JustOneMinute

Scaling The Heights Of Absurdity

The NY Times offers three articles vying for the coveted "Most Absurd du Jour" award.  Our first entry comes from the category "Those Daffy Dems":

The wealthiest stand to lose the most under President Obama’s proposed budget, while individuals with lower incomes could gain in many different ways.

...Plenty of people in this income range live in high-cost areas of the Northeast and California and stretched, rightly or wrongly, to afford their homes when real estate prices were higher. They may not consider themselves rich at all, laughable as that may seem to people earning far less in the middle of the country. But they’ve been worried sick as the president has persistently defined them as rich enough to pay more in taxes — at the exact moment when their jobs may be in danger or their small businesses or commission income may be suffering.

These Blue Staters voted in droves for a Democrat who promised to raise their taxes - I can only imagine their surprise that he is doing so. The second entry is filed under "Don't Know Much About History (And Don't Want To) and the topic is Obama's return to Big Government:

“There are striking similarities to Johnson and Great Society,” said Robert Dallek, the presidential historian who has written extensively about Johnson’s promise of an end to poverty, a commitment made in a State of the Union address 45 years ago, and one that he was only able to deliver on in part.

“Obama’s rhetoric is not as grandiose,” Mr. Dallek said. But he sees risks as well — the risk that Mr. Obama could reinvent Johnson’s mistake. “Vietnam proved, in a few years, that you really can’t do guns and butter. And I worry that Afghanistan could be the parallel for Obama.”

Uh huh - because we are really likely to put 500,000 troops in Afghanistan.  Don't think of it as a war, think of it as a shovel-ready stimulus program.  And set to one side the notion that Johnson's welfare state, eventually reformed under Clinton, was a social experiment with disastrous results.

The winning entry emerged from the "Carbon Dioxide is Not The Only Gas We Blow" division of the Times.  Here they reflect dispassionately on global warning and Obama's proposed cap-and-trade regime:

But the full costs and benefits of controlling greenhouse gas emissions remain unknown, and perhaps unknowable. While there is rough consensus on the science of global warming — with some notable and vocal objectors — there is less agreement on the economics of the problem and very little on the policy prescriptions to address it. And while a cap-and-trade approach bears substantial cost, it also brings a benefit whose value is incalculable — a steady decrease in emissions that scientists say will over time reduce the risk of climate catastrophe.

A "benefit whose value is incalculable" - pure genius.  "Ambiguous", "Uncertain" and "Ephemeral" would have been more accurate, given the Times own acknowledgment of the lack of consensus on the scope of the problem and the economics of various solutions, but "incalculable" is not only literally and inarguably correct but it has a much more positive connotation.

RETIRING THE TITLE:  I loved this death knell for the Reagan Era in headline of a Friday Times piece on the new Obama budget:

A Bold Plan Sweeps Away Reagan Ideas

So Obama proposes to increase cumbersome regulation, raise taxes, weaken our national defense, and restore the Soviet Empire.  I wish I could say I was surprised.

[END OF THE REAGAN ERA]

Saturday Morning

Here we are.

[END OF THREAD]

Today's Sign That We Are Headed Into The Crapper

The NY Times belabors us with the future of toilets, and the technological advances associated therewith (Just wait - the big breakthroughs are happening in Sweden!).  Their story ought to come with a NSFB warning (Not Safe for Breakfast), and probably is not the ideal topic for cocktail party banter.  However, we are remorselessly committed to being up to speed on the latest in the greening of America, so let's unload:

In the industrialized world, most of us (except those who have septic tanks) rely on wastewater-treatment plants to remove our excrement from the drinking-water supply, in great volumes. (Toilets can use up to 30 percent of a household’s water supply.) This paradigm is rarely questioned, and I understand why: flush toilets, sewers and wastewater-treatment plants do a fine job of separating us from our potentially toxic waste, and eliminating cholera and other waterborne diseases. Without them, cities wouldn’t work.

But the paradigm is flawed. For a start, cleaning sewage guzzles energy. Sewage treatment in Britain uses a quarter of the energy generated by the country’s largest coal-fired power station.

Then there is the nutrient problem: Human excrement is rich in nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, which is why it has been a good fertilizer for millenniums and until surprisingly recently. (A 19th-century “sewage farm” in Pasadena, Calif., was renowned for its tasty walnuts.) But when sewage is dumped in the seas in great quantity, these nutrients can unbalance and sometimes suffocate life, contributing to dead zones (405 worldwide and counting, according to a recent study). Sewage, according to the United Nations Environment Program, is the biggest marine pollutant there is. Wastewater-treatment plants work to extract the nutrients before discharging sewage into water courses, but they can’t remove them all.

And there’s also the urine problem. Urine, like any liquid, is a headache for wastewater managers, because most sewer systems take water from street drains along with the toilet, shower and kitchen kind. Population growth is already taxing sewers. (London’s great network was built in the late 19th century with 25 percent extra capacity, but a system designed for three million people must now serve more than twice as many.) When a rainstorm suddenly sends millions of gallons of water into an already overloaded system, the extra must be stored or — if storage is lacking — discharged, untreated, into the nearest river or harbor. Each week, New York City sends about 800 Olympic-size swimming pools’ worth of sewage-polluted water into nearby waters because there’s nowhere else for it to go.

Be chill; the solution is worth the wait:

IN the far reaches of Shaanxi Province in northern China, in an apple-producing village named Ganquanfang, I recently visited a house belonging to two cheery primary-school teachers, Zhang Min Shu and his wife, Wu Zhaoxian. Their house wasn’t exceptional — a spacious yard, several rooms — except for the bathroom. There, up a few steps on a tiled platform, sat a toilet unlike any I’d seen. Its pan was divided in two: solid waste went in the back, and the front compartment collected urine. The liquids and solids can, after a decent period of storage and composting, be applied to the fields as pathogen-free, expense-free fertilizer.

From being unsure of wanting a toilet near the house in the first place — which is why the bathroom is at the far end of their courtyard — the couple had become so delighted with it that they regretted not putting it next to the kitchen after all.

What does this have to do with you? Mr. Zhang and Ms. Wu’s weird toilet — known as a “urine diversion,” or NoMix (after a Swedish brand), toilet — may have things to teach us all.

This is real breakthrough stuff:

Urine might be one way forward. Before engineers scoff into their breakfast, consider that since at least 135,000 urine-diversion toilets are in use in Sweden and that a Swiss aquatic institute did a six-year study of urine separation that found in its favor. In Sweden, some of the collected urine — which contains 80 percent of the nutrients in excrement — is given to farmers, with little objection. “If they can use urine and it’s cheap, they’ll use it,” said Petter Jenssen, a professor at the Agricultural University of Norway.

...

The rest of Sweden’s collected urine goes to municipal wastewater plants, but in much smaller volume so it’s easier to deal with. Research by Jac Wilsenach, now a civil engineer in South Africa, found that removing even half of the nutrient-rich urine enables the bacteria in the aeration tanks to munch all the nitrogen and phosphate matter in solid waste in a single day rather than the usual 30. Urine diversion also makes for richer sludge and produces more methane, which can be turned into gas or electricity, Mr. Wilsenach said. In short, separating urine turns a guzzler of energy into a net producer.

...

Then there’s the sitting problem: in most urine-diversion toilets, a man must empty his bladder sitting down. This wouldn’t be a problem in some countries — Germany recently introduced a toilet-seat alarm that admonishes standers to sit — but it has been in others. Professor Jenssen was flummoxed by one participant at a training workshop in Cuba who said firmly, “If a man sits, he is homosexual.”

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

For my money, stories like this make me think that maybe the global apocalypse is the preferred path.  Hmm, suddenly I am flashing on Waterworld...

[END OF FILE DUMP]

Firmly Missing The Point

Noam Scheiber has an interesting story from which he and I take opposite conclusions [due to my brainlock, as noted in a contrite update]:

As another illustration of this, consider an example I got from Orin Kramer, a hedge fund manager and prominent Obama supporter. Kramer has a friend who recently bid on a bundle of home-equity loans the government was auctioning off (presumably after having seized a bank that owned them). The homeowners in this case weren’t subprime deadbeats but people with solid credit histories who were scrupulously making their payments. Still, the friend was the highest bidder at a measly 14 cents on the dollar—and, Kramer says, “I have another friend who claims he overbid.” (The government decided not to sell because it didn't like the price.)

This might sound like a classic "irrational despondence" issue—only 14 cents on the dollar for a bundle of perfectly upstanding loans? But there’s one big problem, as Kramer points out: None of the homes have any equity left in them. Thanks to the cratering housing market, these people's first mortgages exceed the value of their homes, which makes them good candidates to simply stop paying (both the original mortgage and the home equity loan).  

Of course, if nothing else, this example illustrates how critical the Obama administration’s housing plan is—both for homeowners and the banks. One provision helps underwater homeowners refinance, so they can at least lower their monthly payments. (You’re much more likely to walk away from your home if you have zero equity and an unaffordable mortgage, as opposed to just zero equity.) The plan could create a floor under the value of all the mortgage-backed assets, though it's unlikely to give them much of a boost.

Gee.  If the only homeowners eligible for relief are the ones who are delinquent on their loans, how many underwater owners will keep making payments?  I only ask because a friend who is trying to refinance his home has been told by his bank that, in effect, they can't negotiate with him until he misses a payment.  My impression is that the Obama plan is similarly short-sighted [although I seem to have misremembered...].

So what would I bid for home equity loans where the payments are current but the first mortgages are underwater and the government is rewarding the people who default?  Not much.

MY FAILING MEMORY:  From the White House description of their plan:

Enabling Up to 4 to 5 Million Responsible Homeowners to Refinance: Mortgage rates are currently at historically low levels, providing homeowners with the opportunity to reduce their monthly payments by refinancing. But under current rules, most families who owe more than 80 percent of the value of their homes have a difficult time refinancing. Yet millions of responsible homeowners who put money down and made their mortgage payments on time have – through no fault of their own – seen the value of their homes drop low enough to make them unable to access these lower rates. As a result, the Obama Administration is announcing a new program that will help as many as 4 to 5 million responsible homeowners who took out conforming loans owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac to refinance through those two institutions.

The only delinquency here is with my synapses.

[END OF THREAD]

The Ongoing Shoulder Ride For Timothy Geithner

Floyd Norris of the Times wonders about but does not explain the Teflon on every Fed official other than Alan Greenspan:

It’s not much fun to be a banker these days. One leading European banker says a poll showed that the only groups now held in lower regard are prostitutes and convicted felons. There are plenty of people who would be quite happy to see a few bankers join the latter group.

The opprobrium is well earned. The banks invented toxic securities and thought they were making lots of money from them. But the bosses seem to have been too busy flying around on their private jets to understand the risks they were taking. Now their banks are in business only because the government has poured hundreds of billions of dollars into them.

But it was not all their fault. These were regulated institutions, and the regulators failed.

