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis) in an interview with Theodore H. White, following the assassination of JFK. It was published in Life Magazine and is worth quoting:

I want to say this one thing. It's been almost an obsession with me. This line from the musical comedy's been almost an obsession with me. At night before going to bed . . . we had an old Victrola. He'd play a couple of records. I'd get out of bed at night and play it for him when it was so cold getting out of bed. It was a song he loved. He loved 'Camelot.' It was the song he loved most at the end . . . 'don't let it be forgot that for one brief shining moment there was Camelot.'

White transcribed the interview and Mrs. Kennedy--in reviewing it--appended to the above quote the phrase "and it will never be that way again."

It is a remarkable moment, her recognition of the historical significance of her husband's Presidency and ability to encapsulate it with such a memorable, idyllic term. The legacy of JFK reaches far, from civil rights, to the stand-off with the Soviets, to the Peace Corps, to his legendary speeches, and to his assassination. But the Camelot reference has become the standard-bearer, the defining idea of the Kennedy myth, moving beyond just JFK himself to cover the Kennedy family and its legacy.

And make no mistake, even the Kennedy panegyrists know it is a myth. For despite the charisma of JFK, despite his list of achievements, it is known and accepted that he was a flawed man. Some of his indiscretions have been documented in the past and there are many rumors swirling in this regard; those involving Marilyn Monroe in particular reflect poorly on Kennedy.

The latest revelations--or claims, for those that question their veracity--come from former White House intern Mimi Alford and her memoir, Once Upon A Secret: My Affair With President John F. Kennedy And Its Aftermath. In this book, Alford details her first sexual encounter with President Kennedy--which also happened to be her very first sexual encounter with anyone--and it reads very much like what today would be regarded as sexual harassment, at the very least. Alford also describes a pool-side scene wherein Kennedy prompts her to perform oral sex on David Powers--Special Assistant to the President and now deceased--while Kennedy watched. As Timothy Noah in the New Republic says, such actions--if true--reflect a "monstrous cruelty," and cannot be easily swept aside nor forgiven.

The glory of the mythical Camelot of Arthurian legend was a product not only of the peace and happiness that abounded during Arthur's rule, but also of the code of chivalry Arthur and his knights followed. Their faith in this regard was the source of that peace and happiness. The tragic end of that Camelot came because of Lancelot's failure to adhere to the code by loving the wife of the King.

The Camelot of the Kennedys is inverted: Jacqueline Kennedy is chaste, but her husband the President is not; he falters, not her. From the mythical standpoint, the end of this Camelot comes through the King's transgressions, not those of his First Knight nor his wife. If this period was an American Camelot, it was so with a caveat: JFK was no King Arthur, he was much more of a Black Knight.

Cheers, all.

William Claiborne survived the Gunfight at the OK Corral

2012-02-09T19:15:00.002-05:00

Every serious Star Trek fan knows this. And it was this reality that led to Kirk's recognition--in The Spectre of the Gun--that the fix was in, that history wasn't really a guide, that it (history) was being intentionally subverted to achieve a goal. One would think Robert Redford would know this as well--that Billy Claiborne survived the fight--given his background in Hollywood. But it doesn't seem that way.

Recently, I examined Redford's op-ed on the Keystone XL Pipeline and took issue with some of his faulty assumptions. Namely:

President Obama has just rejected a permit for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline -- a project that promised riches for the oil giants and an environmental disaster for the rest of us.

And:

Big Oil had their Congressional boosters put the president to an election-year test by forcing him to decide the pipeline's fate within 60 days.

My problem with the first is that it is stating something as fact--the "environmental disaster"--that is no such thing. With the second, it's that the statement is an outright falsehood. The President had ample time to make a decision, but kept delaying it despite his claim that he was "focused like a laser" on job creation (which is something the project would certainly do: create jobs). This is all fully documented, as I noted in the above piece.

Now, Redford has revisited the issue, ostensibly to take issue with Joe Nocera's op-ed in the New York Times, but with the apparent intent to simultaneously rewrite history. In making his case against the pipeline--after claiming he wants to "focus on the facts"--Redford says:

Throughout his entire column, he gives not a whiff of mention to a clean energy future or economy or so much as a nod to the viability of any alternative form of energy. Even though it's a fact that clean energy investments can create four times as many jobs as similar investments in fossil fuel energy.

Pardon? On what planet and under what conditions? Has Mr. Redford been keeping up with current events, because "clean energy" just got its ass kicked. Twelve times. To the tune of $6.5 billion dollars of taxpayer money--along with a ton of private investment monies-- all down the proverbial drain.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm actually all for new energy sources, green or otherwise. And investing in them can be--can be--a good thing, if it's done by people who know how to assess potential and are willing to take the risk (yes, that means it something that has to be left largely to the market). But it's not automatic, and throwing money at something just because someone shouts "green" is no way to create real jobs, just empty, temporary ones that result in no productivity and disappear when the free money is gone.

But the point here is that we know from recent history that Mr. Redford's "fact" is no such thing, that--ala William Claiborne--his false history is being used in service to a different end.

Cheers, all.

Ruing the Day

2012-02-09T13:57:00.000-05:00

I love the expression "you will rue the day that you did such and such." It just sounds so authoritative, so ominous, and so definite. You will rue it. End of story. Did you know that one can rue other things, too? As a verb, rue isn't used much apart from that phrase. I think it should be, because "you will rue your decision," or "you will rue your vote" would both work pretty well and see a lot of use. But I digress.

David Catron--in a piece at The American Spectator--declares that voters "will rue the day they listened to [Ann Coulter] and the establishment Republicans with whom she has now made common cause" and Mitt Romney as the Republican presidential nominee. I can only assume that Catron must feel some other candidate has a much better chance to defeat Obama in 2012. And that would be who, exactly? Catron doesn't say.

The bulk of the article is criticism of Romneycare and of Coulter. Really, the attacks on Coulter are fairly viscous, which isn't all that surprising given that the piece is titled Who Castrated Ann Coulter? The unnecessary misogyny aside, Catron makes some fair points. He notes that Coulter criticized McCain for being too much of a moderate, yet now seems comfortable with someone who can easily be viewed as even more moderate than McCain (though such a view is mere opinion, not fact). And that Coulter's defense of Romneycare is based on conservative support of the plan and basic ideas from sources that have long since repudiated that support.

Of course, Catron falters here, as he simply accepts these various reversals but then proceeds to make an issue of Romney's own reversals. Can't have it both ways, Mr. Catron. You can't applaud reversals by some to a favored position, while decrying the reversals of others to that same position. He notes how the folks at Heritage and elsewhere--who once supported an individual mandate--are now adamantly against the same, while simultaneously suggesting that Romney's pledge to repeal Obamacare and the individual mandate can't be taken at face value because Romney once supported the same!

Worse still, Catron attempts to take Coulter to task for her article If Not Romney, Who? If Not Now, When? He supposes Coulter is ignoring realities with that piece, but then blissfully does the same, completely ignoring the devastating case Coulter makes against Gingrich as the nominee. Catron, in arguing that voters will "rue the day" they voted for Romney, appears to be following that warped RedState line of thinking, where somehow Gingrich is not really the divisive and arrogant prick that he is and that somehow he could actually win the Presidency.

It's not that Romney is any great shakes. I certainly don't think he is, and I'm pretty sure Coulter feels the same way. It's just that he's really the only viable candidate, the only one of the current crop that can actually have a meaningful Presidential campaign this year, even if it ultimately fails. Because frankly, the Republicans need this, if they hope to extend their control of the House and maybe even take control of the Senate.

So, get off Coulter's back and remember the immortal words of the Nature Boy, Ric Flair:

Whether you like, or you don't like it, learn to live with it. Because it's the best thing going today! Whooooooooooooooooooo!

Cheers, all.

The Line Item Veto Is Back!

2012-02-09T10:26:00.000-05:00

With a vengeance!

Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed--by a vote of 254 to 173--the Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act of 2011. The bill would give the President a pseudo-kind of line item veto power: after the President received a spending bill, he would--under this legislation--have some 45 days to propose specific cuts. Congress would then be required to have up or down votes on each proposal.

It sounds kind of complicated, but the basic idea is that given these circumstances, legislators would be less likely to load up bills with pork, since specific bits could be targeted and exposed to public scrutiny. In the past, Representative Bellweather of Big Tobacco State might--because of the committee he is on--put a provision into a spending bill that grants his state twenty million dollars to fund the Chewing Tobacco Hall of Fame. It would be buried deep in the bill and other Reps wouldn't talk much about it, for fear that their own pet projects might be exposed.