Remarkably, the institution that had the most direct responsibility to prevent the debacle — the Federal Reserve — has taken little heat for its own failures. There has been no Congressional hearing where Fed officials were treated to anything like the grilling the division chiefs of the Securities and Exchange Commission received three weeks ago.

Instead, the Congress appears ready to increase the Fed’s powers.

Sometimes nothing succeeds like failure.

A very small part of the explanation is the Federal Reserve's place in the budget:

The Fed is not dependent on Congress for funding, so it would be easier to hire staff to handle the new responsibilities. Other regulators have periodically felt budget pressures to hold down spending to levels that turned out to be unreasonably low.

But the Norris passage on Geithner is inexplicable:

The New York Fed, under the leadership of Timothy Geithner, who is now the Treasury secretary, also deserves credit for its work on credit-default swaps. Most of the reforms he pushed for have yet to be adopted, but he did focus the attention of senior bankers on that market, which may have reduced the damage from corporate defaults.

Thank heaven for Tim or things would be even worse!  Left unmentioned is that Citigroup fell directly under his purview.  Did any of the reforms he was proposing include not making insane mortgage loans?

Last summer Geithner explained that the problems went way beyond banks, so what's a poor regulator to do?

My first thought is that Geithner must have the dirty pictures of every reporter in New York and Washington.  My second and more prosaic notion is that he has pored through their financial records.

The Times profile of Geithner is here.

[END OF THREAD]

A Cautionary Tale

Folks clamoring for bank nationalizations ought to pause and reflect on this story about the Department of Energy's turn as a financier:

February 27, 2009
$25 Billion to Promote Electric Cars Is Untouched
By LESLIE WAYNE

WASHINGTON — The future of the American auto industry is getting off to a slow start.

The Energy Department has $25 billion to make loans to hasten the arrival of the next generation of automotive technology — electric-powered cars. But no money has been allocated so far, even though the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan program, established in 2007, has received applications from 75 companies, including start-ups as well as the three Detroit automakers.

With General Motors and Chrysler making repeat visits to Washington to ask for bailout money to stave off insolvency, some members of Congress are starting to ask why the Energy Department money is not flowing yet. The loans also are intended to help fulfill President Obama’s campaign promise of putting one million electric cars on American roads by 2015.

“Politicians are breaking down the door asking why the money isn’t being sent out,” said Michael Carr, counsel to the Senate Energy Committee, which oversees the Energy Department.

It is a question that Lachlan W. Seward, director of the program, says he hears a lot these days. “We’re moving with a sense of urgency,” said Mr. Seward, who also oversaw the Chrysler Loan Guarantee Board from 1981 to 1984. “But at the same time we are trying to do this in a responsible way that reflects prudent credit policy and taxpayer protections.”

So, do these loan officers lose their jobs if they make bad loans?  Do they lose their jobs if they make no loans at all?  And which Congressman do they especially need to placate?

As soon as Steven Chu took office as energy secretary, some members of Congress started applying pressure on the fund.

Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana, wrote Secretary Chu on Jan. 23, two days after he was sworn in, to say the agency is “under an obligation to issue the loans as soon as possible.”

Senators Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, who have led a bipartisan effort to increase fuel-mileage standards, followed with a letter calling for an “aggressive timeline” in issuing loans.

In response, Dr. Chu announced last week that the first loans would be made by late April or early May, adding that the program’s paperwork would be simplified and more staff would be hired.

More staff!  That is no doubt the first time in the history of bureaucracy that a problem was solved by throwing more bodies at it.  Or anyway, the first time today.  As to the reduction in paperwork, that is either a brilliant trimming of bureaucratic excess or a troubling reduction in loan standards - time will tell!

Well, let's think of this as a job-creating stimulus program, because those new loan officers will never be fired.

Nineteen Months, Redux

The Times returns to Obama's timetable for withdrawing US combat troops from Iraq:

WASHINGTON — President Obama heads to one of the nation’s most storied military bases Friday morning to unveil plans to pull most troops out of Iraq by August 2010 and he has support from an unlikely quarter — Senator John McCain, the Republican he beat in last year’s election.

Mr. McCain and other Republicans emerged from a meeting with Mr. Obama at the White House on Thursday evening reassured that the president’s withdrawal plan is responsible and reasonable. After securing assurances from Mr. Obama that he would reconsider his plans if violence increases, Mr. McCain and the Republicans expressed cautious support.

That seems like an important yet ephemeral reassurance.  Presumably Obama will want to respond to changing circumstances, but unbtil we know how the have changed it is hard to gauge the appropriate response.

The Administration, at least for current consumption, is not pretending that this ends the war, although Obama's supporters are free to do so:

Aides to the president said Mr. Obama approved his withdrawal plan at a meeting with his national security team Wednesday and would tell an audience of several thousand Marines and their families at Camp Lejeune, N.C., on Friday that he is bringing the current phase of the war to a close in August 2010.

“The combat, current combat mission in Iraq will end on August 31, 2010,” a senior administration official told reporters at a briefing under ground rules that he not be identified to avoid upstaging the president’s announcement. “At that point, the U.S. forces remaining in Iraq will undertake a new mission, a more limited mission.”

Leading Dems are unhappy:

Officials said the plan has the support of all of Mr. Obama’s national security team, including Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, both holdovers from the Bush administration. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the Middle East commander, and Gen. Ray Odierno, the Iraq commander, who were the main architects of Mr. Bush’s “surge” strategy credited with turning Iraq around, are also comfortable with the plan, officials said.

But leading Democrats are not. Even before the briefing at the White House on Thursday evening, Democrats criticized the size of the residual force, even though Mr. Obama said consistently during last year’s campaign that he would leave troops behind for limited missions.

“I’m happy to listen to the secretary of defense and the president, but when they talk about 50,000, that’s a little higher number than I anticipated,” Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, told reporters before heading to the White House. After the meeting, his spokesman said Mr. Reid still held those concerns.

Another person briefed on the closed-door session said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House speaker, was particularly upset about the residual force. She kicked off the public criticism on Wednesday by saying she did not understand “the justification” for 50,000 troops.

Declare defeat and blame Bush!

Left unmentioned, so allow me - an August 2010 deadline, even with a bit of slippage, allows Dems to claim that Obama ended the war just in time for the mid-term elections.  A 23 month timetable ending in December 2010 was never politically realistic.  Not that anyone's thinking was influenced by this.

This all follows the leaks from earlier this week.

[END OF CURRENT MISSION]

Turning Japanese, No We're Not Turning Japanese (He Doesn't Think So)

Writing in Foreign Affairs, Richard Katz (Editor in Chief of The Oriental Economist Alert and the author of Japanese Phoenix: The Long Road to Economic Revival) argues that comparisons of the current US crisis to Japan's "Lost Decade" are overdone:

In periods of crisis, pundits and policymakers tend to scramble for historical analogies. This time, many have seized on Japan's notorious "lost decade," the decade of stagnation that followed a mammoth property bubble in the late 1980s. But this comparison is wrong. In Japan, the primary problem was pervasive dysfunction in the economy, which caused a banking crisis. In the United States, pervasive dysfunction in the financial sector has caused a deep recession in the economy as a whole. This financial dysfunction is not the result of structural flaws, as in Japan, but of grave policy mistakes. It is now being compounded by widespread investor panic.

The consequences of the 2008 U.S. financial crisis will be different from Japan's slump in the 1990s for three reasons: the cause of the current crisis is fundamentally different, its scope is far smaller, and the response of policymakers has been quicker and more effective.

In other words, in Japan the banks were a symptom of their economic dysfunction, not a cause.  A bit more:

Japan's malaise was woven into the very fabric of its political economy. The country has a thin social safety net, and so in order to protect jobs, weak domestic firms and industries were sheltered from competition by a host of regulations and collusion among companies. Ultimately, that system limited productivity and potential growth. The problem was compounded by built-in economic anorexia. Personal consumption lagged, not because people refused to spend but because the same structural flaws caused real household income to keep falling as a share of real GDP. To make up for the shortfall in demand, the government used low interest rates as a steroid to pump up business investment. The result was a mountain of money-losing capital stock and bad debt.

Japan's crisis pervaded virtually its entire corporate world. In sector after sector, debt levels and excess capacity ballooned and profitability remained low. White-elephant projects, from office buildings to auto plants, were built on borrowed money under the assumption that if times got tough, the government and banks would bail out the debtors. But the banks were too poorly capitalized to write off bad loans. And for every bad loan, there was a bad borrower whose products were not worth the cost to make them. The cumulative total of bank losses on bad debt between 1993 and 2005 added up to nearly 20 percent of GDP.

Policy mistakes -- from Japan's mismanaged fiscal and monetary policy to the government's failure to address the loan crisis -- made a bad situation even worse. But even if policymakers had done everything right, Japan's economy still would have stagnated until Tokyo addressed its more fundamental flaws.

I made a similar point last Valentine's Day (and people fret about the death of romance...) - Japan's problem wasn't just the zombie banks, it was the zombie companies to whom they extended new loans in order to avoid write-downs on past loans.  The US analogy would be that we kept Citigroup propped up so it could continue to lend to an unreconstructed General Motors rather than to innovative rivals to General Motors.

TO BE CONTINUED: I dispute Mr. Katz history of the AIG collapse.  His description closely links the AIG collapse to Lehman:

The collapse of the investment bank Lehman Brothers caused the insurance company AIG to lose big in so-called credit default swaps, undermining trust in all counterparties and causing a run on the entire derivatives and securitization markets. Rather than frightened depositors banging on bank doors, the result was investors furiously clicking away at their keyboards as their money disappeared. In the end, the impact was the same: perfectly solid companies suddenly found themselves unable to issue commercial paper, and creditworthy homeowners found it hard to get car or student loans. It took an intervention by the Federal Reserve to forestall a more serious meltdown.

Hmm.  The Lehman collapse caused a major money market fund to "break the buck" and suspend withdrawals, thereby sending panic through the money market investors and crushing the money market funds big investment outlet, the commercial paper market.

The AIG collapse was triggered by a credit downgrade which obliged them to pony up $10 to $15 billion of collateral on Credit Derivatives Swaps.

AND BY WAY OF CONTRAST:  Here is Paul Krugman:

The actual plan seems to be to keep the banks semi-alive by implicitly guaranteeing their liabilities and dribbling in money as necessary, all the while proclaiming that they’re adequately capitalized — and hope that things turn up. It’s Japan all over again.

And the result will probably be a deeper, long-lasting crisis.

[END OF THREAD]

Food Is The New Sex

George Will explains that food is the new sex.  Just in time for lunch, too.

[END OF LUNCH BREAK]

Japanese Scientists Cool To Kyoto

Andrew Orlowski of The Register, a UK paper, has sent ripples through the blogosphere with his report that the Japan Society of Energy and Resources is critical of the IPCC "consensus" on anthropogenic global warming:

Exclusive Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission.

Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN's IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside.

One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased.