If this bill becomes law, then it would be the President who could expose Bellweather's special project. The President could ask for it to be cut and then Congress would actually have to vote on that specific provision alone. And the bonus: cuts in spending are automatically applied to deficit reduction.

It should come as no surprise that this bill's sponsor is Paul Ryan. Nor should it be all that shocking who many of the co-sponsors are, for those that keep tabs on this sort of stuff. But here's something that's surprising: passage of the bill was truly bipartisan (not that pretend bipartisan, where two members of the other party cross over), which means--of course--that so was the opposition. 157 Republicans voted for the bill, 41 opposed it. 57 Democrats voted for it, 132 voted against it. That's pretty, maybe the most cooperation we've seen in Congress in seven or more years. Wonder where your Rep was on this? Here are the votes.

Interestingly enough, even though most Democrats voted against the bill, the Administration supports it:

The White House, in a statement, said it "strongly supports" passage of the bill, praising it for "helping to eliminate unnecessary spending and discouraging waste." It said the bill was similar to a line-item veto proposal that Obama sent to Congress in May, 2010.

Which brings us to the criticism of the bill: the idea that it gives the President too much power and/or that it's Unconstitutional on its face. But Ryan was very clever, with regard to the last. This bill was crafted to specifically avoid the problems the 1996 line item veto bill encountered (and ultimately led to the SCOTUS declaring it unconstitutional). The Court found that the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 allowed the President to essentially nullify acts of Congress. In Ryan's version, the President can only question specific items; it falls to Congress to remove or keep them.

As to the idea that the bill gives the President more power, there is little question that this is true. Audrey Hudson at Human Events details some of the negative reactions to this expansion:

[Hal] Rogers warned that the bill would weaken powers that the founding fathers gave Congress over the executive branch, particularly the “power of the purse.”

[Norman] Dicks said Congress would make a “serious mistake” if they gave any president the line-item veto authority.

“You are transferring it to a monarchy,” said Rep. Don Young of Alaska, one of the highest-ranking Republicans in the House. “Shame on you, shame on you!”

But these objections fail to account for the trap Ryan has cleverly set for the President and Congress: cutting specific programs means cutting overall spending, period. The bill--if its current form passes the Senate and is signed into law--forces the government to justify expenditures as necessary and prevents it from going back and spending cut monies somewhere else. It forces the government to budget its expenditures, something that it has always had--in my opinion--a fiduciary obligation to do, but simply has never done.

Of course, the bill still has to get through the Senate, and as we all know it's hard to find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy, anywhere. Aside from the UN, of course.

Cheers, all.

More on the lack of manners

2012-02-08T12:31:00.000-05:00

Previously, I discussed my habit of returning shopping carts at the grocery store, noting that--in my view--it was just good manners to return something you had essentially borrowed. But I had observed that I seemed to be one of the few people who felt this way, leading me to this quote from Robert Heinlein's novel, Friday:

But a dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than is a riot.

In that regard, consider this story from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

One man was stabbed with a golf club shaft after a brawl broke out when the threesome he was in tried to play through the group in front of them at a course at Eagle Mountain Lake.

That's pretty awful. For those unfamiliar with golf etiquette, when one group of players is moving faster than another--taking fewer strokes, hitting quicker, etc.--it's customary for the slower group to wait for a few minutes to allow the faster group past them, that way the course doesn't get bogged down with waiting players. It's very much like moving one's car to the far right lane so cars traveling faster can pass.

In this particular case, a course marshal--who works for the course and is in charge--apparently told the threesome to play through and the foursome to wait. But that didn't happen. A fight ensued, instead. The man who was stabbed may lose the leg--due to blood loss--and could have very well died. And over what? Which group got to go first?

The situation does mirror road rage, in many respects. We've all been behind people who we think are driving too slow, and we've all been tailgated by people who we think are being obnoxious. It's tough to definitely say who is in the right, even though we usually feel that we are. And it's equally difficult to simply allow others to have their way in things, to make a practice of avoiding conflict at all costs. Because let's face it, that's not right or fair, either.

But issues can be categorized, according to importance. I may not want to simply let some obnoxious person push me out of the way in a Starbucks line, but then again, it's certainly not something I want use as a basis for resorting to violence.

In this case, the issue is a game, however. And it's not even the internal competition of the game that led to conflict, it's the protocols of the field of play. And yes, I know basketball courts around the country have seen violence erupt over the issue of whose turn it is to use the courts. But I've never heard of it happening on a golf course, before. And certainly, I've never heard of someone getting stabbed for wanting to play through.

This strikes me as a particularly bad sign, as evidence that a lack of manners is becoming more pervasive. And I can't help but wonder what the relationship of this is to the issues I discussed in my previous piece.

Cheers, all.

The real class divide

2012-02-08T11:09:00.000-05:00

Charles Murray is on a roll. In 1994, Murray's and Richard Herrnstein's controversial book, The Bell Curve, was first published. Though a best seller, criticism of the book was widespread and often vicious. The fundamental idea of the book is that intelligence--as a product of both genetics and environment--is a better predictor of success in life than socio-economic background and education. The book broached the issue of race in this regard and its conclusions there were the principal reasons for the criticism.

But such criticism was largely misplaced, in my view. The real problem with the book is that the authors failed to fully appreciate how the changing dynamics of U.S. society would manifest themselves as time wore on. They argued that the elite class of citizens--the coupling of high-IQ professionals--would steadily develop into a wealthy upper, upper class, living apart from the remainder of society. They assumed that wealth was inexorably linked to the process.

In Murray's latest book--Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010--he analyzes the trends of middle to lower class white Americans, as compared to upper class white Americans. I've discussed the book before, both in relation to single motherhood and to income inequality. And while what he finds in the book largely follows the predictions in The Bell Curve, there is a significant difference. Namely, it is the breakdown of social structures that create the circumstances to allow the divergence of outcomes.

Sound too complicated? Consider this: In 1994, Murray and Herrnstein found higher marriage rates among the lower and middle classes than in the upper classes. Now, a mere eighteen years later, the reverse is true. Marriage rates for the lower and middle classes have dropped off a cliff, while they have not changed all that much for the upper classes. The divergence in inequality follows the change in rates, suggesting that the rates are not a consequential, but rather a causal factor.

This is a significant point, for those in the middle and lower classes that follow the traditional paradigm of American success--work hard, raise a family, etc.--still can and do achieve wealth, significant wealth even. The opportunity for upward mobility exists, but it is being stymied not by income inequality but by the destruction of the traditional paradigm, via policy.

In a new piece in Time Magazine, Murray notes a rarely spoken off reality, that it's not always about wealth. He gives an example of a hard-working, industrious guy he calls Hank:

[Hank] built a successful auto-repair business and expanded it to 30 locations, and now his stake in the business is worth $100 million. He is not just in the 1%; he’s in the top fraction of the 1% — but he’s not part of the new upper class. He went to a second-tier state university, or maybe he didn’t complete college at all. He grew up in a working-class or middle-class home and married a woman who didn’t complete college. He now lives in a neighborhood with other rich people, but they’re mostly other people who got rich the same way he did.

There are a lot of Hanks these days. There really are. Maybe they're not all worth $100 million, but there are plenty worth well over $1 million. They are not--however--the real upper class, insofar as they either lack access to political power or are simply unconcerned with getting it; they're more than happy to keep living their lives.

The real upper class--the ones with their hands on the reins of power--are something a little different:

It consists of the people who run the country. By “the people who run the country,” I mean two sets of people. The first is the small set of people — well under 100,000, by a rigorous definition — who are responsible for the films and television shows you watch, the news you see and read, the success (or failure) of the nation’s leading corporations and financial institutions and the jurisprudence, legislation and regulations produced by government. The second is the broader set, numbering a few million people, who hold comparable positions of influence in the nation’s major cities.

As Murray notes, this group has their own culture, their own lifestyle. Their children live sheltered lives, largely interacting with others in this group, alone. Once upon a time, this was purely a function of wealth and restricted to the very tippy-top of the wealth pyramid. Not so, anymore. And why? Because of the growth of government. It is, in fact, a realization of Max Weber's fears of continued bureaucratization of society. For the political access of this group is very much a permanent thing; nepotism rules, both for appointed and elected offices. Career paths to both are largely limited to those with the access to specific schools and institutions.

And at the same time, the expansion of rules--under the guise of helping the poor and achieving social justice--limit the remainder of society and contribute to the breakdown of necessary social structures. Yet somehow, a great majority of this real upper class sees themselves as champions of the downtrodden, as saviors for the rest of society. They actually identify with things like the OWS movement, having deluded themselves into thinking that--somehow--they share the interests and needs of the 99%, oblivious to the reality: they are the real reason for the dichotomy they think they can undo.

When the Hanks of the world complain, they are criticized as if they were the problem, they are attacked for refusing to pay their fair share, made to feel guilty for their success and the traditional paradigm of living that characterizes their existence. When the Hanks dare to pursue political power, they are quickly marginalized with whatever tools are available to those in the real upper class. They become the enemies of the rest of society, even as they merely try to set that remainder free...

Cheers, all.

Pregnancy: a disease to be prevented

2012-02-07T16:03:00.000-05:00

Previously, I authored a piece that was something of a plea to my fellow conservatives: Abortion and Same-sex Marriage: Give it up, already! In it, I wrote:

For no matter what anyone says, an abortion is a medical procedure and it can be justified. Is it a "good thing"? No. But it must be allowed though not encouraged.

And I stand that by that position, with the full understanding that many feel much differently, for very valid and justifiable reasons. But note that I explicitly state abortions are not something to be encouraged, and I mean this in regard to both the government and anyone else. Thus, while I feel that the issue of abortion--along with that of same-sex marriage--should not be front and center on a conservative platform, the idea that abortions might be tagged as some sort of "preventative" measure disturbs me greatly.

Right now, according to Kathleen Sebelius per Jonathan Last at the Weekly Standard, "preventative measures" are officially defined so as to include contraceptives, the morning after pill, and actual sterilization. This is a direct consequence of provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) and there's no reason to suppose that this might be open for discussion.

And this is an idea that I find to be particularly noxious--that pregnancy has been lumped in with disease and sickness as something to be prevented. It's no way to either establish or maintain social cohesion; it would--in my opinion--only serve to fracture society, not benefit it, as it allows a very caustic view of life and living.

Given the fact that ObamaCare would also require almost all religious organizations (outside of small churches) to provide these "preventative measures" to all employees, the recognition of what Sebelius' definition would entail has sparked a great deal of outrage from various religious groups, especially the Catholic Church, as these rules would force the Church to ignore it's own precepts of faith.

Thus in my view, the situation raises distinct Constitutional issues, over and above moral ones that may not be shared by the entire populace. The Constitution--as much as it is intended to prevent religious authorities from exercising political power by virtue of their religious office--was written to insure that there would be freedom of religion, that people could feel confident in the belief that the Federal Government would not attempt to dictate religious practices.

In the back-and-forth of political discussion, common retorts to complaints about the current Administration is that Obama "isn't all the liberal," "certainly is no socialist," or even "is more like a moderate republican." This situation puts a lie to those claims, as Obama has backed Sebelius to the hilt. It reflects the overt goal of remaking the nation--the Constitution be damned--according to a blueprint envisioned by liberal intelligentsia, or as Thomas Sowell calls them, The Anointed. And their modus operandi remains unchanged, even though it was openly articulated by Rahm Emanuel when he said "you never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

Ultimately, issues such as these are likely to be decided in the courts, of course. But when there is fix that will allow the courts to be avoided, it should be actively pursued. In this case, the fix is the repeal of the ObamaCare legislation. And in that respect, it's just more grist for the mill.

Cheers, all.

Freedom to get licensed?

2012-02-07T11:28:00.000-05:00

Those of us on the right, of a conservative or libertarian bent, worry about the encroachments on our freedom by the Federal Government. Many worry about it incessantly. And in that regard, we look to the idea of States' rights as a means to curtail those encroachments. But what about the State governments? Though legislative action in this arena is subject to more possible scrutiny (even of it is often ignored), the bureaucracies of the States themselves are capable of having a significant impact on the extent of liberty.

Consider the most fundamental aspect of liberty: the freedom to choose out own paths in life. Necessarily, that implies a freedom of industry--not in the large-scale sense, but in the personal sense--insofar as people can pursue those trades and occupations that they desire to pursue. Their success or failure in that regard is not a foregone conclusion, but instead depends on effort, skill, and a host of other factors. That is the source of the much-touted entrepreneurial spirit in America.

But is this spirit being stifled at a State level, moreso than at a federal level? Consider this:

In the 1950s, when organisation man ruled, fewer than 5% of American workers needed licences. Today, after three decades of deregulation, the figure is almost 30%. Add to that people who are preparing to obtain a licence or whose jobs involve some form of certification and the share is 38%.

This article from the Economist appeared nearly a year ago, but scant attention has been paid. It follows the work of economist Morris Kleiner, one of the few people tracking the growth of licensing requirements. This article from the Wall Street Journal--now also a year old--provides provides more details, along with a graph showing the above-mentioned growth:

Understand what this means: one in four Americans must--in order to pursue their chosen professions--obtain a license from the State allowing them to work. Of course, there is some sense in such requirments, particularly when there are safety issues. Doctors and other health care professionals do need to know what they're doing and people need to have some level of trust in that regard. Contractors fit that bill as well, given that buildings and bridges need to be safe for habitation and use.

But such legitimate licensing can hardly account for these numbers. As the Economist and WSJ articles note, there are many licensed occupations that make little sense, like cat groomers, tattoo artists, tree trimmers, barbers, wig-makers, manicurists, interior decorators, coffin-makers, florists, handymen, wrestlers, tour guides, frozen-dessert sellers, firework operatives, second-hand booksellers, and shampoo specialists.

Such licensing does two--three, actually--things: limits the ability of people to enter a given field (often, there are steep monetary costs to get the licensing, along with required classes) and raises money for State coffers (not a lot of money by occupation, but a fair amount overall). The third thing? Raises the cost to the consumer by effectively limiting choice.

If you fancy yourself a conservative or a libertarian, consider all of this for a moment. Set aside your ire for the policies being enacted in Washington, D.C. and ask yourself: does this sound right? As the Economist article notes, the United States is out in front on this issue. In England, for instance, only 13% of workers need licenses.

And the Economist notes the attempt to curb this licensing frenzy in Florida last year. The bill would have done the following:

Deletes provisions establishing Florida Board of Auctioneers & Motor Vehicle Repair Advisory Council, deletes provisions for regulation of yacht & ship brokers, auctioneers, talent agencies, athlete agents, persons practicing hair braiding, hair wrapping, or body wrapping, interior designers, professional fundraising consultants & solicitors, water vending machines & operators, health studios, ballroom dance studios, commercial telephone sellers & salespersons, movers & moving brokers, certain outdoor theaters, certain business opportunities, motor vehicle repair shops, sellers of travel, contracts with sales representatives involving commissions, & television picture tubes; revises name & membership of Board of Architecture; revises license classifications of public lodging establishments.

And it failed to pass, in Florida, a place with heavy Tea Party influences. What hope for the future? Whomever is in power in DC is inconsequential here. State legislatures--controlled by either part--are unwilling to scale back on this requirements and--as is clear from the graph--only too happy to create more.

This is how liberty is lost: by slow machinations, often unnoticed by the majority, usually ignored by the same.

Cheers, all.

The VP myth

2012-02-06T20:01:00.000-05:00

With Romney looking more and more like he will be the Republican candidate for the 2012 Presidential Election, speculation on whom he might select as a his Vice Presidential running mate is increasing. And much of this speculation revolves around the idea that Romney's choice is important for the General Election.

For instance, there's Josh Kraushaar at the National Journal, arguing that Romney's choice for running mate is critical:

If he emerges as the nominee, Romney would face somewhat different challenges: He needs a No. 2 who can excite the base and serve as an effective attack dog against Obama, but without alienating independent voters.

And Steve Chapman at the Chicage Tribune, speaking on the supposed strengths of Marco Rubio in the number two slot:

He's strong among tea party voters, but he hasn't done anything to make himself look like a radical. He's Cuban-American, which could only help Romney with the growing Hispanic community, which went 2-to-1 for Obama. And he's from Florida, a big swing state.

Both writers take it as a given that the VP slot can deliver votes. And they're far from alone. It's almost accepted dogma in punditry world that the choice for running mate can be used to attract voters who might otherwise not vote for a given candidate.

And that's a myth.

Part of the reason why it's a myth is the Electoral College system. The Election is not decided by popular vote, but by State results. So for the myth to be true, VP choices would have to tip the scales in at least one State during the Election and that would have to matter in the final tally. A look at recent history demonstrates that things just don't work that way.