And from the conclusions:

4. Conclusion: Anthropogenic global warming theory still hypothetical

To summarize the discussion so far, compared to accurately predicting solar eclipses by celestial mechanics theoretical models, climate models are still in the phase of reliance on trial and error experiential models. There are still no successful precedents. The significance of this is that climate change theory is still dominated by anthropogenic greenhouse gas causation; the IPCC 4th Evaluation Report's conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to continuously, monotonously increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis; it will be necessary investigate further and to evaluate future predictions as subject to natural variability. ®

Well, well - yet another crack in the scientific consensus.

So, who are these Japanese scientists and how credible is this?  Japan is having trouble achieving Kyoto compliance, so it is *possible* that political motivations are at work here (or was George Bush the only politician ever to politicize science?)  That suggestion is not meant to impugn the integrity of the scientists presenting this report; instead, let's note the possibility that the group was stacked with AGW skeptics at the outset.

That said, The Register gives background on the Japanese scientists:

Shunichi Akasofu, head of the International Arctic Research Center in Alaska, has expressed criticism of the theory before [link].

Dr. Akasofu has a bio that would impress even Al Gore and his role as Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center seems to be on point:

The International Arctic Research Center [IARC] serves as a focal point of integrating/synthesizing arctic research efforts in terms of climate change and communicates the results to the global climate research community. Our core research group interacts with a larger number of scientists from many parts of the world, enabling climate change research to truly be an international effort.

The JSER group was led by Kanya Kusana:

Kanya Kusano is Program Director and Group Leader for the Earth Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology (JAMSTEC).

Dr. Kusano has a physics/astrophysics background with expertise in solar flares.  The Earth Simulator Center is quite an ambitious project with the modeling of climate change as one of its goals.

Presumably their objections will be noted and kicked around the scientific community; the US press has utterly overlooked this. 

As to the likely impact within the White House, Obama's science adviser is firmly among the true believers on global warming, so we can count on this being poo-poohed in that quarter.

[END OF THREAD]

Send In The Straw

Karl Rove details Obama's rhetorical reliance on strawman arguments.  His lead:

President Barack Obama reveres Abraham Lincoln. But among the glaring differences between the two men is that Lincoln offered careful, rigorous, sustained arguments to advance his aims and, when disagreeing with political opponents, rarely relied on the lazy rhetorical device of "straw men." Mr. Obama, on the other hand, routinely ascribes to others views they don't espouse and says opposition to his policies is grounded in views no one really advocates.

On Tuesday night, Mr. Obama told Congress and the nation, "I reject the view that . . . says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity." Who exactly has that view? Certainly not congressional Republicans, who believe that through reasonable tax cuts, fiscal restraint, and prudent monetary policies government contributes to prosperity.

Hah!  In my ramble through Obama's speech Tuesday I had denounced the very same passage.

MORE:  Who among us can forget William Safire's discussion of this rhetorical device?

MY INFORMAL job title in the Nixon Administration was Rejected Counsel. That's because, as a speech writer, I would occasionally put my head into the Oval Office to say: "Mr. President -- Do the popular thing! Take the easy way!" Mr. Nixon would ritualistically throw me out of the office, allowing me to submit a speech draft that would truthfully report: "Some of my aides have suggested that I do the popular thing, that I should take the easy way. But I have rejected such counsel."

THEN I GUESS ITS ALL RIGHT:  Both the Anon Lib and the paid-by-the-word Glenn Greenwald explain that Bush did this too.  And so did Rove!  Well, I bet Wild Bill did it on occasion as well.  And maybe even John Kennedy.  But never Reagan!

[END OF STRAW AS WE KNOW IT]

Global Warming Hype From Both Sides Of The Aisle

Andrew Revkin of the Times discusses global warming hype from both true believers (exemplified by Al Gore) and skeptics, carried by George Will [but do check this story about official Japanese skepticism]:

In the effort to shape the public’s views on global climate change, hyperbole is an ever-present temptation on all sides of the debate.

Earlier this month, former Vice President Al Gore and the Washington Post columnist George Will made strong public statements about global warning — from starkly divergent viewpoints.

Mr. Gore, addressing a hall filled with scientists in Chicago, showed a slide that illustrated a sharp spike in fires, floods and other calamities around the world and warned the audience that global warming “is creating weather-related disasters that are completely unprecedented.”

Mr. Will, in a column attacking what he said were exaggerated claims about global warming’s risks, chided climate scientists for predicting an ice age three decades ago and asserted that a pause in warming in recent years and the recent expansion of polar sea ice undermined visions of calamity ahead.

Both men, experts said afterward, were guilty of inaccuracies and overstatements.

Get used to it:

A variety of surveys show that roughly 20 percent of Americans are in Mr. Gore’s camp and another 20 percent in Mr. Will’s, rejecting the idea that humans could dangerously alter global climate. That division is unlikely to change any time soon, said David Ropeik, a consultant on risk communication who teaches at Harvard University.

Once science moves from the laboratory or ice caps into fights over policy and the economy, Mr. Ropeik said, the issues are mainly framed by polarizing figures who tailor their message to people who already strongly support their views.

“Gore and Will will rally their supporters and entrench their opponents, and we will be no closer to progress,” Mr. Ropeik said. “They are merely two leaders of their tribes waving the tribal flag.”

Mr. Revkin has more at his blog.  And John Tierney's thoughts about the ability of scientists to maintain the line between science and advocacy seem topical.

UPDATE:  The story from Japan is kind of a big deal:

Exclusive Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission.

Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN's IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside.

One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased.

The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) [link] is astonishing rebuke to international pressure, and a vote of confidence in Japan's native marine and astronomical research. Publicly-funded science in the West uniformly backs the hypothesis that industrial influence is primarily responsible for climate change, although fissures have appeared recently. Only one of the five top Japanese scientists commissioned here concurs with the man-made global warming hypothesis.

I have no idea whether the Japan Society of Energy and Resources is authoritative on climate issues, in the pocket of Japan's energy importers, or what. But let's press on with some translated passages:

Point 1.1: Global Warming has halted

Global mean temperature rose continuously from 1800-1850. The rate of increase was .05 degrees Celsius per 100 years. This was mostly unrelated to CO2 gas (CO2 began to increase suddenly after 1946. Until the sudden increase, the CO2 emissions rate had been almost unchanged for 100 years). However, since 2001, this increase halted. Despite this, CO2 emissions are still increasing.

According to the IPCC panel, global atmospheric temperatures should continue to rise, so it is very likely that the hypothesis that the majority of global warming can be ascribed to the Greenhouse Effect is mistaken. There is no prediction of this halt in global warming in IPCC simulations. The halt of the increase in temperature, and slight downward trend is "something greater than the Greenhouse Effect," but it is in effect. What that "something" is, is natural variability.

From this author's research into natural (CO2 emissions unrelated to human activity) climate change over the past 1000 years, it can be asserted that the global temperature increase up to today is primarily recovery from the "Little Ice Age" earth experienced from 1400 through 1800 (i.e. global warming rate of change＝0.5℃/100).

The recovery in temperatures since follows a naturally variable 30-50 year cycle, (quasi-periodic variations), and in addition, this cycle has been positive since 1975, and peaked in the year 2000. This quasi-periodic cycle has passed its peak and has begun to turn negative.

And the conclusions:

4. Conclusion: Anthropogenic global warming theory still hypothetical

To summarize the discussion so far, compared to accurately predicting solar eclipses by celestial mechanics theoretical models, climate models are still in the phase of reliance on trial and error experiential models. There are still no successful precedents. The significance of this is that climate change theory is still dominated by anthropogenic greenhouse gas causation; the IPCC 4th Evaluation Report's conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to continuously, monotonously increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis; it will be necessary investigate further and to evaluate future predictions as subject to natural variability. ®

Daily Tech had coverage of this last January:

The Japanese Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) has published a new study on the causes of Global Warming. Entitled, "Global warming: What is the scientific truth?”, the report highlights the differing views of five prominent Japanese scientists.

All but one of the scientists disagreed that global warming is the result of human activity.

...

While all the researchers agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) statement that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal", four of the five disagreed with the claim that the primary cause of the increase was due to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. The only researcher to agree with the IPCC's assertion was Emori, who is himself a member of the IPCC.

Akasofu countered with the statement, "CO2 emissions have been increasing, but the rise in air temperature stopped around 2001. Climate change is due in large part to naturally occurring oscillations". Akasofu says the earth's warming trend began prior to the industrial age, and believes much of the warming seen may simply be a natural recovery from the so-called Little Ice Age, that ended in the 17th century.

Professor Itoh attacked the temperature record itself, saying "Data taken by the U.S. is inadequate. We only have satellite data of global temperatures from 1979 onwards". Itoh, who has previously called global warming "the worst scientific scandal in history", is also an expert reviewer for the IPCC.

[end of thread]

Pakistan And The Taliban/Al Qaeda Migration

Was it only last week I noted a problem with Obama's Afghanistan strategy, namely, denying Al Qaeda and the Taliban safe havens along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border will simply push them deeper into Pakistan?  Today the Times makes the same point after chatting with Pakistani intelligence officials:

Strikes Worsen Qaeda Threat, Pakistan Says
By ERIC SCHMITT and JANE PERLEZ

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — American missile strikes have reduced Al Qaeda’s global reach but heightened the threat to Pakistan as the group disperses its cells here and fights to maintain its sanctuaries, Pakistani intelligence officials said.

The officials acknowledge that the strikes and raids by the Pakistani military are proving effective, having killed as many as 80 Qaeda fighters in the past year. But they express growing alarm that the drone strikes in particular are having an increasingly destabilizing effect on their country.

They also voiced fears that the expected arrival of 17,000 American troops in Afghanistan this spring and summer would add to the stresses by pushing more Taliban fighters into Pakistan.

The assessment was provided during a two-hour briefing by senior analysts and officials of Pakistan’s main spy service, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in keeping with the agency’s policy.

The analysis reflected the increasing public pressure on the Pakistani government to oppose the drone attacks, which are deeply unpopular here for the civilian casualties they have inflicted.

But it also underscored ominous signs of Al Qaeda’s resilience and pointed to new and unintended dangers for American policy in the region — a rapidly destabilized, nuclear-armed Pakistan, a state with a weak civilian government and a military struggling to fight an expanding insurgency.

I found this next bit to be puzzling:

The Pakistani officials suggested that Al Qaeda was replenishing killed fighters and midlevel leaders with less experienced but more hard-core militants, who are considered more dangerous because they have fewer allegiances to local Pakistani tribes.

More dangerous to whom?  One might think that these militants, with less connection to the local population, would be more likely to be opposed by the locals in a manner analogous to the Anbar Awakening in Iraq.