Consider George W. Bush, who won two elections with Dick Cheney.What critical group did Cheney deliver? Wyoming? As if Wyoming was ever in doubt. And he ran against Gore and Lieberman in 2000. Did the Lieberman choice deliver any votes for Gore, any States that he might otherwise failed to win? No, of course not. In 2004, Bush--with Cheney, once again--faced John Kerry and John Edwards. Did Edwards deliver the South (for that was what many pundits claimed his selection would do)? No. He didn't even deliver North Carolina, his home State.

Bill Clinton's two Presidential races tell a similar tale. In 1992, Clinton picked Gore as his running mate. But it's a tough argument to make, that Clinton needed Gore to get those critical Southern States; Clinton, after all, was from Arkansas. And really, the choice was never about delivering such votes. Clinton's pick had far more to do with the DLC than it did with trying to attract a particular demographic. In 1996 Clinton and Gore faced off against Bob Dole and former NY Congressman Jack Kemp. Surely, no one thought Kemp was going to deliver Northeastern States, did they?

In all of the above tickets--save one, Kerry and Edwards--the VP choice was about picking the person the President was comfortable with and/or the person that the national party leadership was comfortable with. The lone exception--when the choice was designed to deliver votes--yielded less-than-spectacular results.

And why should it be otherwise? The VP has almost no power (cabinet positions have far more) and that's common knowledge. The voting public--especially the independents--know this. They vote for (or against) presidential candidates, almost exclusively. After the 2008 Election many pundits claimed--and actually still claim--that somehow, Palin cost McCain the election, that people didn't vote for McCain and/or voted for Obama because of Palin. This is nonsense.

Take a look at an Eeectoral map from the 2008 Election. Which State could Palin possible have lost for McCain? The reality is that McCain was running against a young, energetic candidate who raised significantly more money and who was able to campaign against an unpopular outgoing President during a time of rising economic uncertainty. It was Obama's election to lose from the start and he never did anything to lose it. A different VP selection by McCain would have changed nothing in this regard.

So why does the myth persist, why does it seem to actually be strengthening? Simple, the debate on the VP selection fills space: it's something else for pundits to talk about, to use as a means of displaying their intelligence, to allow them to make "clever" points. And it also fills a niche for paid political consultants: they can use it as a means of selling their own supposed expertise on the matter.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the VP selection is meaningless. It certainly is not. Whomever gets tapped for the spot gains national exposure and has a fair chance of assuming the Presidency, either because an incumbent is unable to continue as President, or because it provides an opportunity in a future election. But with regard to the actual election, the selection really is not all that important, provided that the choice doesn't turn out to be someone with horrible secrets--like a closet full of dead hookers--that come to light during the campaign.

Cheers, all.

"Purge-and-liquidate"? Really?

2012-02-06T10:42:00.000-05:00

Paul Krugman--in his latest op-ed--has come up with a new term for those that would dare to disagree with him: "the purge-and-liquidate crowd." Writing about the apparent good news of the latest jobs report, Krugman wrings his hands over the backlash such positive news might bring:

Friday’s report was, in fact, much better than expected, and has made many people, myself included, more optimistic. But there’s a real danger that this optimism will be self-defeating, because it will encourage and empower the purge-and-liquidate crowd.

Much of the rest of the piece is meaningless drivel--even by Krugman standards--though he oddly points out the realities of the unemployment situation, even as he trumpets the good news of the latest report. I addressed that reality previously, noting that some serious number-juggling would be required to see a drop in the unemployment rate, and of course that's exactly what transpired, as Tyler Durden at ZeroHedge demonstrates:

But let's get back to the new phrase of the week: the purge-and-liquidate crowd. Sounds ominous, doesn't it? Saying "purge" immediately summons images of Stalin and Mao. "Liquidate" has that special duality: fascist regimes liquidate the enemies of the state and the Bain Capitals of the world liquidate nice companies for profit.

So what exactly is Krugman talking about with that phrase? What does this imaginary group want to purge? What does it want to liquidate (aside from Krugman, I guess, but that goes without saying)? I'm all for a clever turn of the phrase, but trying to link ideological foes with communists and fascists by word imagery seems a little much.

Krugman uses the phrase again, near the end of the piece:

And every time we get a bit of good news, the purge-and-liquidate types pop up, saying that it’s time to stop focusing on job creation.

Okay, that's a little more explanatory, but not much. So apparently, people who disagree with the *failing* job creation policies of the current administration want to purge and liquidate...something. What? But the funny thing is, there is no crowd even close to meeting Krugman's apparent definition. First, because there just hasn't been all that much good news (even Krugman admits the jobs report isn't that good) and second, because no one is really offering that response, "stop focusing on job creation."

The use of this phrase is ultimately baffling to me. I have to wonder where it came from, if Krugman read it somewhere, or recently watched Nazi Week on the History Channel. Because there has to be some logical explanation for Krugman's language choice. Doesn't there? Or maybe it's exactly what I said previously:

Krugman, I'm sorry to say, has lost his mind.

Yeah, let's go with that.

Cheers, all.

The Land of the Knee-Walking Turkeys

2012-02-05T16:01:00.000-05:00

In 1969, Harvard Lampoon published Bored of the Rings, a short parody of Tolkien's classic trilogy The Lord of the Rings. If you're a fan of Tolkien and don't mind a little fun-poking, I highly recommend picking up a copy, if you get the chance. I literally laugh out load when I read it. In fact, the first time I read it I laughed so hard, I couldn't breathe. On the inside cover of the book is a parody map of Tolkien's Middle-Earth, as well. Here it is:

(Copyright Harvard Lampoon, 1969)

Above the "compass" (with directions Up, Down, Left, and Right) is the Land of the Knee-Walking Turkeys. Now, some of the other place-names I get, like the "Land of the Terrible Stench," the "Land of the Singing Pigs," the legendary "Flat Mountains," and of course the "Points of Interest." But knee-walking turkeys had always escaped me.

Are the turkeys walking around on their own knees, or on the knees of others? Do turkeys even have knees? And then it came to me that maybe the name didn't actually refer to anything real (even in make-believe parody world), that it was a name signifying nothing.

Many, many years later, however, I know exactly what this Land is for, what exactly would fit in such a place: the United Nations. For if there has ever been a name signifying nothing, it is the United Nations.

A collection of representatives from countries around the world--including some from authoritarian and tyrannical regimes--get together and vote (pause a moment and let the irony sink in) on various issues. And those votes are actually supposed to mean something, people actually expect nations of the world to follow the UN's instructions, despite its inability to enforce its decrees and despite the fact that the existence of the UN is predicated on a handful of nations (mostly the United States) paying for its various bureaucracies and programs.

Yet still, the UN speaks and the world pretends to listen. After Russia and China vetoed a Security Council Resolution on Syria (calling for Assad to step down), there was "outrage" around the world, from the U.S.and Europe to the Arab League nations). Because--apparently--there remains a widespread delusion that a Security Council Resolution or a United Nations Resolution actually means something significant. No doubt the countless Resolutions condemning Israel for daring to exist are the reasons for widespread peace and lack of antisemitism throughout the Middle East...

If there really are any knee-walking turkeys in this world, I'm quite certain they would be found in the halls of the United Nations.

Cheers, all.

Charles blows hard

2012-02-04T17:18:00.002-05:00

In an opinion piece in the New York Times, Charles Blow lines up Mitt Romney in his crosshairs and let's him have it, but good.

He begins by chastising Romney for his comments on firing people:

This is the same man who bragged last month that he liked to fire people at a time when nearly 13 million people are out of work and who accepted the endorsement this week of Donald Trump, who has made “You’re Fired!” his television catchphrase.

The interjection of Trump into the equation is rather pathetic; sure Trump is a buffoon, but politicians accept endorsements, it's part of the game. The rest, however, is something else. Whether one is a Romney supporter or not, this kind of historical revisionism should not be tolerated. Romney--as everyone with a clue knows--did not say he "likes to fire people," what he said was:

I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn’t give me a good service that I need, I want to say I’m going to go get someone else to provide that service to me.

That's hardly the same thing. Indeed, Politifact rates the claim Blow is making as "mostly false." Worse still, Blow actually links to a video of Romney's actual comments, apparently content that his readers will simply accept his (Blow's) blatant mis-characterization as correct (doesn't seem like Blow has much respect for his readers, does it).

It's certainly fair to criticize Romney for saying something that could be taken out of context, of course, but that's not what Blow is doing. He does the same thing later in the piece, with regard to Romney's equally less-than-bright statement about not being concerned about the very poor. We all--again, those of us with a clue--understand what Romney was trying to say.