Bill Roggio at the Weekly Standard seems to think the Pakistani government ought to man up:

While the Predator strikes no doubt put the government in an awkward situation and are angering Pakistanis, the real cause of instability and the spread of radical Islam is Pakistan’s inability to control its own territory. Pakistan could end the Predator strikes if it showed it was serious about dislodging the Taliban and al Qaeda from the tribal areas and the Northwest Frontier Province. Instead, the Pakistanis have cut a series of peace deals, starting in North and South Waziristan in 2004, with the latest ceasefires coming to effect in Swat and Bajaur.

My impression is that when the Pakistani government has gotten serious they have endured serious casualties to little effect.  I don't think we are talking about an area the central government controlled at one time but then lost; I think they never controlled these areas.

[END OF THREAD]

In Northern Trust We Trust

Maureen Dowd enters her Populist Idiot mode with a vigorous but utterly uninformed bashing of Northern Trust, which took $1.6 billion of TARP money and then hosted a lavish party in Los Angeles.  Here is Ms. Dowd:

[Northern Trust] asserted that it earned an operating net income of $641 million last year and acted as though it did Americans a favor by taking federal cash.

I would ask Northern No Trust: If you’re totally solvent, why are you taking my tax dollars? If you’re not totally solvent, why are you giving my tax dollars to Sheryl Crow?

Can I answer two questions with two questions?  First, does Ms. Dowd even bother to read the Times?  If she did she would have learned that in order to avoid creating any stigma associated with taking TARP funds, the Feds exhorted seemingly healthy banks to take some cash.  Treasury and Fed officials seem to think that they can better maintain confidence in the banking system if the list of TARP recipients is not viewed as an excellent proxy for a list of banks likely to fail.  Go figure.

My second question is, does Ms. Dowd have any familiarity at all with Google?  If she did she would have learned that Nothern Trust focuses on trust services and wealth management rather than mortgage and commercial lending, their prospects are excellent, their loan losses have been small, and their stock performance has been much better than the broad XLF index of major financial services companies (over the last 12 months XLF is down 70%, the S&P 500 is down about 42% and Northern Trust is down about 15%.

My conclusion, which I suspect Ms. Dowd could have reached with minimal effort - Northern Trust does needs neither the TARP money nor Congressional grandstanding.

However, if Ms. Dowd thinks that Treasury and Fed officials have the wrong strategy and that we the people would better served if the list of TARP recipients was in fact a list of desperately weak banks, then she ought to take her financial insights to the appropriate authorities within the Administration, who will no doubt give her the hearing she deserves.

In the course of availing themselves of her wisdom I do hope these officials remind her that these TARP funds are investments, not grants, and that eventually Northern Trust will be paying it back, with interest.

As a practical matter, they may be right but this is not a fight that Treasiry and the Fed can win - too many people of the people like Maureen Dowd and John Kerry will be resolutely unable to understand this.

The Poor Dear Hasn't A Thing To Wear

Michelle Obama goes sleeveless yet again, prompting this Onion-esque parody from Jodi Kantor of the Times:

So Michelle Obama is athletic and disciplined. Yes, fine, but that was pretty clear before we started examining her triceps on a daily basis. Instead, those bare arms seem like a reminder of everything about her we can’t see.

In two years, she has shown us a great deal of herself, more than most of us would share, and yet right now, we actually don’t know that much about her. What does she think of the White House, and what does she do all day? Does her husband consult her on any of the difficult decisions he faces? Is the “Mom-in-chief” really, totally confident that her children are going to come through this just fine? In a few years, will she still look as confident as she did last night, or will she reach for cover? And is she comfortable as she looks in those skimpy tops, or is she actually freezing?

I am voting for "Kidding".  Or else blaming the editor who demanded a Deep Meaning piece.

[END OF FASHION]

Nineteen Months

Obama officials are bracing the media for a bit of a slip on Obama's "promise" to have US combat troops out of Iraq within sixteen months.  Since Obama also promised to consult with his generals and exit responsibly, I agree with Michael Crowley that only the most committed fantasists could have thought that a timetable developed in September 2007 still made sense.

However, the Times suggests that Obama's promise was a driver in the debate:

The 19-month time frame for the withdrawal of combat troops was first reported Tuesday by The Associated Press. The approach split the difference with military commanders who proposed a range of options, including the 16-month withdrawal Mr. Obama promised last year and a longer timetable that would have spread the withdrawal over 23 months. Mr. Obama’s advisers said they believed they had reached an accommodation that would satisfy both the military and a public eager to get out of Iraq, while relieving the strain on the armed forces and freeing up resources for Afghanistan.

I think the public would be eager for victory if Obama were willing to acknowledge that possibility.  Of course, that would be a bold and hazardous course since Iraq may yet backslide into factional violence.  Better for Obama to vote "Present".

[END OF WAR, OR ANYWAY, AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT]

Post Game Show

Is everybody hopeful and changed?

EVERYBODY'S DOING THE LOCOMOTION...

From the speech:

And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.

Hmm.  Should we (a) drive away; (b) bicycle away; (c) fly away in flying cars...

A DANGEROUS LEVEL OF TEETH-GRINDING: The One reviews the current causes of our crisis:

A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. 

Transfer wealth back to the wealthy would be more like it.

ISN'T IT GREAT WHEN RHETORIC MATCHES REALITY:

Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs. More than 90% of these jobs will be in the private sector – jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit.

Because of this plan, there are teachers who can now keep their jobs and educate our kids.  Health care professionals can continue caring for our sick.  There are 57 police officers who are still on the streets of Minneapolis tonight because this plan prevented the layoffs their department was about to make. 

Obama offered three examples, two of which - teachers and police officers - are not private sector, in order to buttress the assertion that 90% of saved or created jobs will be in the private sector.

THE SUN WILL COME OUT TOMORROW, OR SOMEDAY:

Still, this plan will require significant resources from the federal government –- and yes, probably more than we’ve already set aside.  But while the cost of action will be great, I can assure you that the cost of inaction will be far greater, for it could result in an economy that sputters along for not months or years, but perhaps a decade. That would be worse for our deficit, worse for business, worse for you, and worse for the next generation.  And I refuse to let that happen.

We are already making progress!  Just three weeks ago Obama advised us that darkness might be eternal:

Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.

 "Not be able to reverse" is now cut back to a mere decade - who else is feeling the hope?

And speaking of hope, how about the Fed H.3 from Feb 12?  Note the precipitous decline in excess reserves, finally -from $843 billion on Jan 14 to $793 billion on Jan 31 to $611 billion on Feb 11.  Yes, that is still high compared to the historic level of roughly $2 billion, but the direction seems finally to have changed.

MAKING THE WORLD SAFE FOR STRAWMEN:

But that does not mean we can afford to ignore our long-term challenges. I reject the view that says our problems will simply take care of themselves; that says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity.

Reagan believed that the US government had an obligation to face down the Soviet empire; Bush 43 believed it had an obligation to oppose terror.  Who are the folks who think government has "no role" in laying the foundation for our prosperity?  Laws, courts, national defense - c'mon.  The ongoing tussle has not been between "no role" and a modest role for the government; the tussle has been between limited government and a wildly expansive government that is involved in every nook and cranny of the economy.

INTERESTING EMPHASIS:

...the budget I submit will invest in the three areas that are absolutely critical to our economic future:  energy, health care, and education. 

"Energy", not "the environment".  Later, the environment comes in third out of three motivations for change:

But to truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy.  So I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America.

I'm down with the national security argument for alternative energy, but does his plan mention nukes?

PHONY STATISTICS IT IS TOO LATE FOR ME TO CHECK:

For that same reason, we must also address the crushing cost of health care.   

This is a cost that now causes a bankruptcy in America every thirty seconds. By the end of the year, it could cause 1.5 million Americans to lose their homes.  In the last eight years, premiums have grown four times faster than wages.

"Causes a bankruptcy"?  That is surely an echo of a dubious Warren study.

And since six days a week I hear libs moaning that real wages have been stagnant, what am I to make of the news that health care premiums "have grown four times faster than wages"?  Four times zero is zero, and four times tiny growth is still tiny, yes?  [Maybe not - I seem to be out of game on this point:

Since 1999, employment-based health insurance premiums have increased 120 percent, compared to cumulative inflation of 44 percent and cumulative wage growth of 29 percent during the same period.²

Ok, then - he didn't actually say "real wages"...]

INTERESTING GOAL, AWKWARD SOLUTION:  Obama on education:

...by 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. 

Fewer non-degreed immigrants (legal and otherwise) would help pad that stat, but I assume he is looking in other directions.

FROM THE BIG FINISH:

...if we confront without fear the challenges of our time and summon that enduring spirit of an America that does not quit, then someday years from now our children can tell their children that this was the time when we performed, in the words that are carved into this very chamber, “something worthy to be remembered.”

America does not quit.

[END OF THREAD]

Hope And Change Open Thread

How are folks loving the big speech?

And speaking of lovin' Obama, Jennifer Loven of the AP is already up with a past-tense account of the yet-to-be delivered oration:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Standing before a nation on an economic precipice, President Barack Obama aimed to balance candor with can-do Tuesday night in his first address to a joint session of Congress. Millions more anxious Americans were tuning in on TV.

Obama was arguing that his still-unfolding economic revival plan has room for — even demands — a broader agenda including dramatic increases in health care coverage and wiser, "greener" fuel use. He was addressing an ebullient Democratic congressional majority and an embattled but reinvigorated GOP minority as well as worried viewers at home.

Just five weeks after his inauguration, Obama wasn't charged with producing a formal State of the Union status report. But for all intents and purposes, that's what it was: a night for the president to sketch out his priorities in a setting unmatched the rest of the year.

He enters the chamber to lawmakers of both parties hanging into the aisle for a chance to shake his hand or exchange a word. The gallery is filled, including a special section hosted by first lady Michelle Obama in which guests are selected to serve as living symbols of the president's goals. Cramming the floor are the leaders of the federal government: Supreme Court justices, all but one Cabinet member — held away in case disaster strikes — and nearly every member of Congress.

Eric Holder is the Cabinet member staying away, the coward.

[END OF SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM]

More Hope And Change We Could Have Seen Coming

Ezra Klein sneak previews Obama's upcoming flip-flop on individual health care mandates.

For folks whose memories have blessedly erased any recollection of the endless Democratic candidates debates, let me toss in a brief reminder.  Obama claimed that he would offer health insurance subsidies so generous that most folks would volunteer to sign up.  Hillary mocked that, insisting that the young and healthy would decline to subsidize the rest of us, especially since they could not subsequently be denied coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions; her plan included a mandate obliging everyone to buy health insurance, like it or not (as in Massachusetts).  Hillary then diligently ducked the "or else" question of what penalties she would inflict on the young, helathy and recalcitrant who would prefer to hold off on buying insurance until they were sick.  As a nostalgia piece here is a link to a lefty wondering why his party was so committed to forcing young, healthy members of the working class to subsidize the rest of us on health care; that seems like a good question but I am long resigned to not being smart enough to be a lefty.

And now it is on to mandates, which was always inevitable since lefties are never happier then when telling the rest of us what to do. As the great Warner Wolf might say, if you thought that during the campaign Obama was just tossing up a lot of happy horseshit about individual choice... YOU WIN!

[END OF PATIENCE]

Toke It, Tax It

Yesterday Just One Minute, today the world.  OK, California:

Taxing pot could become a political toking point

An Assemblyman from San Francisco argues that it's time to tax and regulate the state's biggest cash crop in the same manner as alcohol. Opponents say it would create new costs for society.

Buoyed by the widely held belief that cannabis is California's biggest cash crop, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano contends it is time to reap some state revenue from that harvest while putting a damper on drug use by teens, cutting police costs and even helping Mother Nature.

"I know the jokes are going to be coming, but this is not a frivolous issue," said Ammiano, a Democrat elected in November after more than a dozen years as a San Francisco supervisor. "California always takes the lead -- on gay marriage, the sanctuary movement, medical marijuana."

Anti-drug groups are anything but amused by the idea of California collecting a windfall from the leafy herb that remains illegal under federal law.

...But the biggest boon might be to the bottom line. By some estimates, California's pot crop is a $14-billion industry, putting it above vegetables ($5.7 billion) and grapes ($2.6 billion). If so, that could mean upward of $1 billion in tax revenue for the state each year.

"Having just closed a $42-billion budget deficit, generating new revenue is crucial to the state's long-term fiscal health," said Betty Yee, the state Board of Equalization chairwoman who appeared with Ammiano at a San Francisco news conference.

Also in support of opening debate on the issue are San Francisco Sheriff Mike Hennessey and retired Orange County Superior Court Judge James Gray, a longtime legalization proponent.

"I'm a martini guy myself," Ammiano said. "But I think it's time for California to . . . look at this in a truly deliberative fashion."

We can't afford not to.

[END OF PROHIBITION]

A Kick In The Brass

I just finished The Brass Verdict by Michael Connelly.  I am a big fan of his other work, especially the Harry Bosch series, but this novel was interesting only as a primer in how to run a one-man defense attorney practice in LA.  Ignore this review and this book.

[END OF THREAD]

Our Spies Are Everywhere

Reporting live from Mardi Gras in New Orleans - Just One of the Daughters gleans key intelligence from Dem operator James Carville.

Many, many thanks to Denis MacDonald, who was a gracious and madly entertaining host as always.

[END OF PRE-LENT]

The 92 Percent Solution

Feel the anger - here is a website dedicated to the 92 percent of Americans who are making their mortgage payments.  The mission statement reads more like the Declaration of Independence; the intro:

The 92% Group Charter

1.The sole purpose of this group is to oppose President Obama’s housing plan, and the incentive it creates to not pay mortgages.

2.We hold this policy to be unfair and unjust as it rewards those who do not pay their mortgages, and punishes those who work each month to pay theirs.

The real controversy would develop if their call for a national mortgage strike caught fire.

[END OF THREAD]

The Grand Unified Plan

Okay, here we go with the grand plan to save Social Security and Medicare, bring home jobs currently outsourced to foreigners, shore up our War on Terror, and improve our relations with our neighbors.

The scheme - declare marijuana a non-combatant in the War on Drugs and switch to a taxed, regulated approach similar to that used for alcohol.  My goodness, if lowering the drinking age to eighteen can create jobs, surely letting Americans raise and distribute marijuana will lead to an economic boom.

The tax revenue will be directed to Social Security, Medicare, and, following the model of the tobacco settlements, smoker education/prevention.  That might help buy the acquiescence of old-timers who would otherwise oppose this assault on the established order.

Oh, well - it will never happen, and certainly not in time (Is marijuana cultivation shovel-ready?  Hmm...).  And just as ti took Nixon to go to China, maybe Barack is not the best guy for this.  Hey, this could be a chance for John McCain to make himself useful.

[END OF THREAD]

Obama - Feeling The Chill?

Obama was widely mocked for running up the White House thermostat to the point where, as his adviser David Axelrod explained, "You could grow orchids in there.”

But check out these new photos of Obama At Work from ABC News.  Is that a fashionable non-Carteresque non-cardigan sweater we see?

I can't believe the White House spinners haven't found a fawning reporter to breathlessly assure us of Obama's commitment to reducing global warming, or to energy conservation, or some such.  But if the White House thermostat has been dialed back to non-tropical levels I think the public has a right to know.

My goodness.  This temperature switch by Obama (if he has in fact switched, and is not just That Cold) is almost like leading by example.  Of course, it is also like cravenly collapsing in the face of ridicule, but since the ridicule was deserved the collapse was well judged.

I am hat-tipping Bad on this, and thanks.

[END OF THREAD]

We Have Special Forces Inside Pakistan As Trainers

The NY Times compounds the embarrassment of the Pakistani government with this story:

February 23, 2009
U.S. Unit Secretly in Pakistan Lends Ally Support
By ERIC SCHMITT and JANE PERLEZ

BARA, Pakistan — More than 70 United States military advisers and technical specialists are secretly working in Pakistan to help its armed forces battle Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the country’s lawless tribal areas, American military officials said.

The Americans are mostly Army Special Forces soldiers who are training Pakistani Army and paramilitary troops, providing them with intelligence and advising on combat tactics, the officials said. They do not conduct combat operations, the officials added.

They make up a secret task force, overseen by the United States Central Command and Special Operations Command. It started last summer, with the support of Pakistan’s government and military, in an effort to root out Qaeda and Taliban operations that threaten American troops in Afghanistan and are increasingly destabilizing Pakistan. It is a much larger and more ambitious effort than either country has acknowledged.

Well, good, but there is this:

Pakistani officials have vigorously protested American missile strikes in the tribal areas as a violation of sovereignty and have resisted efforts by Washington to put more troops on Pakistani soil. President Asif Ali Zardari, who leads a weak civilian government, is trying to cope with soaring anti-Americanism among Pakistanis and a belief that he is too close to Washington.

I can sense the cross-currents - some Pakistani factions want to maintain an anti-American pose while others wants to reassure the US that all is well and the Pakistanis firmly on our side despite the new truce (maybe) in Swat.

[END OF THREAD]

If You Liked The Lehman Bankruptcy You'll Love This...

Brad DeLong and Matt Yglesias are talking up an admirably creative idea to create turn a weakly-capitalized bank into a good bank and a bad bank without the requirement of any new money.  The gist - transfer bad assets and non-deposit liabilities to a non-operating entity (I would suggest a transfer to the holding company level.)  Leave the deposits and the good assets in the bank.  The holding company has the equity in the bank, so the numbers still add up.  However, the bank is well-capitalized and deposits are safe.

My objections:

1.  I dispute the premise that protecting deposits is the only important goal - when Lehman failed, it had no deposits (not being a bank), yet the result was chaos.  From the authors:

Note that in this re-arrangement, the debt claims, including the short-term commercial paper, are direct liabilities of the bad bank.  If the bad bank cannot re-fund its commercial paper one morning, the bad bank must be re-organized.  Some of its claims must be turned into equity.  This is the standard sort of Chapter 11 re-organization.

Thus, what this re-organization of the ownership claims does is show how easy and orderly a garden-variety Chapter 11 reorganization of a large bank could be, and how unnecessary it is to throw additional public money into insolvent institutions.

2.  I question the accounting.  The authors have surely lost track of the preferred stock held by the government (that does not impair their analysis but it does impair my confidence.)  What worries me is the treatment of repo agreements and other secured loans.

A repo agreement includes transactions in which a bank (Citigroup is the example here) has as an asset a government security which is financed by a secured loan from another primary dealer.  That is reported as both an asset and a liability on Citigroup's balance sheet.

If (I say *IF*) the authors are proposing to transfer only the short term liability to the bad bank but not the secured asset, well - the disruption to the government securities market would be enormous (and it won't be allowed.)  I see in their example that $118 billion of non-deposit liabilities remain with the good bank so maybe this is not a problem [ I also see that as of Sept 30 2008 Citigroup had $117.536 billion in "Accounts Payable"; that rounds to $118 billion and may not be a coincidence].  Eventually I may have time to delve into Citi's numbers - here is their Sept 30 2008 financial info.

To be continued...

[END OF THREAD]

Alcohol And Eighteen

Old enough to fight, old enough to vote, old enough to drink.  Well, maybe in Minnesota - the Captain is kicking it around.

Personally, I don't know how you could expect somebody to vote sober.  However, as a wise man once said, we need to change people's hearts before we change the law.  The problem is not whether the drinking age is 18 or 21 per se; the problem is binge drinking in high school and college, with the attendant public safety issues including traffic fatalities and date rape.  Without a change in public attitudes about drinking, changing the law will only be tinkering around the edges.

In that regard, Ed has an interesting article from Ireland:

Over 80% of adults believe that it is easy for people under the age of 18 to access alcohol in pubs and off-licenses, new research from the HSE indicates.

The preliminary results of the research indicate that the vast majority of adults - 91% - agree that underage drinking is a problem in Ireland today, while 50% feel there is nothing they can do to stop young people from consuming alcohol.

Just 15% believe that their own drinking habits influence the habits of young people around them, while just 40% would drink less if they thought it would discourage these young people from drinking.

Well.  Their laws may be more relaxed (e.g., apparently anyone can drink in a pub if accompanied by a parent but I would hardly look to the Irish as role models for responsible alcohol consumption.

Let me add that medical scientists believe that the teenage brain is different from adults - it is still developing and hence is more subject to long term damage from alcohol exposure (1, 2, 3).  And this is an entry in the "You're not getting better, you're getting older" file:

Researchers at the Binghamton University in New York and Harvard Medical School conducted the recent study on the effects of alcohol on social interaction among groups of rats in the laboratory at many stages of adolescence and youth.

The study is published in the November issue of the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. "What I find really interesting is that they are also less sensitive than adults to hangover-related effects," said Elena Varlinskaya, a research professor of psychology at Binghamton and lead author of the study.

"The ability of adolescents to rapidly counteract some unpleasant alcohol effects by developing acute tolerance may allow them to have more drinks per occasion," she said. "This binge pattern of drinking, being unsafe in general, might be extremely dangerous for adolescents."

"Because testing the effects of alcohol on teenagers cannot be done for legal and ethical reasons, the researchers used rat models. Adolescent rats are similar to human adolescents because they spend more time in social interactions than the younger and the older animals, " Prof. Varlinskaya said.

"The results of the study could explain why adults often say they can't hold their alcohol as well as they used to, " said Anh Le, a senior scientist at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto.

As is so often the case, better role modeling by parents and adults would be helpful in reducing teenage binge drinking.  To that end, a reduction in the age to eighteen could also be helpful.  I recall accounts of colleges that once had faculty-student cocktail parties during which students could observe that it was OK to stop after two drinks, but those events are difficult to stage when most of the undergrads are also underage.

[LAST CALL]

Blog For Your Brain

Great news from the world of medicine:

Participating in certain mental activities, like reading magazines or crafting in middle age or later in life, may delay or prevent memory loss, according to a study released today that will be presented at the American Academy of Neurology's 61st Annual Meeting in Seattle, April 25 to May 2, 2009.