I'm sure Blow understands, as well. But he nonetheless devotes paragraph after paragraph to "prove" that the very poor are, well, very poor. Well done, sir. I salute you.

Blow also takes issue with a statement about federal employees making more money than people in the private sector. He cites a Washington Post story from last November as evidence for Romney being wrong. First, I should note that the numbers in that WaPo story come from the BLS, and we already know how trustworthy they are. Regardless, the argument on this issue is simply not a cut and dried fact, in the way that Blow would have us believe. From the Atlantic (which can hardly be accused of being a right-wing source):

The big headline figures, sure to make the rounds in conservative media, are that government employees made 2% more in wages, and 16% more in overall compensation, than their private sector counterparts.

So, Romney is far more right here than is Blow. The wrench in the works, however, is that Federal employees do worse than private sector employees if they have positions requiring more education than a bachelors degree. But that still means that most Federal employees do better; there's no way around the math. Blow's cavalier dismissal of Romney's claim is unwarranted, because at the very least Blow knows the issue is not simple. At the very worst, Blow is being intentionally misleading.

Blow's conclusion:

Romney is not only cold and clumsy, he’s disastrously out of touch, and when talking about real people, out of sorts. If only he had a heart, and if only that heart was connected to his brain.

If Romney needs a heart, what do you suppose Blow needs?

Cheers, all.

I was told prostitutes would be available...

2012-02-04T16:08:00.000-05:00

I was a bit disheartened to hear about Indiana AG Greg Zoeller using the Superbowl as a bootstrap to get a human trafficking bill through the legislature. The bill in question had indeed passed both houses and was signed into law by Mitch Daniels on Monday, January 30th. As FoxNews reports, the law does some good things, no doubt about it:

It is now against the law for anybody to arrange for a person to participate in any forced sexual act. Before, Indiana law only prohibited forced marriage and prostitution.

Also, the law makes it easier to prosecute those who sell children into sexual slavery. It reduces the burden on a prosecutor to prove coercion. Before, prosecutors had to prove a victim was threatened or physically forced into sexual slavery. Traffickers could escape prosecution by claiming the victim wasn’t being held against their will.

The new law extends the definition of sex trafficking and increases penalties.

My understanding is that the maximum penalty for sex trafficking in Indiana has been increased. And that's great. Hell, knock it up to one hundred. Make it a capital offense to sell children into slavery, sexual or otherwise. That's all good.

But Zoeller and others used the Superbowl to get it done by repeating the urban legends about thousands of prostitutes descending on Superbowl cities every year in the weeks before the game. The FoxNews story repeats the nonsense, as well:

Organized criminals are known to exploit young women and children through gatherings such as the Super Bowl. In fact, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children estimates 10,000 prostitutes were brought to the 2010 Super Bowl in Miami. In 2011, more than 100 people were arrested for prostitution in Dallas during Super Bowl weekend.

Ten thousand? Really? Give me a break. I live in Miami, know plenty of police officers, and I'm telling you this just can't be backed up, at all. And look at the last bit: more than 100 arrested for prostitution in Dallas. So what? With all the extra police on duty, with all the local prostitutes out in force (because that's certainly a reality), that number--which is just "arrested," not charged or convicted--isn't all that big. How many of that one hundred were from out of town? How many were underage? Surely, those numbers would be given if they supported the storyline. But they weren't given, probably because they don't.

Pete Kotz at the Miami New Times goes into some additional details about this urban legend here. And he addresses the Dallas numbers, as well:

Sure enough, when it was all over, cops had made only 105 arrests metrowide, mostly by rousting the local talent. Twelve women faced penalties no greater than for speeding tickets. Only two arrests involved human trafficking.

He has quotes from police in past Superbowl locations, as well. None of them seemed to think prostitution numbers were particularly high.

And we're just talking about the prostitution aspect, so far. Not content with only that kind of fear-mongering, Zoeller upped the ante, by making human trafficking a huge part of the story, and not just plain old run-of-the-mill trafficking, but trafficking in children for use in sex. Who could say no to a bill combating that? No one, of course. So the bill passed and Daniels signed it. But at what cost?

The Obama Administration has engaged in plenty of fear-mongering to get its agenda passed in the last three years. And it's been rightly called out by critics on the Right (and occasionally on the Left) when that happens. It's a disgusting and shameful tactic, in my opinion. Laws and programs are a good idea or a bad idea, and that determination is made by looking at the facts, at reality, not by using scare tactics and blatant misinformation.

The law Daniels signed may be a good one, but the tools used to force it through were just wrong. And Zoeller should be ashamed of himself, as should everyone else that knowingly repeated the urban legend of Superbowl prostitutes.

Cheers, all.

Things are looking up!...Aren't they?

2012-02-03T21:15:00.000-05:00

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate has dropped to 8.3%, the lowest it's been in three years. And right on cue, the media happily laps up this pronouncement with fan-boy titled stories like this one at The New York Times. The story opens with this glorious quotable quote:

The front wheels have lifted off the runway. Now, Americans are waiting to see if the economy can truly get aloft.

It then trumpets the revised number for previous months, noting that now December 2011 and November 2011 look even better, indicating that the jobs market is "gathering steam."

From there, however, the author looks at some metrics that seem to contradict this rosy picture, like a still-falling market in homes, a lack of growth in incomes, and less-than-impressive numbers for consumer spending. But it's hard to shake the idea that things are better because the unemployment rate is lower.

But is it really lower? This article by Tyler Durden at ZeroHedge from earlier this month takes a look at the games being played by the BLS in computing unemployment numbers. The problem lies with the BLS's use of a participation rate, based on a questionably theorized idea of the number of people seeking employment. By lowering this rate--based on people "dropping out" of the job market--the BLS is able to report a lower unemployment rate, even if the number of unemployed people has not actually decreased.

As Durden correctly note, the idea that retirement can account for a lower participation rate is nonsensical, since it is easily offset by population--and therefore labor market--growth. Durden then constructs some graphs, using more realistic numbers for participation (gotten by simply looking at historical averages) and, surprise, surprise, all is not that rosy after all:

(courtesy of ZeroHedge.com)

Note that the reported unemployment rate has been steadily trending downward since Obama took office (someone at the BLS really loves him!), but the corrected rate is really not moving all that much, perhaps trending a tad upwards if anything, for the same period.

Of course, the graph is not current to 2012. Perhaps it will turn out that things really have gotten better, with regard to unemployment numbers. But it's unlikely, given that the BLS continues to use the same formulas. The small drop in the reported unemployment rate actually suggests there has been a small increase, which I guess is better than a large increase. Huzzah.

Cheers, all.

Best title ever!

2012-02-03T20:13:00.000-05:00

Mickey Kaus over at The Daily Caller takes a run at Ryan Lizza's piece that I previously critiqued in "The Ministry of Truth." My essential point of contention was Lizza's repetition of "the Stimulus saved us all and everyone agrees with that" lie. Kaus hits a different note, finding that the Lizza piece paints a picture of a President just toeing the party line, as opposed to the deep thinking bridge-builder (thwarted by evil Republicans at every turn) that his fans in the media would have us believe he is.

Kaus called the article "What Does Obama Do All Day?" And frankly, it's a pretty good question. Not literally, mind you, but in the abstract. We know the President deals with all kinds of minutiae throughout the day. There are reports to read and review. Countless (I assume) meetings with various aides, cabinets people, other politicians, and the like. Calls to make and to answer, along with time spent on researching and preparing speeches, programs, and legislation. There's just a lot to do. No way around it.

But as Kaus points out, Lizza's piece makes Obama look like kind of a figurehead, as someone not really participating in the game, just doing what he's required and expected to do. Obama is given a set of options for different issues and simply checks off a choice, but the options are apparently designed in such a way that only one of them makes sense.

Really, this sounds a lot more like the previous President, at least according to his critics and enemies. Bush was supposedly the guy that needed things dumbed down for him, right? Yet if we take Lizza's depiction at face value--as Kaus does--it would appear Obama is the guy out of his depth.

Or maybe the description works for both of them, but Obama is just a little sharper and makes his check marks a little faster, thus giving him more time in the day for other things. Because we need to understand how Obama is able to play more golf and hold more fundraisers than his predecessors, don't we?

Cheers, all.

If Warren Buffett was conservative...

2012-02-02T13:24:00.000-05:00

Buffett has interjected himself into the political discourse of the United States of his own free will. He offered up his secretary and his other employees to the Left as case studies for the downtrodden in an op-ed he wrote. He's openly endorsing the so-called Buffett rule legislation, willingly standing next to the President and joining in the populist, class warfare claptrap of the latter. His secretary--who is hardly middle class--sat next to the First Lady during the most recent State of the Union Address.

And for all of this, Buffett has become a hero to the Left. A symbol of the guilt the rich should freely partake of and allow themselves to be targeted as the principal cause of what ails the nation and the world. But it sure took a long time for Buffett to succumb to that guilt, didn't it?

Where was he in the eighties? Demanding that Reagan return to the punitive tax rates of the seventies for the highest tiers of incomes? Hardly. Buffett--already a millionaire--was busy buying up companies, using those newly freed monies to his advantage, so effectively that Buffett became a billionaire by 1990.

From there, Buffett just kept making more money, thanks to that booming economy in the nineties. Look at the growth of Berkshire Hathaway stock:

Let's remember that Buffett has been raking it in for a long, long time. The man is 81 years old, after all. So now, in the twilight of his career, he says this:

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

In other words, he got his and now--now--he's willing to pay more. And he wants everyone else--everyone making $1 million or more--to do the same, no matter if they're twenty-five or ninety-five. Well, isn't that nice. And for this blatant hypocrisy, Buffett is heralded as a great man, as a true American, as a mensch.

What a load of crap. If Buffett wants to be really fair, he should pony up that tax increase he wants now for the past thirty years, at least. And of course, there's nothing stopping him from writing that check all on his own, anytime he so desires.

But we all know the truth here: for thirty plus years, Buffett--like most everyone else--has filed taxes with the intent to lower his personal and corporate tax burdens. He has had accountants looking to minimize those burdens every single one of those years. And there's nothing wrong with that, it's the way the system is set up. And we also know another truth: if Buffett was an outspoken conservative, if he was opposing tax increases on the rich, he'd be taking it on the chin, like the Koch brothers and others.

His past business activities would be criticized as "crony capitalism" or the like, and would all be under a microscope. Charles Gasparino details some of Buffett's "darker" history here. If Warren Buffet were a conservative, he'd be pilloried for his profiteering from the ratings agencies failures on mortgage-backed securities. But he's a liberal, so all is not only forgiven, it's wholly ignored.

Cheers, all.

Class action stupidity

2012-02-02T12:01:00.001-05:00

My wife is currently a party to a class action lawsuit against a mutual fund that she owned once in her 401k. Such lawsuits began appearing and proliferating around 2003. Many of them are based on allegations that these various mutual funds were not properly managing risk, in comparison to how they were being marketed. And there's a lot of truth here, I think.

Most of these lawsuits have been settled; few are still being argued. And the mutual fund companies have been forced to shell out some big bucks. But here's the thing: the classes are huge. A $10 million settlement sound like a great thing, until you take into account that it has to be split 100,000 ways, or more. That's an average of $100 per person. Well, it would be if there weren't lawyers to pay. Shave 30% of the top and that's an average of $70 per person. But since the settlement money is divvied up according to shares held, if the people with huge numbers of shares are factored out, the average payout is far less.

My wife's settlement money (we're eagerly awaiting the check) is going to be about $30. Maybe we'll go to the movies...without the kids. Many people are probably looking at $3 dollars or even less.

Over the years, other class action lawsuits that I've been a party to--mostly because I just signed off on them, thinking "what the hell"--have returned such colossal dividends as $1.47, $12.50 and a coupon. But I have to be honest, I never felt wronged by the companies being sued. And I have to ask, how many people who join on to these class action lawsuits do actually feel wronged, did actual suffer an identifiable and meaningful loss of some sort?

The coupon one particularly irks me. A coupon really? Here's a question: does anyone think the lawyers behind that lawsuit took their payment in coupons? No, of course not. And yes, I'm take aim at members of the legal profession in this piece.

Not all of them, though. And I'm not condemning class action lawsuits as a whole. They can be a necessary thing and a good thing, no doubt about it. A class action suit--for instance--again an airline for a crash resulting in negligence can be used to force the airline to really do the right thing, so to speak. With many individual suits, it could low-ball the naive. But maybe we ought to think about limiting class sizes for these lawsuits. Because it seems to me that if the class action lawsuit works effectively to the detriment of the class members, something is seriously wrong.

Consider the class action lawsuit filed against Honda on behalf of people that bought its Civic hybrid model (2003-2008). The issue at stake was gas mileage: Honda advertised around 50 mpg, many owners--at least the ones that started the lawsuit--barely got 30 mpg. Well, a settlement has been proposed by Honda. But before looking at it, consider what the difference in mpg means. Assuming an average of 5 miles a day in the car (hardly outrageous) and gas at $2.50 per gallon, one could expect to need 36 gallons of gas for a year at 50 mpg, 61 gallons of gas at 30 mpg. That's an additional $62.50 a year in gas. Over eight years--a good standard for car ownership, if low--that's $500.

And that's a seriously low estimate. Many people drive far more than 1800 miles a year. So, what would a fair settlement really be for Honda? Misleading advertising allows punitive damages, as well. People didn't get what they paid for. Here's how Honda plans to make good:

Honda's proposed class-action settlement would give aggrieved owners $100 to $200 each and a $1,000 credit toward the purchase of a new car.

That sounds a lot more like a marketing campaign than a settlement for a lawsuit. Not everyone unhappy with their Civic hybrid's gas mileage signed on to this action, however. Heather Peters filed her own lawsuit against Honda in California and won. $9,867. Big difference. Big difference.

Clearly, this class action lawsuit did not benefit the class members; it wasn't used as a lever to get more from an entity (Honda, in this case) that had behaved badly, it was used to create a huge total settlement amount. Plaintives were not just accepted, they were actively sought. It didn't even matter if they felt wronged by Honda, they just needed to own the right car during the right time period. The take for the lawyers who made the case? Around $8 million dollars. And for what? Getting their clients $100 and a coupon.

That is just wrong.

Cheers, all.

Another $1 trillion deficit...what else is new?

2012-02-01T12:31:00.000-05:00

According to a Reuters report, the CBO is forecasting that 2012 would be yet another year with a deficit over $1 trillion:

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said the fiscal 2012 deficit would rise to $1.079 trillion from its previous estimate of $973 billion made last August. If Congress extends payroll tax cuts through year-end, as expected, the deficit would likely rise by another $100 billion through December.

That will be four years in a row for the Obama Administration. One can't help but ask when we're going to see some of that fiscal responsibility we were promised. And one also can't help but wonder what the hell that fight was about over the debt ceiling, given that we're still running ridiculous deficits. Oh, that's right: without the debt ceiling deal, the deficit might have been $1.1 or $1.2 trillion for 2012.

And the Republicans claimed that as a victory in cutting spending, while the Democrats whined about such drastic "austerity" measures. I'm really not sure which side is the more ridiculous, in the this regard. But be that as it may, the CBO goes on to make the now-automatic argument that the issue with the deficits is all about the Bush tax cuts:

CBO Director Doug Elmendorf said Congress faces a difficult choice. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would hurt near-term growth and push up the unemployment rate to 9.2 percent by the end of 2013 but will aid longer-term growth. Leaving the cuts in place would spur more short-term growth, but would pile up another $8 trillion in deficits by 2022, leaving the United States with an "unsustainable" debt burden.

Oddly though, it allows that ending the cuts would be bad for employment. Go figure. But of course, wrongly projects out the consequences of the cuts on a static model to arrive at an imaginary figure of $8 trillion. This is not to say that such a figure is unrealistic; it's not. But it won't be because taxes were not increased, it will be because spending was not decreased.

The writers of the article label that kind of thinking "radical":

The more radical Republicans backed by the fiscally conservative Tea Party movement want steep spending cuts immediately.

Understand? Suggesting that not spending money we don't have is "radical" thinking.

What a world.

Cheers, all.

Pitchfork Movement: "Euro-spring" or the return of Fascism?

2012-02-01T11:05:00.001-05:00

Currently, there are large-scale protests happening in Sicily and other parts of Italy. Reactions to the policies being implemented by the government of Prime Minister Mario Monti, the protests include students, truck drivers, fishermen, farmers, and others. The protests revolve largely around the added costs to fuel, due to additional taxes levied by the government in order to combat Italy's debt problems. According to Bloomberg, gasoline prices in Italy are now over $9 a gallon, and those costs are reverberating throughout the Italian economy, particularly in Sicily:

Prices of some vegetables have risen about 15 percent since the start of the strikes as supplies in cities and towns dwindled, according to farmers’ association Confagricoltura. Transport workers, from bus drivers to rail and airport personnel will be striking tomorrow, making it even harder for commerce to function.