...The study found that during later years, reading books, playing games, participating in computer activities and doing craft activities such as pottery or quilting led to a 30 to 50 percent decrease in the risk of developing memory loss compared to people who did not do those activities. People who watched television for less than seven hours a day in later years were 50 percent less likely to develop memory loss than people who watched for more than seven hours a day.

People who participated in social activities and read magazines during middle age were about 40 percent less likely to develop memory loss than those who did not do those activities.

There you go - reading, computer activities, socializing - clearly this is all about blogs.  Researchers apparently did not report separate results for writing and commenting on blogs but I have no doubt that this site would provide them with uplifting data.  Well, for commenting, anyway - I can't even remember how much I have forgotten.

AS AN ASIDE:  I know I shouldn't be shocked that researchers find large groups of people watching more than seven hours of television a day, but I am.  The real medical mystery is how those folks avoid brain damage.

Mark Steyn And The Sultans Of Swat

"There is no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole government working for you" - Will Rogers said it but Mark Steyn is living it, and he has several governments providing him with material.  A snippet:

The [British] Home Secretary is best known for an inspired change of terminology: Last year she announced that henceforth Muslim terrorism (an unhelpful phrase) would be reclassified as “anti-Islamic activity.” Seriously. The logic being that Muslims blowing stuff up tends not to do much for Islam’s reputation — i.e., it’s an “anti-Islamic activity” in the same sense that Pearl Harbor was an anti-Japanese activity.

I wish he were kidding.

[END OF THREAD]

Gitmo Legal, But So What?

I bitterly dispute Ann Althouse's conclusion that Obama "screwed up" by ordering Guantanamo prison closed without awaiting the results of the Pentagon study he had ordered about its compliance with Geneva standards.

Closing Gitmo was about Hope and Change, not facts and logic.  Obama's base, here and abroad, would never rest while Gitmo was open.  And the NATO allies that were never going to increase their troop commitment to Afghanistan anyway were double-never going to increase their troop commitment while Gitmo was open.

As some dazzling blonde nearly said, we'll always have Bagram.

[END OF GITMO]

Nuclear Summer

From a lecture on the potential impact of global warming:

Mass migrations and war: Dire climate scenario

CAPE TOWN, South Africa – If we don't deal with climate change decisively, "what we're talking about then is extended world war," the eminent economist said.

His audience Saturday, small and elite, had been stranded here by bad weather and were talking climate. They couldn't do much about the one, but the other was squarely in their hands. And so, Lord Nicholas Stern was telling them, was the potential for mass migrations setting off mass conflict.

"Somehow we have to explain to people just how worrying that is," the British economic thinker said.

For some folks the glass is sooo half-empty.  Don't think of it as a world war - think of it as a global stimulus program.

[END OF HISTORY.  THE REAL END.]

A Nation Of Cowards

The Weekend Opinionator, Tobin Harshaw of the Times, rounds up reaction to Attorney General Holder's announcement that we are a nation of cowards on the topic of race. 

Let me add this - if Holder thinks we are a nation of cowards he can hold himself forth as Exhibit A.  Even allowing that his assigned topic was Black History Month, it is hard to imagine a more gutless and platitudinous speech.  Here is a sample profile in courage:

Black history is extremely important because it is American history. Given this, it is in some ways sad that there is a need for a black history month. Though we are all enlarged by our study and knowledge of the roles played by blacks in American history, and though there is a crying need for all of us to know and acknowledge the contributions of black America, a black history month is a testament to the problem that has afflicted blacks throughout our stay in this country. Black history is given a separate, and clearly not equal, treatment by our society in general and by our educational institutions in particular. As a former American history major I am struck by the fact that such a major part of our national story has been divorced from the whole. In law, culture, science, athletics, industry and other fields, knowledge of the roles played by blacks is critical to an understanding of the American experiment. For too long we have been too willing to segregate the study of black history. There is clearly a need at present for a device that focuses the attention of the country on the study of the history of its black citizens. But we must endeavor to integrate black history into our culture and into our curriculums in ways in which it has never occurred before so that the study of black history, and a recognition of the contributions of black Americans, become commonplace. Until that time, Black History Month must remain an important, vital concept. But we have to recognize that until black history is included in the standard curriculum in our schools and becomes a regular part of all our lives, it will be viewed as a novelty, relatively unimportant and not as weighty as so called "real" American history.

"For too long we have been too willing to segregate the study of black history".  Holder went to Columbia - does he think they, and the other Ivies, should close down their African-American Studies departments?  I doubt it, but maybe - he ducked that question while exhorting the rest of us to courage.  And as noted by Mr. Harshaw, Attorney General Courage also ducked the question of black over-representation in the criminal justice system.

Whatever.  Since his parents are from the Caribbean, Holder's authentic connection to the American black experience is open to question.

TALK OR DIE:  I also liked this from AG Courage:

 It is not safe for this nation to assume that the unaddressed social problems in the poorest parts of our country can be isolated and will not ultimately affect the larger society.

Geez, I am disappointed that the appointee of Hope and Change is peddling fear.

[END OF THREAD]

Let's Go Surfing Now

Catch a wave, catch a wave and you are... plunging through a hole in the ocean?

On this January morning, he is here to surf the local "slab" -- not so much a normal ocean wave as a sudden, violent tear in the fabric of the ocean.

Veteran surfers grimace at the very sight of its disfigured shape. When it rolls out of the deep, it does not rise, but sucks all the water up in its path. The result is not a wall with a front and back, but a hole. The great volume of the North Pacific masses up behind the sub-sea ledge -- and then slams shut.

McNamara rode this one once, a month before. When the ledge came down, he was still in the hole. The wave pile-drove him into the rock reef. He flew back home to Hawaii with 12 stitches near his right eye. The doctor had pulled a sea urchin spine from the wound.

Such ogreish waves have opened a new frontier in a sport instilled like few others with the mystique of exploration and, increasingly, battle.

The story includes what looks like a very cool video which hangs up every time I try to view it.  As an aside, check McNamara's medical history:

McNamara, 41, has surfed some of the biggest, heaviest, ugliest waves on earth -- notably the debris-strewn tsunamis generated by crashing glaciers in Alaska. He has broken his back and three ribs, popped both his knees, scraped most of the skin off his thigh, suffered countless sprains and deep-tissue cuts, and shattered his foot several times.

No mention of his views on a national health care plan.

[END OF THREAD]

Cyber Security, Cyber War

The WSJ has an interesting piece on cyber warfare,with the obligatory "24" reference.

The U.S. hasn't experienced such a coordinated and sustained attack, but no one is sure what would happen if it did. A known vulnerability is America's power grid, which could be disrupted for months by a sophisticated cyber attack, experts say. In telecommunications, banking and transportation, it's harder to predict how great the damage would be; the current season of the TV program "24" is showcasing some of the more unpleasant possibilities. It makes sense that one of Ms. Hathaway's first tasks is overseeing an assessment of the country's vulnerabilities.

The task is complicated by the lack of a legal framework that defines cyber war and security standards. It isn't clear whether the government can dictate security standards for private industry or if federal agencies can probe private networks to determine their safety. If you thought the debates over warrantless wiretapping were heated, get ready for fireworks over cyber security.

What is the relevant law here?  Can the police walk across my yard and rattle my doorknob to see if my house is locked?  Can they rattle doorknobs in an apartment building?  And does that analogy provide illumination on the question of whether they can probe private networks or is the expectation of privacy on the internet utterly different?

[END OF THREAD]

Chandra Levy?!?

The Chandra Levy murder mystery is back in the news:

WASHINGTON – An arrest may be near in the nearly decade-old slaying of federal intern Chandra Levy, whose disappearance in 2001 ended Gary Condit's congressional career, several television stations reported.

The California Democrat was romantically linked to Levy, but was not considered a suspect in her death or disappearance. Television stations, KFSN and KCRA in California and WRC in Washington, D.C., reported that police were seeking an arrest warrant.

Levy's parents said Friday outside their Modesto, Calif., home that police called them and told them an arrest was near.

"Your child is dead and gone and it's painful, but we're glad that the police and people are doing something, and investigating, and making a difference so somebody's not on the street to do it again," Chandra's mother, Susan Levy, told KGO-TV in San Francisco.

The parents did not say when an arrest warrant might be issued.

The 24-year-old Levy disappeared in May 2001 and at the time, she was wearing jogging clothes when she left her apartment. Her remains were found in Rock Creek Park in Washington about a year later.

Authorities questioned the married Condit in her disappearance. He reportedly told police that he and Levy were having an affair, and while he was not considered a suspect, the negative publicity was cited as the main cause of the Condit's re-election defeat in 2002.

Investigators also interviewed Ingmar Guandique, 27, a Salvadoran immigrant who has denied any involvement in Levy's disappearance and killing.

Guandique was convicted of attacking two women in Rock Creek Park shortly after Levy disappeared.

JAILHOUSE SNITCH:  From the Times:

Law enforcement officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because charges had not been filed, identified the suspect as Ingmar Guandique, 27, a Salvadoran immigrant who has previously denied any involvement in Ms. Levy’s disappearance and killing.

...

Mr. Guandique pleaded guilty to assault in September 2001 in two cases involving attacks on women in the park in May and July 2001. He is now serving a 10-year sentence at a federal prison in Adelanto, Calif., and is eligible for parole in 2011.

The police recently submitted new evidence to the United States attorney’s office after an inmate serving time with Mr. Guandique contacted them, law enforcement officials said. The inmate said Mr. Guandique told him he had killed Ms. Levy, the sources said.

If Guandique is the guy then at least he has not been roaming the streets the last few years.  However, a jailhouse snitch?  This case will reek of reasonable doubt.

[END OF THREAD]

Saturday Morning

Here we go.

[END OF THREAD]

Showing Up

The eternally cautious Ms. Clinton ducks a controversy on her global listening tour:

SEOUL, Feb. 20 -- Hillary Rodham Clinton has a new campaign and message: The United States wants to listen.

To that end, on her first overseas trip as secretary of state, Clinton is talking a lot. Her schedule is packed with so many town halls, ceremonial events, television shows and meetings with community leaders that it has the feel of a presidential visit -- or even a presidential campaign.

Before departing tropical Indonesia on Thursday for snowbound Seoul, Clinton carved out an hour to chat with the Muslim nation's president. But she also appeared on a highly popular youth television show, "Dahsyat" ("Awesome"), met with a group of Indonesian journalists, answered questions on a radio program and went on a campaign-style walk through a lower-middle-class neighborhood, where she studied recycling efforts as hordes of Indonesians gathered around her. "I love your hat," she called out to a man in a New York Yankees baseball cap.

"There is a hunger for the United States to be present again," Clinton told reporters as she flew to Seoul. "Showing up is not all of life -- but it counts for a lot."

Showing up "counts for a lot"?  C'mon!  Ninety percent of life is just showing up.  Or maybe ninety-nine percent.  Or do I hear "eighty"?

William Safire tackled this back in 1989 when President Bush and Goveror Cuomo were scuffling over this:

A DISPUTE WAS BEGUN in this space recently between President Bush and Gov. Mario (pronounced Marry-o) Cuomo about the accurate quotation of the philosopher Woody Allen.

The President quoted him as saying, ''Ninety percent of life is just showing up.'' (His speechwriters later assured me that Mr. Bush has used that reference frequently; it's one of those things that get stuck in a public speaker's head and he never needs prompting to use it.) The Governor, in his equally frequent usage over the years, says, ''Most of life is just a matter of showing up,'' and the expression in a self-help best seller is ''Eighty percent of success is showing up.''

Readers were promised that clarification of this seminal thought would be sought from the author; Mr. Allen has responded to my query.

''The quote you refer to,'' Mr. Allen writes, ''is a quote of mine which occurred during an interview while we were discussing advice to young writers, and more specifically young playwrights.

''My observation was that once a person actually completed a play or a novel he was well on his way to getting it produced or published, as opposed to a vast majority of people who tell me their ambition is to write, but who strike out on the very first level and indeed never write the play or book.

''In the midst of the conversation, as I'm now trying to recall it, I did say that 80 percent of success is showing up.''

Why that particular percentage? ''The figure seems high to me today,'' Mr. Allen says, ''but I know it was more than 60 and the extra syllable in 70 ruins the rhythm of the quote, so I think we should let it stand at 80.''

Looks like Hillary is as bold and decisive as Mario Cuomo, the Hamlet on the Hudson.

[END OF THREAD]

There Must Be Some Kind Of Way Out Of Here

Obama presents his mortgage relief proposal - Times, White House release.  This attempt to snag a free lunch is pleasantly optimistic:

A second major component of Mr. Obama’s plan is aimed at most homeowners who are not behind on their payments, but whose homes may be worth less than the outstanding amount on their mortgage or are no longer worth enough that the homeowners have enough equity to refinance. It could also assuage homeowners who are angry that seemingly irresponsible neighbors are being rescued.

For this group, Mr. Obama’s plan would make it much easier to refinance their homes and take advantage of the extremely low interest rates now available.

The plan would apply to people with fairly traditional loans that are owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Anybody with such a mortgage would be allowed to refinance at today’s rates, which are about 5 percent, without needing a 20 percent down payment.

Normally, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac require that such borrowers pay private mortgage insurance, which can add hundreds of dollars to a monthly payment. In effect, the government would be taking on the added risk, at no charge, that comes from lending to people with no financial stake in their house.

A loan against 80% of the current value of a house is less risky than a loan against 100% of the value of that house and yes, less risky loans generally carry a lower rate.  Obama's proposal is that instead of a refinancing in which the owner gets a lower rate in exchange for a less risky loan, the owner gets a lower rate in exchange for nothing.  That's a good deal for the folks who get it but maybe not such a great deal for the people paying for it, namely, the rest of us.

[END OF THREAD]

Who Will Guard The Guardians?

It appears that transparency in the Obama Administration will be provided by smoke and mirrors.  Republican Senator Chuck Grassley is squawking about a provision in the stimulus bill that seems to limit the independence of the Inspectors General.  Byron York at the DC Examiner and Government Executive have coverage; here is Byron York:

You’ve heard a lot about the astonishing spending in the $787 billion economic stimulus bill, signed into law this week by President Barack Obama. But you probably haven’t heard about a provision in the bill that threatens to politicize the way allegations of fraud and corruption are investigated — or not investigated — throughout the federal government.

The provision, which attracted virtually no attention in the debate over the 1,073-page stimulus bill, creates something called the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board — the RAT Board, as it’s known by the few insiders who are aware of it. The board would oversee the in-house watchdogs, known as inspectors general, whose job is to independently investigate allegations of wrongdoing at various federal agencies, without fear of interference by political appointees or the White House.

In the name of accountability and transparency, Congress has given the RAT Board the authority to ask “that an inspector general conduct or refrain from conducting an audit or investigation.” If the inspector general doesn’t want to follow the wishes of the RAT Board, he’ll have to write a report explaining his decision to the board, as well as to the head of his agency (from whom he is supposedly independent) and to Congress. In the end, a determined inspector general can probably get his way, but only after jumping through bureaucratic hoops that will inevitably make him hesitate to go forward.

Government Executive contacted some IGs:

Spokesmen for several IGs said it was too early to say if the final language in the stimulus bill would tie their hands, as Grassley has alleged. Some expressed concern that the hastily amended requirements for the board provide more questions than answers. A group of IGs whose agencies are slated to receive stimulus funds are expected to meet Thursday to review the stimulus language line by line. "The independence of IGs is sacrosanct, and anything that would have a chilling effect, real or perceived, is something to be concerned about," said J. Russell George, the Treasury Department's inspector general for tax administration.

Odd that Dick Cheney never thought of this.  Oh, well - this looks like transparency and oversight we can believe in.

[END OF THREAD]

At Long Last, Have You No Shame?

Adam Serwer of TAPPED embarrasses himself with his misunderestimation of the power of shame to enforce social norms (but I bet he doesn't care...):

Conservatives regularly overestimate the beneficial effects of shame. Shame provokes response in the form of impulse, not long term planning. A person who is ashamed isn't going to think, "I'd better get a degree" or "I'd better get married," they're going to think in the short term about what they can do to rectify their sense of self-worth.

How do you see people--men in particular--act when they're ashamed? You rarely see them do something like get married or get a fantastic job; usually they're going to hurt or exploit someone, make them feel as low as they do--this is the lesson learned by the shamed from the shamer, regardless of the lesson the shamer thinks they're teaching the shamed.

This completely ignores the deterrent value of the prospect of shame.  I will wager that even Mr. Serwer has, at some point in his academic or professional career, entertained the notion that he must either buckle down and improve a particular homework assignment/article/speech or risk mortification in front of his teacher/editor/audience.  No?  Mr. Serwer has, throughout his life, only been motivated by the notion that doing a better job will result in even greater praise and rewards?  I'm not sure such a paragon should be opining about the rest of us.

Oh, well - if I came from the side of the aisle that spent years with Bill Clinton as its leader I probably would have abandoned the notion that shame or its prospect had any deterrent value at all.

LET'S SEE - Megan McArdle and the intellectually shameless Andrew Sullivan are also unconvinced.

ERRATA:  I know, but its decent of you to mention it.

POINTS I WOULD HAVE WOVEN INTO A BEAUTIFUL AND FLOWING ESSAY:  

1. The multi-cultis would like us to believe that all legal behaviors are equally valid and we should quit being so darn judgmental of others.  That may make sense across cultural groups, and I am diligent about not attempting to shame Chinese grandmothers into complying with my Irish norms.  However, that doesn't mean that shame should also be eschewed within groups.

2.  Mr. Serwer is grappling with the "Tough Love" conundrum - what does one do after threatened dire consequences have deterred many but not all?  My Modest Proposal to bring down the rate of illegitimate births - announce the death penalty for mother and child to inspire the rest of us, then secretly send them to Hawaii - has not yet achieved fully half-baked status.

[END OF THREAD]

Downward Spiral Continues For Sen. Burris

US Senator Roland Burris, appointed by former governor Rod Blagojecich, continues to circle the drain.

[TO THE BITTER END]

Bush And Cheney No Longer Sitting In A Tree...

Thomas DeFrank of the Daily News revisits the topic of Cheny's ire at Bush's non-pardon of Scooter Libby:

WASHINGTON - In the waning days of the Bush administration, Vice President Dick Cheney launched a last-ditch campaign to persuade his boss to pardon Lewis (Scooter) Libby - and was furious when President George W. Bush wouldn't budge.

Sources close to Cheney told the Daily News the former vice president repeatedly pressed Bush to pardon Libby, arguing his ex-chief of staff and longtime alter ego deserved a full exoneration - even though Bush had already kept Libby out of jail by commuting his 30-month prison sentence.

"He tried to make it happen right up until the very end," one Cheney associate said.

So why do Cheney and the press keep coming back to this?  Set aside the fantasies of the fantasists that this signals the start of the Final Showdown between Bush and Cheney (The Joker v. Darth Vader - don't miss it!).  The Bush-Cheny rift is a useful tale for Bush legacy-boosters who want to promote the notion of Bush as something other than Cheney's pawn.  Hence the closing paragraphs:

About the same time, however, an official who has worked closely with both men mused that the relationship "isn't what it was" when Bush tapped Cheney as his running mate in 2000.

"It's been a long, long time since I've heard the President say, 'Run that by the vice president's office.' You used to hear that all the time."

Works for Bush.  As for Cheney?  I would guess that he was, well, overly upbeat in his assurances to Libby about an eventual pardon.  Cheney failed to deliver but at least he can assure his own supporters and Libby's that he was on their side and fighting hard.

And why is that important for Cheney?  The innocent and more likely) explanation is that he wants to be seen as having been loyal to his teammates.  Folks looking for a darker explanation will lean to the notion that Cheney wants to be sure to keep Libby in his corner.  Quietly in his corner.  After all, why would Libby rat out the one guy in Washington who fought for him, persistently and publicly?  That explanation is a bit thin, since Libby can't have any chance of a full pardon from the Obama Administration regardless of what story he might tell. However, if Libby is looking for a book deal to supplement his income, one might suspect that the value of the book would depend on the story he sold.

The Captain has thoughts on Bush's motivation.

[END OF THREAD]

All Fall Down

So now European banks are going to fall like tenpins due to overly exuberant lending to Eastern Europe:

Moody's Investors Services said in a report that it's concerned about Western Europe banks that are supporting subsidiaries in Eastern Europe against a rapidly deteriorating global macroeconomic backdrop.

"Deteriorating financial strength of East European subsidiaries has a negative spillover effect on their West European parents. Maintaining a robust risk-return profile during a downturn in the untested and still more volatile East European markets will prove a challenge going forward," the agency said.

The rating agency said that banks headquartered in Austria, Italy, France, Belgium, Germany and Sweden account for 84% of the total Western European bank claims on Eastern Europe.

Individual lenders exposed include Raiffeisen and Erste Bank in Austria, Societe Generale (FR:GLE: news , chart , profile ) in France, Unicredit (IT:UCG: news , chart , profile ) in Italy and KBC (BE:KBC: news , chart , profile ) in Belgium, the agency said.

I blame Greenspan, Bernanke, and Bush's illegal war.  I also can only wish that some of these countries had been comfortable regulating their banking sectors, but having the Germans, French or Swedes regulate something is darn near impossible inevitable.

But no worries - under Obama the Feds will hire the smart regulators, not like the ones who did such a smash-up job in Britain, Spain, Japan, France, Germany, or Sweden.

The alternative view - that even regulators are humans subject to political pressures and lacking eerie prescience - will not be entertained.