The situation is particularly serious in the southern region of Calabria where some farmers are forced to milk cows and then dump the milk because they can’t get past the road blocks, Confagricoltura said.

The protests started last week in Sicily where shortages have been even worse, and spread to the mainland and to the island of Sardinia this week. Protesting farmers, livestock owners and fishermen, calling themselves the “Pitchfork Movement,” are angered by the lack of investments in their industry.

The name--the Pitchfork Movement (or Movimento dei Forconi)--alludes to the farmers and others noted above who are hardest hit by the problems in Italy.

The World Socialist Web Site gives some more background--if somewhat tinged by ideology--on the issues behind the protests and strikes:

Increases up to 50 percent have been reported on food and fuel prices, as truckers refuse to carry freight and set up highway roadblocks that prevent the re-supply of retail stores. The truck blockades have particularly affected the food industry, as supermarkets are not receiving supplies...

Fishermen denounced fuel price increases (due to increased taxes and oil prices), a proposed “point-based license” system, and demands that the origin of seafood sold in markets be “traceable”—thus imposing a heavy burden on hard-hit small fishermen. Without any subsidies or government support, many fishermen will be forced out of business.

There is little doubt that the measures being enacted by the Monti government are severe. But there is also little doubt that the Italian economy is in dire straits, that it has overspent itself in the past, created a dependent populace, and simply not kept up with the times. Jordan Wisemann explained some of these problems in this Atlantic article last year. Italy was--and still is--on the verge of collapse before these new measures were introduced. These new protests are reactionary in the truest sense of the word. The protesters don't realize that Italy had been living on borrowed time and are now shocked and outraged when the bill comes due.

Many people are praising the Pitchfork Movement; they see it as a true popular uprising against injustices being perpetrated by the government, along the lines of how they see the Occupy Wall Street movement. And as the WSWS piece makes clear, the Pitchfork Movement participants--like the OWS partcipants--feel they are owed something by the government, owed a standard of living, owed a share of wealth. Period.

And whether or not Monti's policies are a good idea or will help solve Italy's problems is largely beside the point in this regard. When these kinds of uprisings succeed, invariably the people that end up in charge head down a very different road than is often expected. Often, it's the road to Fascism. Some call the Pitchfork Movement the beginning of a European Spring. Take a good look at were the Arab Spring is today.

Cheers, all.

Irrational Crapola

2012-01-31T19:33:00.000-05:00

John Cassidy of the New Yorker joins the ranks of know-nothing punditry with his latest blog post, Newt’s Going Down so the G.O.P. Establishment Can Live. As one can tell from the title, it's yet another of the very tired, very wrong, pseudo-analytical "they's out to get Newt!" sort of pieces.

Cassidy offers nothing new in the piece, no new quotes (hell, only one quote, from Palin of all people), no heretofore unknown facts, no penetrating insights, nothing. Just another series of declaratory statements grounded in assumptions that look like they belong in the latest G. Edward Griffin "history."

Really, I'm starting to worry about the media elites. Forget the GOP, Democrat, or DC establishment, let's talk about the media establishment. I think about 80% of this group no longer knows what an original thought is, they seem to just pick up some bit of an idea and roll with it. Look at what passes for analysis in Cassidy's piece:

For the poo-bahs in Washington, that represents mission accomplished. Although nominally conservative, the primary goal of the Republican establishment is to maintain a grip on power, thereby enabling it to safeguard its own position and protect the economic interests that finance the Party. The likes of Bob Dole, Ann Coulter, and Elliot Abrams didn’t necessarily pounce on Gingrich because they dislike him personally, or disagree with him on the wisdom of establishing a lunar colony. They roughed him up him because they thought he could lose the election for the Party and give Barack Obama another four years in the White House.

Nevermind that none of this is sourced, nevermind that not even a fool would call Coulter and Dole part of the establishment (hell, Dole wasn't even establishment when he was Establishment), and never mind that yes they do dislike him personally (along with about 75% of the country, I'll wager), the idea that this is about protecting the "economic interests that finance the party" is laughable. Lest we forget, the GOP controls the House and that's unlikely to change in 2012 (actually, I'd argue that the best chance for the Dems to regain control of the House would be if Gingrich is the nominee). The Senate will likely remain close to a 50/50 split. Such a fear makes no sense.

And just as silly as that is the idea that Gingrich was "roughed up" because he might lose the Election. Newsflash, Cassidy: it's still Obama's to lose, he's got the money, the media support, and the history (incumbents going into a reelection year after suffering huge midterm losses for their party) on his side. It's certainly possible that Obama might lose the 2012 Election, but right now he's the favorite. Certainly, the GOP Establishment would know that, right?

Near the end of this pointless piece, however, Cassidy does ask what I consider to be a brilliant question:

How can a Party élite that is inextricably tied to wealthy, corporate interests co-exist with, and largely direct, a popular protest movement of the economically squeezed middle class?

But he asks that question about the Republicans, when he should be asking it about the Democrats. That would make for some interesting reading.

Cheers, all.

The "cracker counties"

2012-01-31T15:37:00.000-05:00

Jonathan Martin from Politico--appearing on MSNBC--refers to Florida counties in the Panhandle as "cracker counties." From the RCP link, Martin's words:

Chuck, one last thing on the map, though, if I could. I think the other reason why north Florida is going to be fascinating to watch tonight is because it's going to give us a sense of what's ahead in March, when this primary does move to the deep south states, because as you know, Chuck, a lot of the counties in the panhandle, in north Florida, the cracker counties, if you will...

So, does he know what he just said? Does he know that "cracker" is a pejorative. Probably. But to be fair to him, the term was used in reference to Florida voters in the past, by Bill Clinton. While being interviewed by Larry King in 2008 during Obama's campaign (Clinton was helping out), he said this:

You know, they think that because of who I am and where my politic[al] base has traditionally been, they may want me to go sort of hustle up what Lawton Chiles used to call the 'cracker vote' there.

Clinton attributes that turn of the phrase to Lawton Chiles, and frankly that sounds about right. And by so doing, Clinton probably saved himself a little grief. Add to that, Clinton would probably refer to himself as a cracker, without batting an eye. But Martin isn't going to get the same treatment, I fear. He stuck his foot in it and embarrassed himself on semi-national television (we're talking MSNBC, after all).

Personally, I don't find the term all that insulting, but in an atmosphere where so many groups are quick to find offense even when none is intended, it behooves political commentators to exercise a little sense, I think. Will he be reprimanded? Will he apologize? We'll see.

Cheers, all.

Snakes in the grass

2012-01-31T10:12:00.000-05:00

Despite the title, this bit is not about politics. Really. I live in South Florida and we have a problem...well, we have a lot of problems, but the one I'm talking about here concerns snakes. Real, live, actual snakes.

When I was in school during the eighties, having a pet snake--usually a python--was all the rage. People even took them out at night, to areas with a lot of nightlife and clubs, and took them to malls. Then at some point, I guess they tired of caring for the snakes and had the bright idea of setting then free. In the Everglades.

The pythons survived and multiplied, and by 2000 it had been confirmed that the pythons--Burmese pythons, mostly--were well established throughout the Everglades. And they're serious predators, having become significant threats to Florida mammals, birds, and yes, even alligators. The Burmese python can reach lengths in excess of seventeen feet and weigh over one hundred and fifty pounds. The bigger ones are more than capable of killing even large mammals and alligators. One fifteen-footer was found with an 80 pound doe inside of it. Here's a picture of a python that ate an alligator, then exploded:

As the first article notes, there are serious fears that the python population is poised to expand across the Southeast. But for now, they're killing off all kinds of Florida wildlife. Raccoons, marsh rabbits, and opossums have been particularly hard it and their declining populations have caused the pythons to move on to bigger prey.

A number of python hunting programs have been instituted by the State, but the population appears to still be growing. If you're a hunter and see a python in the wild, report the incident. In fact, if you're a non-hunter and see one, report the incident.

If the population continues to grow, the pythons will expand into populated areas and they will go after dogs and cats. And they will win.

And if you have a pet python--or any exotic pet--and want to get rid of it, don't "set it free." Please.

Cheers, all.