[END OF THREAD]

The Last Alliance

Betsy Newmark has coverage of Congressman Henry "I Am The Walrus - Goo Goo G'joob" Waxman's thinking on a revival of the Fairness Doctrine.  Briefly, he wants to regulate everything:

Senior FCC staff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the "Fairness Doctrine" without actually calling it such.

Waxman is also interested, say sources, in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. "It's all about diversity in media," says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the meetings. "Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them."

Regulate radio and the interwebs?  I wonder how our many friends among the Nutroots will welcome their new Imperial Overlords.

Well.  If Waxman's intrusions onto free speech are presented as a package I suspect many on the left will squawk while they are still free to do so.  On the other hand, if Waxman can present his ideas as an incremental process - regulate radio today and the interent tomorrow - I suspect many on the left will embrace Waxman's pretense of "fairness", secure in the knowledge that tomorrow will never come.

We should insist that Waxman show us his full package.  Of regulatory ideas.

[END OF FREE SPEECH AS WE KNOW IT]

Between The Hammer And The Anvil Marshmallow

The NY Times reports back from Obama's central front in the war on terror:

Pakistan Makes a Taliban Truce, Creating a Haven
By JANE PERLEZ

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The government announced Monday that it would accept a system of Islamic law in the Swat valley and agreed to a truce, effectively conceding the area as a Taliban sanctuary and suspending a faltering effort by the army to crush the insurgents.

The concessions to the militants, who now control about 70 percent of the region just 100 miles from the capital, were criticized by Pakistani analysts as a capitulation by a government desperate to stop Taliban abuses and a military embarrassed at losing ground after more than a year of intermittent fighting. About 3,000 Taliban militants have kept 12,000 government troops at bay and terrorized the local population with floggings and the burning of schools.

Just to review - the Taliban, and Al Qaeda members, fled to Waziristan and the Northwest Frontier area of Pakistan after the US led overthrow of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.  But what about this movement into the Swat Valley?

Announced by the government of the North-West Frontier Province after consultation with President Asif Ali Zardari, the pact echoed previous government accords with the militants across Pakistan’s semi-autonomous tribal areas in North and South Waziristan.

Those regions have since become a mini-state for Qaeda and Taliban militants, who are now the focus of missile strikes by remotely piloted American aircraft. On Monday, what was thought to be a drone strike in Kurram, a separate area close to the Afghan border, killed 31 people, Pakistani intelligence officials said.

Analysts are now suggesting that the drone strikes may be pushing the Taliban, and even some Qaeda elements, out of the tribal belt and into Swat, making the valley more important to the Taliban.

So Obama is going to commit more troops to Afghanistan with the result that the Taliban will be pushed even deeper into Pakistan, further destabilizing that government?  Any day now!

I am not normally a big advocate for quagmire and stalemate but if the choice is between allowing the Taliban to preserve a toehold on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border or forcing an answer to the question of whether the Pakistani government is strong enough to survive a Taliban migration, well, maybe stalemate and quagmire have overlooked virtues.

A new US Institute for Peace study outlines a path to victory in Afghanistan.  From Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The drive to stabilize Afghanistan must focus on cultivating local leaders, better training of Afghan troops and police, and pressing Kabul to fight corruption, a report by a U.S. think tank said on Tuesday.

Security in Afghanistan should be rethought to address failures in the seven years since the ousting of the Islamist Taliban after the September 11 attacks, the report published by the U.S. Institute of Peace says.

The top-down approach at nation-building that is focused on the central government in Kabul has not worked well because it ignores Afghanistan's decentralized history, said the U.S. Congress-funded institute's report, titled "Securing Afghanistan."

"The weak nature of the Afghan state, the inadequate level of international forces, and the local nature of the insurgency require building a bottom-up capacity to complement national forces," it said.

The press release does not advocate a continuing stalemate:

The United States and its international allies must re-examine their core objectives in Afghanistan, it says. The first objective should be to eliminate the use of Afghanistan and Pakistan as a base of operations for international terrorist groups (like al Qa'ida) and their allies (like the Taliban).

VOX POPULI:  From the original Times article, discussing the popular will in Pakistan:

Sherry Rehman, the government information minister, said the deal should not be seen as a concession. “It is in no way a sign of the state’s weakness,” she said. “The public will of the population of the Swat region is at the center of all efforts, and it should be taken into account while debating the merits of this agreement.”

In legislative elections a year ago, the people of Swat, a region that is about the size of Delaware and has 1.3 million residents, voted overwhelmingly for the secular Awami National Party. Since then, the Taliban have singled out elected politicians with suicide bomb attacks and chased virtually all of them from the valley. Several hundred thousand residents have also fled the fighting.

On the other hand, as in Afghanistan the Taliban have been able to exploit the weakness and corruption of the central government:

Many of the poor who have stayed in Swat, which until the late 1960s was ruled by a prince, were calling for the Shariah courts as a way of achieving quick justice and dispensing with the long delays and corruption of the civil courts. The authorities in the North-West Frontier Province, which includes Swat, argued that the Shariah courts were not the same as strict Islamic law. The new laws, for instance, would not ban education of females or impose other strict tenets espoused by the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The new accord, they said, would simply activate laws already agreed to by Benazir Bhutto in the early 1990s when she was prime minister. Similarly, the principle of Shariah courts in Swat was also agreed to by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in 1999. In both cases, the courts, though approved, were never put in place.

A Pakistani official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the official did not have permission to speak publicly, said that the government’s acceptance of the courts was an attempt to blunt efforts of the Taliban to woo Swat residents frustrated by the ineffective judiciary.

“The Taliban was trying to take advantage of the local movement and desire for a judicial system,” the official said. The official insisted that the Obama administration, informed of the accord, “showed understanding of our strategy.”

[END OF THREAD]

Grey Ladies Down

British and French nuclear subs collided in the mid-Atlantic in early February.  Both are back in port now and apparently tongues have wagged.  Here is coverage from  the BBC and Fox.

A Royal Navy nuclear submarine was involved in a collision with a French nuclear sub in the middle of the Atlantic, it has been reported.

It is understood HMS Vanguard and Le Triomphant were badly damaged in the crash in heavy seas earlier this month.

Despite being equipped with sonar, it seems neither vessel spotted the other, the BBC's Caroline Wyatt said.

The UK's Ministry of Defence is not commenting on the reports, but insisted nuclear security had not been breached.

[END OF THREAD]

Lie Down With Dogs...

Gee, the Blagojevich appointment of Burris was tainted by "pay for play" after all:

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. – Raising fresh questions about his appointment to Congress, Sen. Roland Burris admitted in a document released Saturday that former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's brother asked him for campaign fundraising help before the governor named Burris as Illinois' junior senator.

The disclosure reflects a major omission from Burris' testimony in January when an Illinois House impeachment committee specifically asked if he had ever spoken to Robert Blagojevich or other aides to the now-deposed governor about the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama.

State Rep. Jim Durkin, the impeachment committee's ranking Republican, told The Associated Press that he and House Republican Leader Tom Cross will ask Sunday for an outside investigation into whether Burris perjured himself.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada also said he was reviewing the disclosure, the latest twist for Senate Democrats in Washington who only consented to seat Burris on the condition that there were no "pay to play" promises exchanged in the appointment.

Sunday Morning

We're off...

[END OF THREAD]

Loose Senator Outs Predator

The US-Pakistani "Don't ask-don't tell" accord on our use of Predators in the Pakistani tribal region ran into turbulence when Sen. Diane Feinstein, Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, implicitly confirmed what the WaPo had reported last March - US Predator drones are based in Pakistan.  This admission complicates the public posturing of Pakistani officials trying to assuage their domestic audience (but we are still shooting).  Here is the Telegraph:

US drones based in Pakistan, Senator Dianne Feinstein reveals in apparent gaffe

Dianne Feinstein may have revealed an intimate military secret when she stated that American military drones used to bomb Pakistan's tribal areas operate out of a Pakistani air base.

Washington and Islamabad have never commented on where the deadly Predator drones take off and land, seemingly content with the general assumption that they are deployed from US bases in the Middle East or Central Asia.

But if Mrs Feinstein, who is chairman of the senate intelligence committee, is right, she may have made life even more difficult for Pakistan's government, which has to weigh its obligations to help the US fight the Taliban and al-Qaeda with hostile public opinion.

During a hearing on Friday for Dennis Blair, the new director of national intelligence, Mrs Feinstein noted apparent contradictions in Islamabad's expression of anger with the US missile.

"I don't know whether you'd care to comment on this but [I] also noticed that Mr Holbrooke in Pakistan ran into considerable concern about the use of the Predator strikes in the FATA area of Pakistan.

"And yet, as I understand it, these are flown out of a Pakistani base," she said.

And a new media Pakistani paper gets a quote from a Georgetown expert:

“If accurate, what this says is that Pakistani involvement, or at least acquiescence, has been much more extensive than has previously been known,” said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University. “It puts the Pakistani government in a far more difficult position [in terms of] its credibility with its own people.”

Feinstein's defense is that, like Sarah Palin, she reads the papers.  All of them.  And listens to the radio:

Spokesmen for the longtime lawmaker insisted Feinstein wasn’t divulging any secrets she’s been briefed on as the top intelligence oversight official in Congress. They said she was simply referring to an article she read in the Washington Post last March, which cited “Predator strikes launched from bases near Islamabad and Jacobabad in Pakistan.”

“The first question was based on an NPR story. The second was based on the Washington Post story,” Feinstein spokesman Gil Duran told me late Thursday in response to an inquiry. “She did not cite the story in her question, but it ran on [Page] A1 and was the source of the question.”

Such modesty from the Intelligence Chair!  But even if Americans are willing to believe that Ms. Feinstein is out of the loop on the actual basing of Predators, will the Pakistani man in the street believe it?  Hmm I know how dumb I think we are, but how dumb do they think we are?  Feinstein's question was indiscreet and makes life difficult for Pakistani officials and others, as the Attackerman notes:

But now the Pakistanis are going to have to react to the comments from a senior American legislator, and this is going to make the jobs of many people a lot harder -- namely, regional envoy Richard Holbrooke, Central Command chief Gen. Petraeus, CIA Director Leon Panetta, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, Army Chief of Staff Ashfaq Pervez Kayani and intelligence chief Ahmed Shuja Pasha. Chances are Feinstein simply blundered, but this is the sort of blunder that compromises a sensitive and apparently effective counterterrorist operation, and it's not like Feinstein is a novice on the committee. Slip-ups like these are why CIA officers don't trust Congress. If a Republican did this, progressives would be up in arms.

As to the bit about "If a Republican had done this...", well, sure, progressives have a pretty low flash point.  But I don't think of Feinstein as a particular darling of the loony left; if reaction has been muted (on both sides) it is because other news, such as the stimulus drama, has dominated the cycle.

But speaking of reaction - here is the Long War Journal with a Pakistani denial, Lorie Byrd, and the HuffPo.

[END OF THREAD]