Krugman's willful ignorance

2012-01-30T19:51:00.001-05:00

The heir-apparent to the throne of John Maynard Keynes is at it again. This time, Paul Krugman targets Europe with his one-size-fits-all solution of spend, spend, spend. Nevermind that Krugman dumped actual Keynesian theory a long time ago, for the generalized solution of governments spending their way out of every problem no longer even needs the dishonestly supposed support of Keynes; it's become nothing but a political talking point, thanks to people like Krugman (who, of course, cannot be criticized because he has a Nobel Prize).

He focuses in on Great Britian (well, Krugman says just "Britian," but that's imprecise; surprising for such an erudite person, no?), arguing that an "austerity doctrine" there has had tragic consequences. As evidence, he compares conditions now with those in the post-Great Depression era:

It turns out that by one important measure — changes in real G.D.P. since the recession began — Britain is doing worse this time than it did during the Great Depression. Four years into the Depression, British G.D.P. had regained its previous peak; four years after the Great Recession began, Britain is nowhere close to regaining its lost ground.

So, GDP is down and that is because--according to Krugman--of the austerity measures taken by the government there. As he says:

Britain, in particular, was supposed to be a showcase for “expansionary austerity,” the notion that instead of increasing government spending to fight recessions, you should slash spending instead — and that this would lead to faster economic growth. “Those who argue that dealing with our deficit and promoting growth are somehow alternatives are wrong,” declared David Cameron, Britain’s prime minister. “You cannot put off the first in order to promote the second.”

What we can assume from this--because there's just no way Professor Krugman could have his facts wrong--is that spending is way down in Great Britain. Right? Unfortunately for the Professor, such does not appear to be the case. Here are a couple of charts from UK Public Spending:

Shoot, that doesn't look right at all, does it? Total spending is up in the UK (I recognize that UK and Great Britain are not the same thing, but again Krugman was imprecise and I doubt there would be much of a difference, regardless), as is spending as a percent of GDP. Where's the austerity? Jeremy Warner lays out some more of Krugman's misconceptions here.

But that's the real problem. In Krugman-land, austerity policies are defined as spending less than what Krugman would spend, as is clear from his near-continuous (now) criticisms of spending in the United States. Krugman wants more, more, more. There is no such thing as too much spending, because any failures to revive the economy by increasing spending can always be hit with the criticism "not enough."

Krugman is convinced he is right of course. And he would have us believe that his conclusions are the product of careful consideration and analysis, unrelated to politics or ideology. Indeed, he has the audacity to conclude that

...Policy makers, pundits and, I’m sorry to say, many economists decided, largely for political reasons, to forget what they used to know.

Krugman, I'm sorry to say, has lost his mind.

Cheers, all.

Beating back the Tea Party "Establishment"

2012-01-30T12:17:00.000-05:00

Erin McPike--writing at RealClearPolitics--asks the question "Is the Tea Party Losing Its Grip on the GOP?" She takes as a given the Tea Party movement's opposition to Romney and points to Gingrich's sagging campaign in Florida as evidence that the movement is losing influence:

An official endorsement Saturday night from last year's Tea Party standout, Herman Cain; an all-but-official backing from longtime Tea Party darling Sarah Palin; and the support of the Tea Party Express have not lifted Gingrich back over Mitt Romney in the Florida polls. That weakened clout has been accompanied by the Republican establishment's full-throttle charge at Gingrich's past -- to great effect with the primary here just one day away.

And of course, she repeats the "establishment" mantra, something very few pundits seem capable of ignoring. But look at the fundamental assumptions she is making, that Palin, Cain, and orgs like the Tea Party Express exercise some kind of power over the movement and define what the movement wants, as a matter of course. If there is any national figure that can claim to have been at the forefront of the movement, that figure is Michelle Malkin. And just today, Malkin has openly endorsed Santorum in a piece that is highly critical of Gingrich. It's worth reading, because it lays out the truth--in my opinion--of what Gingrich really is.

McPike recognizes that Gingrich is not quite what he appears to be, to her credit:

Though Gingrich has embraced the Tea Party -- and many of its leaders have hugged him back -- he doesn’t fit the movement’s mold. The Romney campaign knows this and has had no qualms about highlighting that fact.

But she still assumes some sort of general agreement in the movement, that Gingrich is the preferred candidate from what is left. Those of us that sympathize with the Tea Party movement (like me) and those of us that consider ourselves part of the movement need to avoid this kind of groupthink labeling, for it is exactly a part of what the movement was a reaction to.

I like Sarah Palin, there's no question about it. I don't always agree with her, but I respect that she at least attempts to speak to plain truth. Ditto for Bachmann, Cain, and other defacto Tea Party leaders. But I'm not prepared to surrender my own positions in service to theirs. I'm especially not prepared to allow that orgs like the Tea Party Express or RedState speak for me, that such orgs have any kind of authority to decide who the "real conservative" is or anything of the sort.

And make no mistake, those orgs--along with some national figures--want the power to do just that, want to dictate proper membership in the movement. And by doing so, they are--in fact--attempting to establish a hierarchy of leadership, a--for all intents and purposes--new Establishment. And that just can't happen.

As to Gingrich's fall from grace in Florida, McPike assumes it's the assault from the Republican establishment that is the cause. But she ignores the Rubio effect. Rubio defeated a true establishment candidate in his run for the Senate, and he did it with heavy support from the Tea Party movement. Now, he has all but endorsed Romney in Florida. This is certainly one of the reasons for Gingrich's collapsing support. And it hardly meshes with the "Gingrich is the Tea Party's candidate" narrative. Rather, it demonstrates that Gingrich is the Tea Party Establishment's pick, and that this Establishment is not just not going to work. Thank God.

Cheers, all.

European Implosion

2012-01-30T11:11:00.000-05:00

An article in today's Wall Street Journal addresses the economic problems Europe is facing, noting rightly the role demographics plays in this regard. Citing a study by the World Bank, the article points to the labor market in Europe as an area of concern:

As for the bad news, the first source of trouble is the labor market. European workers aren't nearly as productive as they ought to be, especially in the South. Labor participation is low, and those who are employed are working less than they used to. In the 1970s, the French worked the longest hours among advanced economies. By 2000, they worked a month and a half less than Americans each year.

The European model of labor is often touted as superior to that in the States. Hours are shorter, vacations are longer, job security is stronger, and benefits are more extensive. The short term costs for this are generally accepted as unavoidable. Aside from strictly monetary expenses, the chief cost is a higher unemployment rate, with a much higher permanent level of unemployment. But some of the longer term costs are often ignored, particularly the gradual declines in productivity brought on by the "de-incentivation" of the labor market.

And this, coupled with the demographics of the EU, sets up a dangerous future for the economies therein. Europe--long on the leading edge of industrialization--is aging faster than the rest of the world. And given the structures of guarantees for the population, the most immediate consequence will be increased public debt:

Europe's demographics also aren't on the side of growth. Populations across the developed world are graying, but Europe's low productivity growth means that its future labor shortfall will be especially acute. It doesn't help that Europeans draw social security benefits earlier and more easily than their developed-world peers. Pension commitments will strain national budgets even if Angela Merkel gets her way on handcuffing euro-zone public debt.

The future of the Social Security system in the United States is a point of debate, as it appears to be headed into an Ouroboros scenario, but the United States at least has some time to address the problem (not a lot of time, to be sure, but some). Many EU nations are just about out of time in this regard. A greater percentage of European workers are in their prime earning years (45-54), so in the moment the problem seems contained. But this will quickly reverse itself, as these workers move into retirement, leaving a younger, smaller labor force who--due to age--will not be earning at the same rate (an issue that proponents of automatic salary increases based on years of service fail to take into account). And as the WSJ article notes, highly educated Europeans are already quick to leave the EU for the United States, a trend that will be exacerbated by these changes.

To put this another way, total earned income in the EU is set to decrease, even as the total costs for servicing public programs are set to increase. Thus, the impending shortfalls can only be made up by borrowing, increasing taxes, or decreasing benefits for the new entrants into the workforce. The latter two solutions will, themselves, likely result in even lower productivity in the long term, making the problem even worse.

On top of all of this, there are the very real and very current problems in Spain, Italy, and of course Greece. The EU is currently trying to find solutions to prevent the collapse of the economies in these nations, but selective austerity measures can only do so much. And again, capable members of the workforce will quickly look elsewhere, even as the aging population requires more productivity and income to pay for the entitlements they were promised.

It's not a pretty picture. And to think that just a few years ago many European leaders were lecturing the United States on how to "fix" its problems, that even today progressives and liberals in the United States look to Europe as an example of how things should be done.

Cheers, all.